The Facts Of Padilla V. Case

"The Fourteenth Amendment prohibited deprivation of life, freedom or assets, property, without due process and equally violate the Fifth Amendment rules that inquire no private property shall be taken for public use without rightful recompense.” CES was required to follow up with a notice and provide an opportunity to be heard before they penalized a student. The board was supposed to hold an entire hearing on the third offense before any expulsion, arrest, incarceration or confiscating the student's phone permanently which they completely ignored.

This case is one that changed the way the United States Police forces will work forever. Every human in the world has natural born rights. Even people who have been arrested have rights, ‘The rights of the accused’. These rights are the main point of this court case.

United States v. Lopez was a landmark case, being the first United States Supreme Court case, since the New Deal, to set limits on Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause of the United State Constitution. United States v. Lopez dealt with a previous decision made by the Supreme Court called the “Gun-Free Schools Zone Act of 1990,” and whether this act was constitutional. In other words, is Congress given the power by the Constitution to regulate guns in schools under the Commerce Clause?

In the case, Arizona versus United States, I am representing the respondent, United States, where we are seeking to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in the federal district court before the law can be taken into effect. S.B. 1070, also known as Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, was passed in the state of Arizona in 2010 as an effort to address the large numbers of unlawful immigrants entering the state. The United States seeks to declare S.B. 1070 as preempted by the federal immigration law, where the four provisions of S.B. 1070, Section 3, Section 5, Section 6 and Section 2(B) violated the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.

The questions presented to the Supreme Court in Raich v. Gonzales (2005) are whether the Commerce Clause affords Congress the power to ban the growth, use, and sale of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act and whether it can enforce that act against ill people whose doctors have prescribed medical marijuana as a remedy. Writing for the majority in that case, Justice John Paul Stevens employed Justice Stephen Breyer’s strand of pragmatism to answer those questions. The premise of Breyer’s approach is that the Constitution enshrines values and principles, but it grants judges the flexibility to apply those principles to changing circumstances (Yale 11). Hence, pragmatist judges embrace constitutional

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

6. Pretrial detainees are "walking legal contradictions" because “According to the U.S. Constitution, they are innocent until proven guilty. At the same time, by being incarcerated while awaiting trial, they are denied a number of personal freedoms and are subjected to the poor conditions of manu jails” (Gaines

Successful ELL programs in schools require specific knowledge of ever-changing federal and state laws including funding requirements, as well as current knowledge of “best practices” regarding ELL programming. These subjects will be discussed as well as resources for reviewing programming policies against current laws, regulations, and policies.

Facts: D was arrested for fleeing from police. charged w/ obstruction of justice and use of a deadly weapon. He pled guilty to lesser offenses and was sentenced to pay a fine. He was forced to take a delousing agent. W/ O touching the detainees, officers looks at all parts of the detainees. D alleges that he was told to lift his genitals, and cough while squatting. D was then admitted into the jail facility , released the next day, and the charges were dismissed.

The Supreme Court was faced with a unique paradox during the case Salazar V. Buono; in which their ruling had to coincide with the establishment clause in the first amendment, while avoiding the dissenting opinions of thousands of veterans and their families they threatened to insult with their decision. In 1934, the VFW commissioned a white cross to be constructed on an outcropping known as Sunrise Rock in the Mojave National Preserve. In 1999, the plaintiff, Frank Buono, requested for the NPS to tear down the cross on the grounds that it was in severe violation of the Establishment Clause. The ensuing mess and final ruling seemingly defined the distinction between governmental and religious separation, while also confirming Congress’s

In Padilla v. Rumsfeld, an American citizen was arrested in Chicago as he stepped off an airplane. Federal authorities received a tip that he was planning on conducting a terrorist attack using a dirty bomb. However, they did not have enough evidence to arrest him on the charge of terrorism and was subsequently held as a material witness. He was transferred to military custody and was sent to a prison in South Carolina. Over the next several years, his attorney's sued to the federal government alleging that he was being held without due process of law. In 2012, the Supreme Court denied to hear the case. They referred the matter back to US Court of Appeals. They dismissed the case, based upon the fact that the plaintiff's attorneys named Rumsfeld as the defendant. Instead, they should have named the military commander of the prison as the defendant. This means that the government can still hold onto Padilla and that his attorneys will have to re file using the proper procedures. ("Padilla v. Rumsfeld," 2012)

In comparing this case to United States v. Leon, in that case Alberto Leon had been under surveillance from the police because they suspected he was dealing drugs. In that case, the Supreme Court started the “good faith” exception to the exclusionary rule where it’s okay if the police searched someone and found incriminating evidence if they acted in “good faith” and thought their actions were legal. In United States v. Leon there was even a search warrant a judge had issued but later it was found invalid so the legality of the search was questioned. There was no search warrant being issued during the time Barry went to search Sheldon’s apartment. He was only acting on a personal vendetta to get back at Sheldon and since he did not have a warrant

Antonin Scalia was born on March 11, 1936, in Trenton, New Jersey. He received his A.B. from Georgetown University and the University of Fribourg in Switzerland. Following his graduation, Scalia attended Harvard Law School and received his L.L.B. After law school, Scalia spent six years from 1961-1967 at a private firm in Cleveland, Ohio. In 1967, Scalia began serving as a Professor of Law at the University of Virginia, and taught there until 1971. Between 1971 and 1977, Scalia served the federal government in several capacities, such as: General Counsel of the Office of Telecommunications Policy, Chairman of the Administrative Conference of the United States, and Assistant Attorney General for the

Respondent, Humberto Alyarez-Machain, was a medical doctor that prolonged the life of a DEA agent, Enrique Camarena-Salazar, while other individuals tortured and interrogated him. The respondent was a citizen and resident of Mexico that the DEA forcibly kidnapped for his home and flew by private plane to Texas, where he was arrested for his involvement in the murder of Camerena. Once the Court learned of the DEA’s involvement, even though it was backed by the government, they concluded that it was in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico, and since Mexico was protesting the forcible abduction, the only proper way to right the violation would be to repatriate him back to Mexico and dismiss the indictment against

In the United States, one of the major methods in obtaining crucial information has been through the use of Guantanamo Bay. While many have condemned of the torture that is believed to occur there, not only does Guantanamo Bay comply with national and international standards, but it also complies with Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions (Meese 1) which states