The Case Of Kent V. United States

Kent held that juveniles were entitled to a hearing, representation by counsel, access to information upon which the waiver decision was based, and a statement of reasons justifying the waiver decision. It included the sophistication and maturity of the juvenile as determined by consideration of his or her home life, environmental situation, emotional attitude, and pattern of living. These rights we made so that the justice courts can provide guidance and rehabilitation for the juvenile also with protection for society. There are some juveniles out there who are extremely dangerous and do not wish to change the way they are living their life.

Morris A. Kent was a young teenager who had been in and out of trouble in the District of Columbia during the late 50’s and early 60’s. Kent had stayed in the juvenile court system on probation all the way up until 1961. When at the age of sixteen he was charged with several charges and was waivered into the adult system and later found guilty. Although, Kent appealed his case and his appeal went all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court (Find Law, 2014).

United States was a historical turning point in the juvenile justice field. The Kent decision was to only apple to the District of Columbia courts, but the impression it had was too great, causing it to become more extensive. The objectives of the juvenile courts are to provide guidance and rehabilitation for the minor and adequate protection for the public, as opposed to criminal courts obligation of fixing crime and administering punishment. In Kent vs. United States (1966), the US Supreme Court found that a juvenile must be provided the same due process rights as adults. It also allowed juveniles to the right of a formal hearing before having their cases transferred to adult criminal court. This Supreme Court case allowed minors charged with a crime the same assurance as adult offenders. It began a period where juveniles were starting to be treated as citizens. These Kent Considerations also allow the courts to determine eligibility in the Youthful offender Act. The court raised a possible constitutional challenge of parens patriae as the groundwork for juvenile

Throughout history, many cases have gone beyond local courts and have reached Supreme Court. One of the most famous cases to reach Supreme Court is Marbury v. Madison. Marbury v. Madison was a case that was fought because James Madison refused to deliver Marbury’s commission. In return, Marbury had petitioned for a writ of mandamus in order to receive his commissions. The Supreme Court had reinforced the “Marbury” decision in many cases, for example McCulloch v. Maryland, Cohens v. Virginia, and United States v. Le Baron.

Perhaps, according to Bernard Schwartz, the greatest failure of American law during World War II may be illustrated by the case of Fred Toyosaburo Korematsu. As graphically described in 1944 by a member of the bench, his case is one that is unique in our system:

The current Supreme Court membership is comprised of nine Supreme Court Justices. One of which is the Chief Justice and the other eight are the Associate Justices. The Justices are Chief Justice John Roberts, Jr., and Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David H. Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer and Samuel Anthony Alito, Jr.

The Federal Court System is one of the most essential and significant functions to help settle a matter. Much work is involved in the application of a body of rules and principals of rulings. The path the Federal Courts have to take in order to be heard by the Supreme Court is a lengthy process. Given millions of disputes every year, it becomes impossible for the Federal Courts to be heard by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has jurisdictions that limit the variety of cases that are clearly defined in the Constitution. The Supreme Court has developed specific rules that within the jurisdictions will and will not hear. The Federal Court must show they have extreme and substantial evidence in the outcome of the case. In mootness, the Federal

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.

Facts: In Lexington, Kentucky, police officers followed a suspected drug dealer to an apartment building where he went. When they arrived outside of the door to the apartment where the suspect was they reportedly could smell marajuana. The police then knocked and shouted they they were there and in return they could hear what sounded like people destroying the evidence and running around. The police then knocked down the door and saw the respondent as well as drugs laying out without having to look anywhere. later the police found more drugs and paraphernalia doing a more in-depth search. “The Circuit Court denied respondent’s motion to suppress the evidence, holding that exigent

In 1961, 16-year-old Morris Kent was charged with rape and robbery when he was on probation. Kent was sentenced to 30-90 in prison after being found guilty in a criminal court. The judge had waived jurisdiction without a hearing, therefore, the waiver was found invalid.

The US Supreme Court has a number of powers. These include the power to declare acts of Congress, the executive or state legislatures unconstitutional through the power of judicial review. The supreme court justices are also given the power to interpret the constitution when making decisions, again, through their power of judicial review. It is arguable that it is essential for the supreme court to have such powers in order to allow the American democracy to flourish. However, there is much evidence to suggest that the supreme court holds too much power for an unelected body, thus hindering democracy.

The Supreme Court is the most powerful court in America. It takes the most controversial and significant cases, and tries to decide what the best outcome for them are. There are nine people who decide this, the Chief Justice of the United States, and eight Associate Justices. The President of the United States appoints the Justices, with help from the Senate. Each Justice can hold office as long as they have good behavior. Justices do not have a limit on how long they can chair for. There are also nine Court Officers, who assist the Court with what it needs. They each have different responsibilities, and they are appointed by the Chief Justice in consultation with the Court. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to establish “Equal justice under law”, or so it says above the entrance to the court. The Supreme Court resolves many problems with constitutional interpretation. This also sets the precedent for smaller courts throughout the country. The Supreme Court is only one of the three branches of the government, which helps prevent any case from being decided unfairly. The Supreme court typically starts its new terms in October, with sessions ending in late June or early July. Every term, about 7,000 – 8,000 cases are filed within the Supreme Court. (“The Justices ' Caseload.”)

I believe that the judicial branch has the most power because they have the power to settle disagreements about the meaning of laws and decide if laws and the president decides if laws or action.

In 1789, the final draft of the constitution of the United States came into effect. In article three it calls for "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." In the article it neither says the duties, powers, or any organization of the supreme court. If left this up to congress and to the justices of the court itself for these details.

The Supreme Court chose its first juvenile case—Kent v. United States, in which it limited the waiver circumspection of juvenile courts in 1966. At first, juvenile courts had appreciated wide attentiveness