The Case Of The Supreme Judicial Court Of Massachutes Essay

In many ways, the opinion in this case represents a final step in the creation of

The purpose of this research is to rationalize an amendment to the Constitution of the United States forcing Supreme Court Justices into a medical review to determine if the Justices are physically and mentally able to continue to serve their tenure. The focus is to create a half way point between two opinions in the very controversial subject of the Supreme Court Justices tenure. As the Judicial Branch becomes more active, citizens have questioned the rationale of justices serving for life, while others maintain that there is no need for change. The middle ground purposed is the establishment of a medical review of the justices and the hard part is establishing when they are medically unfit to serve. Considering the Constitutional purpose

New Jersey v. T.L.O, a supreme court case that took the stands in 1985, involved a fourteen year old freshman in highschool and a New Jersey public high school in which the minor attended. The minor by which public record only shows her by her initials T.L.O, was caught smoking cigarettes with another student in her high school’s bathroom during the school day. This act of smoking in the bathroom was against school policy as it was only seen fit to smoke in the school’s designated smoking areas. This court case was used to argue students rights in searches in public schools.

The opposite side of this debate consists of those who claim that the amendment guarantees some sort of individual right to arms. This view comes from the literal wording of the Second Amendment, which states, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Along with this argument, the NRA and other groups in opposition of gun control argue that the first, fourth, ninth, and tenth amendments are all constructed to refer to the citizens as individuals and not as a collective state. These gun advocates feel that if one is to give a rational interpretation of the collective view to the constitution, then one would have to assume that the Framers referred to the individuals in the first, fourth, and ninth amendments; to the states in the second amendment, and then separated the states and the people in the tenth amendment, although they feel that this was inconsistent with the wording of the second amendment (5).

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

The first speaker, Dr. Khal Schneider, addresses the words behind the 2nd amendment. He provides us with a historical background around the formation of the amendment and further describes the works that are within this amendment. He highlights words such as “Militia”, “necessary”, “arms”, and “infringed”. He describes how these words can be interpreted differently, thus making it hard to actually interpret the amendment for what it actually means. For instance, he draws attention to the word “arms” and describes the evolution. He illustrates that his amendment must be looked at in respects to the century it was written in. He then describes the difference between “arms’ within both centuries. He draws attention to the increase

A paltry twenty-seven words, present in the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution, have been a major focal point of the seemingly endless debate over whether, and for what purposes, US citizens have a right to own firearms. Positions vary wildly from those that hold these words to mean citizens have the right to violent revolt to those that believe they only allow the United States Armed Forces to exist, as well as a multitude of positions in between.

Also commonly referred to as The Steel Seizure Case, it was a United States Supreme Court decision that limited the power of the President of the United States to seize private property in the absence of either specifically enumerated authority under Article Two of the US Constitution or statutory authority conferred on him by Congress. The Majority decision was that the President had no power to act except in those cases expressly or implicitly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress.

B) For the first time since 1971, the Supreme Court is likely going to be composed of a majority of liberal justices due to the vacancy caused by the resignation of Antonin Scalia. To fill this vacancy, President Obama nominated Merrick Garland, whose political leanings fall between moderate and liberal, but this nomination has not been approved by Congress due to Senate Republicans believing that the incoming president should fill this vacancy. In addition to Scalia’s vacancy, there are a number of potential vacancies in the upcoming years as three current justices are seventy-eight years of age or older; if these vacancies all occur while a Democrat, such as Hillary Clinton, serves as president, it is likely that all three would be filled by liberal justices, making the court split six to three in favor of liberals. This liberal Supreme Court could make many changes related to prison conditions, the death penalty, campaign financing, and abortion. First, the court would potentially eliminate the use of extended periods of solitary confinement on the grounds that this is in conflict with the Eighth Amendment. Likewise, the court would possibly get rid of the death penalty on the basis that it also violates the Eighth Amendment. Additionally, the court could perhaps work to limit the influence of wealthy

The court case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) is credited and widely believed to be the creator of the “unprecedented” concept of Judicial Review. John Marshall, the Supreme Court Justice at the time, is lionized as a pioneer of Constitutional justice, but, in the past, was never really recognized as so. What needs to be clarified is that nothing in history is truly unprecedented, and Marbury v. Madison’s modern glorification is merely a product of years of disagreements on the validity of judicial review, fueled by court cases like Eakin v. Raub; John Marshall was also never really recognized in the past as the creator of judicial review, as shown in the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford.

While presented through an amendment in the Bill of Rights, the right to bear arms has been and continues to be a subject of controversy often due to the advancement of firearms over time, and overall vagueness of the Second Amendment. Examples of vagueness discrepancies are often found in interpreting the concept of what it entails when supporting a “well-regulated militia.” The development of firearms has also proven to be a major subject of debate as modern day weapons are significantly more advanced than what existed during the creation of the Second Amendment. Lastly, the argument of which citizens the Second Amendment should protect or not protect based on their criminal background or other factors has been an ongoing debate. These subjects do not cover all aspects of debate surrounding the Second Amendment, but have been tried in many Supreme Court cases and are subjects of controversy in modern politics.

For this circumstance, William Marbury, a Federalist and a "midnight game plan" of President John Adams, did not get his reward from the new Secretary of State under Thomas Jefferson, James Madison. All around, the outcome of Marbury versus Madison was a great deal more huge than anybody in 1803 would have thought. Marbury asked for that the Supreme Court issue a "writ of mandamus" obliging Madison to pass on his reward.

The case of Marbury v. Madison centers on a case brought before the Supreme Court by William Marbury. Shortly after Thomas Jefferson defeated John Adams in the election of 1800, Congress increased the number of circuit courts. Adams sought to fill these new vacancies with people who had Federalist backgrounds. To accomplish this, he used the powers granted under the Organic Act to issue appointments to 42 justices of the peace and 16 circuit court justices for the District of Columbia. Adams signed the appointments on his last day in office and they were subsequently sealed by Secretary of State John Marshall. However, many of the appointments were not delivered before Adams left office and Jefferson ordered the deliveries stopped

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized (Fourth Amendment). The text of the Fourth Amendment does not define exactly what “unreasonable search” is. The framers of the constitution left the words “unreasonable search” open in order for the Supreme Court to interpret. Hence, by looking at

The Supreme Court is the highest court in the United States. It has final appellate jurisdiction over all cases in the United States of America. Although it was provided for only briefly in the Constitution, it is an instrumental part of our democracy.