The Case Of The Supreme Judicial Court Of Massachutes

As technology advances, the world is forced to adapt as an increasingly quick pace. Specifically, our justice system must consider the constitutionality of surveillance and other information gathering techniques and how they coincide with current interpretations of the Fourth Amendment which protects citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Supreme Court addressed this issue in the 2013 case of Maryland v King explicitly related to the legality of DNA collection of individuals early in the booking process for serious crimes. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that pre-conviction DNA collection of those arrested for serious crimes is constitutional and does not violate the Fourth Amendment; a decision that will

In the case of Robert Tolan and Marian Tolan vs. Jeffrey Wayne Cotton, I will be discussing what interest me about this case. I will also deliberating on the liability and criminal liability of this case. The Tolan vs. Cotton case interests me because the United States have so many police that are brutalizing citizens. In some cases the police officers are getting away with it. After reading, reviewing, and studying this case I have learn a lot about the criminal system and laws that men and women should obey. I will explain how the nine judges on the Supreme courts all came to a verdict against the police officer Jeffrey Cotton after he shot an innocent suspect. This people

However, Lopez’s trouble did not stop here. Soon after, the Federal government petitioned for the Supreme Court to review the case, and they accepted. Attorneys for the United States contended that the law was an appropriate use of power under the interstate Commerce Clause. The government was obligated to show that Section 922 was a valid exercise of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, and that this section regulated a matter that affected interstate commerce. The government’s case was made up from one principle argument. They argued that the possession of a firearm in an educational environment would most likely lead to violent crimes, which, in turn, would affect the general economic condition in one of two ways: First, because violent crime causes damagers and creates expenses, it would raise insurance costs. These insurance costs would be spread

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

Going against the Supreme Court, which is the supreme law of the land, in the Worcester vs Georgia case demonstrates how Andrew Jackson abused his power as president. John Marshall, the chief justice at the time, ruled that the United States did not have possession or legal jurisdiction over Native American land, and no individual states had authority in Native American affairs. However, Jackson went above this, since the court did not order marshals to enforce it. In the Indian Removal packet, it was stated that in May 1830, Jackson signed the Indian removal act to exchange land with Native Americans. To do this, he coerced tribe leaders, sometimes by getting them drunk or high, into signing away their land through removal treaties. In the

In this case, Dick Heller, a police officer, authorized to carry a handgun while on duty wanted a handgun to own and keep at his home. The District of Columbia refused so Dick Heller filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court in the District of Columbia, which eventually also went to the Supreme Court. In June 2008, the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined the provisions of the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 as unconstitutional. They stated that “handguns or arms for the purpose of self-defense do not have to be trigger locked”.

Prior to this case there were two forms of gun control acts the first was that of 1968 which forbids gun sells to sell guns to people that have a felony charge that are mentally unstable and other things this was amended with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act which included the need to have a background check. While working to make a system that could make the check fast it had to be done by state law enforcement. People however started to claim that this act was unconstitutional and it violated their rights given to them under the Constitution. The Petitioners filed separate actions challenging the constitutionality of the Brady Act’s interim provisions and in each case the District

​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

Considering the stable condition of the US military and the homeland security systems, the country has the most advanced security system that assures citizens of their safety. Regardless, there exists no need for such extreme measures such as civilians being in possession of assault rifles as a strategy to self-defense. If necessary, cases of self-defense on the part of civilians are well handled by ownership of merely concealed pistols that from records are efficient in subduing any intruder while waiting for law enforcement back up. From self-defense and securing property, civilians’ reluctance to support the gun laws on such high caliber weapons has been underwhelming. Their standpoint has been in possession of such assault weapons. The same standpoints have been the cause for such raging debates on the support or disregard of the government proposition to have the assault guns banned from civilians possession (Miller 533).

One of the most controversial issues in our society today is the topic of private gun ownership and gun control laws. This controversy has arisen mostly due to the different ways that the second constitutional amendment is interpreted. The amendment states that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" (Lott, 2000). On one side of the issue, there are those that believe that the amendment guarantees the right of individuals to possess and carry a wide variety of firearms. On the other side are those that contend that the amendment was only meant to guarantee to States the right to operate militias.

Heller, the court ruled that “the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms…including, ‘the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation’” (National Rifle Association, 2011 par 4). Although the Constitution gives individuals the right to bear arms, it does not exclude “prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms,” (Romano & Wingert, 2011 par 13). In recent years here has been much discussion among the nation’s lawmakers and their constituents as to whether or not the Second Amendment is still constitutional; the question is whether or not the Second Amendment should be revised, to prohibit the sale of firearms to those who do not meet certain conditions and qualifications, or even removed from the constitution. According to a national survey of 1,005 high school students, conducted by Vittes, Sorrenson and Gilbert, “63.7 percent of high school students believe that regulating the sale of guns does not violate the constitution” (2003, pg 12). In the same survey, 64.6 percent responded that they would support stricter laws addressing the sale of firearms, and 82.2 percent of those surveyed, believe that the government should make and enforce laws making it more difficult for

That clip was then followed by a quote from Justice John Paul Stevens' dissenting opinion as well as a short statement by Congresswoman Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) which was made during Elena Kegan's confirmation hearing. The reporter drew attention to the fact that the court did not strike down Chicago's hand gun ban, but rather sent it back to a lower court noting the fact that legal analysts expect lower courts to overturn the law in light of Supreme Court decision. Smith then drew attention to the fact that the right to own handguns does not, in the estimation of the Court, overturn restrictions on waiting periods or assault weapons.

In 2008, the District of Columbia v. Heller case was debated by the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the District of Columbia’s prohibition of registering handguns and keeping them assembled in the house did, in fact, violate the Second Amendment. In the opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia also stated that the right to bear arms does not only apply to those in the

Charles W. Collier’s article, “Gun Control in America: An Autopsy Report”, dives into the controversial topic of gun ownership and gun control in the United States. He uses recent shootings, including the George Zimmerman case and the Connecticut elementary

The Marbury vs. Madison case was a very influential case regarding the way branches can check the government. This case has shaped the way the Supreme Court ultimately makes decisions and how much of a decision they can actually make. I believe that without this case government today, would struggle with a lot of difficult decisions, that this case has cleared up. The Marbury vs. Madison case was the first United States Supreme Court case to have the principle of Judicial Review.