The Incident Behind Whren V. United States Essay

In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public

Racial Profiling is an act of automatically defining or identifying someone based on their ethnicity. This act was most recognized during the late 1800’s in the U.S. under the Jim Crow law. It was passed in order to segregate whites and the colored in America. It fundamentally made whites superior to all. Though, in 1964 the Civil Rights Act passed stating that anybody of any ethnicity or religion are to be equal and united. However, today this law has never been truly accepted when seeing the statistics of the type of people being stopped by the police. In fact, based on the statistics of the people stopped, there is an ethnic disproportion which shows that the police use racial profiling. Even though innocent people are stopped, the

Data shows the racial profiling and illegal pullovers and search of cars driven by Black, and Hispanic males are a police action performed throughout the nation. “Even Famous Black celebrities and prominent African Americans say police have victimized them. They say they have been pulled over and subjected to a vehicle and physical search by police without probable cause, based on none other than the fact they are the black men driving an expensive car. Thus, the Police assumed they must be a drug dealer or involved in some criminal behavior to afford such an expensive car. “DWB” protocols by police and their departments according to the ACLU is also a violation of a person’s civil rights that are illegal, invasive as well as intrusive (8).”

One of the main examples of racial profiling is called DWB (Driving While Black). This is a term starting to show itself a lot in cases of racial profiling. This name is meant to be a shot at he already known DWI (Driving While Intoxicated). In today?fs society, the perception is that most drug traffickers are minorities. This is very untrue. Racial profiling is based on the premise that minorities commit most drug offenses. Because police look for drugs primarily among African Americans and Latinos, they find an uneven number of them actually in possession of contraband. Therefore, these people are arrested, reinforcing the idea that drug trafficking is primarily a Latino or African American thing. At the same time, white drivers receive far less police attention;

There are many types of racism in America that cause people to make accusations against law enforcement for discrimination. One type of racism is racial profiling. It is a strategy that encourages police officers to stop and question minorities only because of their race. It takes place in a variety of routine police encounters. Unmotivated searches occur everyday among the minority groups. Could you imagine waking up and being scared to walk outside your house because of the color of your skin? This is a fear of almost everyone belonging to a minority group. This continues to be a widespread problem throughout the country.

Korematsu v. United States (1944) actually began December 7, 1941 with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. The attack on Pearl Harbor then began the conquering of Wake, Guam, Philippines, Malaya, Singapore, Dutch East Indies, New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and Burma. With the attack on Pearl Harbor, racism, which was hardly unfamiliar, became an even greater problem. The Japanese Government's attacks on Americans including; torturing, raping, and murdering was an excuse for Americans aversion towards the Japanese. Public officials began to lock up the Japanese people simply for their own good, for protection against the hate crimes.

There has always been tension raised between maintaining a safe society and observing by the constitutional rights of its citizens. The New York City aggressive program of Stop and Frisk have been widely criticized and considered unconstitutional. However, Stop and Frisk, per se is not unconstitutional unless people are being stopped illegally. It 's a crime prevention tool that allows police officers to stop a person based on reasonable suspicion of criminal activity and to conduct a frisk based on reasonable suspicion that the person is armed. Some argue this policy was created to target minorities. Most of the people who have been stopped and frisked under this program have been African American or Hispanic. This concerns citizens and makes them oppose the policy because they believe its racial profiling and guided by color. Stop and frisk is now one of the biggest controversies in United States. It has become something that is affecting society in both a positive and negative way.

Eighty-seven percent of stops in 2012, were Black and Hispanic people. Compare that percentage to the amount of water on Earth, only seventy percent. Now, imagine eighty-seven percent water covering the Earth. That would make the world unbalanced and difficult to live in, which is how life is for the minorities impacted by Stop and Frisk. One of the most debated and controversial topics in New York City is the Stop and Frisk policy, and the impact it has on police, Latinos, and African Americans. Stop and Frisk fails to promote justice and equitable society because it creates a society where one group is lesser than another. The Stop and Frisk policy was created in Ohio, 1968, because of the a Supreme Court case, Terry v. Ohio (US Courts).

One Supreme Court member that stands out from the rest would have to be John Marshall. There is no doubt about this because he made the Supreme Court a co-equal branch of government. This means that it was an equal branch to the legislative and the executive. He became a Supreme Court Justice in 1801 and was appointed by John Adams. While holding his position he set three major goals that set precedents and made him the most significant Supreme Court Justice ever. Marshall strengthened the national government, weakened the state government, and strengthened the conditions for business and stabilized the economy. Before John Marshall was the Supreme Court Justice, there were attempts to balance the Court which had failed. His decisions

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.

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.

Racial profiling is an example of police brutality, which is defined by Gross and Livingston (2002) as “the practice of some officers of stopping motorists of certain racial or ethnic groups because the officer believe that these groups are more likely than others to commit certain types of crimes” (p.1413). Therefore, individuals are treated unfairly by law enforcement solely based on their race. This type of mistreatment is unmerited and ultimately a violation of an individual’s rights. However, in many instances the courts do not find it a violation of their civil rights based on the fact that racial profiling is difficult to prove. Often, prosecutors are disinclined in bringing forth a case against officers on this particular matter. Officers are permitted to stop and search individuals and their vehicles whenever there is reasonable suspicion, however, there has been studies that prove that some law enforcement officers restrict these rights primarily to minority groups. Bowling and Phillips found that although there was no formal monitoring of use of these powers, it was concluded that it was particularly heavy use of these powers against ethnic minorities, largely of young black people (as cited in Sharp & Atherton, 2007, p. 747) . In several cases, officers argue that they reasonably pulled an individual over for other probable grounds such as: traffic violations, suspicious behavior, etc., with race never being an

Racial profiling is when someone’s race is used by law enforcement to assume criminal suspicions (Spagnoli, Filip). Law enforcement has used racial profiling to “help” prevent criminal activity. For instance, a survey done by the department of justice when officers focused more on African-American and Latino drivers they found that less of them had drugs the when they least focused on white drivers (The Truth About Racial Profiling: FIVE FACTS). Some officers assume that Hispanics and African-Americans are carrying around illegal substances and weapons. This is not always true! As the survey revealed, most of the people who did have prohibited items were white Americans. Law enforcement should begin stopping drivers by suspicion not by their race. In another survey done by Ian Ayres and Jonathan Borowsky they had found very similar information. “We also found that, once people were stopped, officers were more likely to frisk, search, or arrest African-Americans and Latinos than whites…when these frisks and searches are substantially less likely to uncover weapons, drugs, or other types of contraband” (Borowsky, Ayres). Officers are spending more time on race than focusing on real criminals who are ousting the reasons why this country is remarkable. Other cases like these have been confirmed as well. “Relative to stopped whites, stopped blacks is 127% more likely and

While racial profiling is used to solve many crimes, using race as a description of the criminal being pursued does not constitute discrimination. “Racial profiling does not refer to the act of a law enforcement agent pursuing a suspect in which the specific description of the suspect includes race or ethnicity in combination with other identifying factors.”1 Identifying and defining racial profiling simply on the basis of race can raise several issues. Using this definition solely based on race fails to mention when police act on the basis of race along with a violation. For example an officer who targets African Americans who were jaywalking would not be considered to be racial profiling because the people that were stopped were jaywalking and happened to be African Americans.

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