The Supreme Court Vs. Salazar V. Buono Case Essay

The United States is known for being ‘land of the free’, a nation with a Declaration of Independence, as well, as a Constitution protecting the rights of it’s citizens. Wars have been fought and many people have died so we could have the rights that present today. The freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and most importantly the right to petition our government; all of which fall under the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. Our nation’s flag is an everlasting symbol of freedom and hope

Gonzales v. Raich was a landmark case which determined the extent that Congress could regulate marijuana usage in California. More precisely, the case involves deliberation between the constitutionality of the Compassionate Use Act, voted on by the state of California in 1996, and the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), passed by Congress in 1970. Does the CSA, a policy which permits the regulation of certain drugs and chemicals by the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), exceed the regulations set under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution? Does the Compassionate Use Act, which allows for the use of medical marijuana in California, protect citizen’s rights to use and distribute marijuana for medicinal purposes? The decision made by the Supreme Court would spark debate over these questions as well as similar topics such as federal abuse of power, doctor patient confidentiality, and the decriminalization of marijuana across America. In my paper, I will cover the events and influences leading up to the Supreme Court’s official decision, the significance of the outcome, and the questions and issues brought up in the aftermath of Gonzales v. Raich.

The individuals that felt strongest during this Court Case were War Veterans who felt that the cross was not symbolic towards their own religion. For example, there were Jewish and Muslim Veterans during this period who were especially against the symbolic cross as their remembrance, they associated the cross as Jesus Christ, a man who in their religion was not their savior. In addition, petitioners also felt as though the cross was not a fair representation for all the Veterans that had died holding onto beliefs that were not represented by cross. Other petitioners felt that the

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit declared that phrase did indeed endorse religion which was contrary to the law and the Constitution. The suit was, however, dismissed because Mr. Newdow did not have custody of his daughter and could not, by law, file a suit on her behalf.

In the Spring of 1984, May 23rd, felling like San Antonio v. Rodriguez was an unacceptable decision, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a suit against William Kirby, the commissioner of education, in behalf of the Edgewood Independent School District. MALDEF’s main concern was the way Texas funds public school, they pointed out the fact that he poorest districts in the state, had $38,854 in property wealth per student, while the Alamo Heights ISD, which is in the same county, had $570,109 per student. (TSHA, 2017) Furthermore, property-poor districts had a higher set tax rate that would amount to an average 74.5 cents per $100 a valuation to generate $2,987 per pupil, while richer districts, with a tax rate of half

In Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982), this Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.”

Congress made seven attempts to overrule the Supreme Court decision regarding the burning of the American flag by passing a constitutional amendment, but was unable to gather the required two-thirds majority. In 1994 it made it through a Republican Congress with the House majority, but the Democratic Senate shot it down. Even President George H Bush Sr. dishonored us by agreeing with the court’s decision.

King v. Burwell is a case ruled by the US Supreme Court on June 25, 2015 to confirm health law subsidies. It challenged the legality of subsidies issued by the IRS on behalf of states that used the federal health insurance exchange. Perhaps millions of people who are under the federal exchange are at stake since they could lose their subsidies. Furthermore, the test relied on the meaning of four words in the Affordable Care Act, “exchanges established by the State.” These words imply that state exchanges could issue subsidies, but it did not literally specify that states didn’t establish their own exchange or the ones under the federal exchange. A definite conclusion is that both the state exchange and the federal exchange can have the health

Prince George’s County filed identical petitions against two stores: Atlantic Department Store, Inc. and George’s Radio and Television, Inc. that violated Md. Ann. Code art. 27, § 534H. The stores went to trial and claimed that the Code violates the First Amendment. There they had to admit that they did not meet any of the exemptions that would allow them to operate on a Sunday. They appealed the courts ruling and this time they asserted that § 534H violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment because they think that religion was the reason for the prohibition. And since their employees that were working on Sundays were not required to work in violation of their religious beliefs, the county had no right to set up this law. The court then again came to a conclusion that the stores were wrong with their accusations of the violation because the prohibition of operating on Sundays had nothing to do with religious reason but were meant for recreation and enjoyment

Likewise, mere possession of a vehicle cannot support an inference of knowledge regarding the presence of contraband, and it certainly cannot support the specific intent as to a conspiracy or otherwise for aiding and abetting. Indeed, “[i]t is axiomatic that more is required than mere knowledge of the purpose of a conspiracy. See, e.g., Direct Sales Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 703, 711-13 (1943); United States v. Ceballos, 340 F.3d 115, 124 (2d Cir. 2003). What is more, such knowledge by itself, would not even establish aiding and abetting liability, which requires proof of the intent to contribute to the success of the underlying crime, see United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65, 96 (2d Cir. 2006), let alone conspiracy. See

Supreme Court case of 1824. The issue was federal power to regulate interstate commerce. The case was about how Aaron Ogden had a license from the state of New York to run steamboats between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibbons had the licence but from the federal government to run steamboats in the same area. But a NY court ruled that Gibbons had to stop running his boats but Ogden could continue to operate his boats. So, Gibbons appealed to the Supreme Court. Gibbons argued that the commerce clause of the Constitution gave Congress exclusive right to regulate business between states. The decision was that the court sai that the State of New York law did not apply because the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. The Court

" The case involves gun ownership rights in relation to gun ownership and use in the state of Massechutes. Private gun ownership and self defence has been a bone of of contention in legislative and judicial platforms in the US. Individual states have various legislation relating to gun ownership that are in effect in the respective states. The ownership and use of guns by individual have varied implication. A citizen 's right to feel safe and secure is enshrined in the constitution and the acquisition of weapons by individuals for their private protection has been a subject of debate due to reckless use, especially when family and freinds turn against each other in the event of disagreement or frustaration. These particular case was the supreme court 's denying the ammendement to include modern weapons such as stun guns in article 570, 582 (2008). A lady ( Caetano), a mother of two, had been arrested and arraigned in court after she had threatened her boyfriend, whom she accused of causing emotional distress to her, with a stun gun when he questioned her about about children and their whereabouts

“On Thursday, February 7, 1985, at 2:00 pm, Special Agent Enrique Camarena left the American Consulate in Guadalajara to meet his wife, Mika, for lunch. Camarena had been in Mexico for the past four years trying to bust a huge marijuana and cocaine cartel. He was told that he was going to be moved to another location due to the fact that he was dangerously close to exposing the leaders of the cartel. On his way to his car, he was shoved into car, blinded, and the car sped away. The men who had kidnapped him were members of the cartel and had decided to take matters into their hands. They tortured him over the span of thirty hours. Along with fractures in his face and ribs they also found that his skin had been burned by cigarettes, and they had driven his

This case went to the Supreme Court, where Mr. Cortman was representing Trinity church interests. During Court time was argued couple of things first is the Free Exercise Clause it’s the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and participate in religious ritual and second is the equal protection right. An equal protection right that does not support Trinity Lutheran Church itself; it’s simply provides safer playground surfaces for kids. Constitution prohibits discrimination against people faith and that similarly, people have to be treated alike. Mr.

Moreno is the earliest example of a toothier rational basis review that allowed the court to examine legislative history in order to determine the legislature’s actual purpose. An amendment to the Food Stamp Act of 1964 excluded households containing unrelated members from participating in the federal food stamp program. This class was effectively denied federal food assistance. The District Court for the District of Columbia held that this classification violated the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process clause, and the Supreme Court affirmed.