The Vs. Connecticut Case

In the Case of Missouri v. Seibert, a mother named Patrice Seibert was convicted of second degree murder. Patrice Seibert had a son named Jonathan who was twelve years old and had cerebral palsy. Jonathan Seibert suddenly died in his sleep, and his mother thought that she would be held responsible for his sudden death. Ms. Seibert then devised a plan with her two older sons and their friends. She wanted to cover up the death of Jonathan, so she conspired with her sons and their friends to cover up the death by burning down their mobile home. Donald Rector was a mentally ill individual who stayed with the Seibert’s and later died as the home went up in flames. Several days later, Seibert was taken into the police station and questioned about the mysterious mobile home fire. While being interrogated, the officer waved Ms. Seibert’s Miranda rights. She was questioned for thirty to forty minutes before she was given a break. While being questioned, the officer hoped that Ms. Seibert would voluntarily confess to the crimes that had taken place. After her break, she was then questioned a second time. This time, the officer turned on a recorder and then read Ms. Seibert her Miranda Warnings, and the officer also obtained a signed waiver of rights from Seibert.

Does the Constitution establish and protect the right of marital privacy? Do Connecticut’s statutes barring the use of, or the counseling of someone on the use of, contraceptives (ss 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut) violate such a right?

In 1886 the US Supreme Court declared that states could not regulate commerce that went beyond their boundaries in the Wabash, St. Louis and Pacific R.R. versus Illinois case. The decision provided the basis for the formation of the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1887. The Interstate Commerce Commission was a regulatory agency in the united states. Its purpose was to regulate railroads to ensure fair rates, to regulate rate discrimination and to regulate other aspects of common carriers, including interstate bus lines and telephone companies.

In the case of State v, Evans, he was a stalker who stalked Arnold. In the case their was a couple of incidences where he raned into her on purpose, so he was charged with stalking . In the case I will give the facts, issues, and court holding.

Supreme Court of the United States decision on the King v. Burwell case was a 6-3 decision in favor of Burwell. One major point that the majority touches upon is the fact that the statement “an exchange established by the state” is in fact an ambiguous statement. The ACA directed the Secretary for Health and Human Services to set up federal exchanges for any state that refuses to set one up. With the specific phrase “such exchange” to define the government's exchange program set up in Virginia means that federally and state run exchanges are interchangeable entities. Now that the phrase had been deemed ambiguous language, the next question to answer is, “whether one of the regulation's permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that

The case of Terry v. Ohio took place in 1968. This case involved a Detective who had witnessed three suspicious males patrol a street and stare into a specific window multiple times. With reasonable suspicion and probable cause, Detective McFadden assumed one of them could be armed. He then took one of the males and patted him down to find that he had a pistol on him. He patted the victim down for reasons of protecting himself and others in the community. The Fourth Amendment does include, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized” (Israel, LaFave). The people who are being frisked are for reasons that the officer wants to protect himself and others, not just for no reason. People do have a right to their personal, private property and the stop and frisk, or sometimes know as a terry stop, is approved if the officer has reasons to believe the person could be carrying a weapon or a threat to society. The officer had reasonable suspicion and probable cause to search the male and was able to legally with the Fourth Amendment. The stop and frisk action has been around for almost 50 years. Is it time to put a stop to it because people think it is unconstitutional, or to change the way we view

The case of Kent V. United States is a historical case in the United States. The Kent case helped lead the way in the development of a list of eight criteria and principles. This creation of these criteria and principle has helped protect the offender and public for more than forty-five years. Which as a reason has forever changed the process of waving a juvenile into the adult system (Find Law, 2014).

Some of the ways that the Supreme Court address the issue of privacy is within the home. Along with the 1st, 3rdm 4th, 5th, 9th Amendments that give citizens right to privacy. In Griswold v Connecticut the Majority opinion written by Justice Douglas talks about penumbral rights in the shadow of the constitution. In the 1st the right to assembly, 3rd the right to refuse quartering soldiers within the home, the 4th amendment protects citizens against unreasonable search and seizure, the 5th amendment protects citizens by allowing them to not self-incriminate. With the Griswold v Connecticut case the Court ruled that a couple had the right to privacy when using contraceptives. Justice Goldberg concurred in the case on the Fundamental Rights theory.

Terry v. Ohio is an important case in law enforcement. What did the Court say in this case, and why is it important?

Ever since 1968 and the Supreme Court case of “Terry vs Ohio” was settled, stop and frisking policies have been used by police everywhere in the United States. However, lately the use of this tactic, especially in New York, has raised the questions of whether or not these stop and frisks are actually helping as well as the question of whether or not these supposed random stops are unbiased. There have been a great number of arguments for the continuation of stop and frisk policies as well as the cease of such tactics to lower the crime rate in cities. In New York, these concerns were first brought to light in the late 1990’s. Throughout this decade, the huge decrease in crime rates had been credited to the fact that NYPD had taken the stop and frisk policies very seriously. However, “near the end of the decade there were repeated complaints of harassment of minority communities” (Gelman). The people of New York were complaining that the NYPD were stopping people and treating people differently based on their ethnic background, which brings up the bigger and more disturbing question; Were the police stopping minorities based on racial bias?

Griswold v. Connecticut was argued on March 28-29, 1965 and the decision of the Supreme Court was decided on June 7, 1965. It was questioned whether or not the Constitution protected the rights of marital privacy (limits government intrusion into private family matters) against restrictions for a couple to receive counseling on using contraceptives. Mrs. Griswold had given counseling to a married couple that had wanted to use birth control and it was against Connecticut law to do so. The Supreme Court’s ruling was that married couples have the right to privacy and the law was declared unconstitutional as it violated the right of privacy. Married couples have the right to private privacy.

In the early years of the Republic, states came often in front of the Supreme Court to resolve disputes of issue of the supremacy of the National Government. In 1803 the case Marbury v. Madison held that Congress cannot pass laws that are contrary to the Constitution, and it is the role of the Judicial System to interpret what the Constitution permits. The discrepancies between the Federal Government and the States occurred often, as the States were not happy to give up their power to the Federal Government. Late 1810 raised the issue of the financial stability of the states, banks were comprehended as the symbol of power and privilege, and were despised by the vast majority of the people. During the Anglo-American War in 1812, many banks collapsed under the tough economic atmosphere. Survival Banks chartered by the states were also not in good position. They lacked sufficient credit to support during the War-time and in the post-war situation also. In 1811, the charter of the First Bank of the United States has been expired, and the federal government found itself not able to finance the war. In 1816, Congress accorded a charter to the Second Bank of the United States and contributed with one-fifth of the bank’s capital of $35 million. Before the Federal Governemnt chartered the Second Bank of the United States, and before a single form of currency was set, the state chartered banks had less government restrictions and were able to speculate on their bank policies. They

There are several cases that have gone through the United States Supreme Court where prosecutors have not disclosed evidence to the defense, that could in turn help the defense’s case such as in the case of

To begin, this Court shall review Jurisdiction over this matter. Congress passed a federal statute that reads “The Supreme Court of the United States shall have original Jurisdiction over any cases involving this offense…” as to punishing individuals to three years in prison for the use, transport and/or to consume butter beer. To this, we refer to our Constitution that establishes matters that have original jurisdiction, Art. III S. 2 “The Judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority… In all other Cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction”. The case of Marbury v. Madison interprets matters of original Jurisdiction, “The 1789 act to establish the Judicial courts of the United States authorizes the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, however this can only be granted when the Court has original jurisdiction, in al other cases, the Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as law and fact…” furthermore, we consider, if this statute was good law, it would make the state a party, to that we turn to Cohens v. Virginia, a case that reviews the Jurisdiction of this Court in criminal cases, which came to the conclusion that just because a state is involved in a criminal party claim, the Supreme Court does not have original jurisdiction over it. As established by the Constitution, and case law

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