Help and Judge these cases?
Question by : Help and Judge these cases?
Okay so pretend your a judge in a court. After reading the case, pick a,b,or c on what you would do and tell me why.
CASE 1: Homer Plessy, a blake citizen of Louisiana, was arrested when he refused to leave a railroad car for whites only. A Louisana law states that blacks and whites must travel in sparate railroad cars, At his trial, he argued that the law is unconstitutional because it denied him “equal protection of the law.” This right is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. A Louisiana court ruled that the law is constitutional. Plessy has taken his case to the Supreme Cout, You are a Supreme Court Justice and must rule in this case. Will you rule that the Louisiana law is:
A. constitutional because it provides “equal protection of the law.”
B. constitutional, but do not issue a written opinion
C. unconstitutional because it denies “equal protection of the law/”
why?
CASE 2: Ernesto Miranda was arrested in Phoenix for kidnapping and attacking a women. The women identified him in a police line up. He was questioned for 2 hours before he signed a written confession. His lawyer was not present during the questioning, but no force was used to make him sign. Miranda was found guilty and sent to prison. His lawyers have brought the case to the supreme court. They claim that Miranda didn’t know that he had a right to a lawyer, He was unaware that he had a right to refuse to answer questions. The police argue that Miranda signed the confuession of his own free will. Also, the women identified him in the line up. Will you rule that Miranda’s rights were”
A. not violated, and that he should remain in jail
B. violated, but the women’s identification is enough to convict him
C. violated, and he should be released from jail.
answer and why?
HELP!! I’m only 13 and don’t understand a thing. It’s for History.
Best answer:
Answer by Artemis Gwen
I’m not going to give you MY answers because it is important for you to make the decision for yourself. I’ll give you a little bit of information in the hopes you will be able to decide which answer is the best one.
In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a Louisiana law mandating separate but equal accommodations for blacks and whites on intrastate railroads was constitutional. This decision provided the legal foundation to justify many other actions by state and local governments to socially separate blacks and whites. Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education.
This means that Brown v. Board of Education found that segregating blacks and whites was unconstitutional.
The rational of the Brown v. Board of Education Court’s decision was based on the dehumanizing effects of segregation: “Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.”
In Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) the Court held that confessions made when a person his in police custody can only be admissible at trial if the prosecution can show that the defendant was told he had the right to talk to an attorney before he was questioned by the police. If the prosecutor can’t prove that the person was given this information, the confession cannot be used against him in his trial. This means that if the confession was the ONLY reason the defendant was convicted, the defendant goes free. If there is other evidence against the defendant, the prosecutor can still try to convict him.
Give your answer to this question below!
Getting The Job – Today
Getting The Job – Today
Professional Campaign Approach Job Search Strategies – Informational Pkg For Executive/managers/blue Collar/students/military/housewives. Multilingual Site, On-line Ordering/mail Order. Immediate Online Access To Secure Code PDF Doc. Huge Global Market !
Getting The Job – Today
(view mobile)
Keep 100% Of The Profits By Selling Your Own Royalty Free Coaching Products!!
(view mobile)
Royalty Free Coaching Products.
Si Quiere Golpear A La Industria Del Forex En Su Propio Juego Continue Leyendo.
Royalty Free Coaching Products.
NEW Executive Orders - Clancy, Tom 9780425158630
 | US $6.44 End Date: Sunday May-20-2012 4:29:57 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $6.44 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
 | US $4.87 End Date: Sunday May-20-2012 5:39:22 PDT Buy It Now for only: US $4.87 Buy it now | Add to watch list |
Nice “Constitutional Law” photos
A few nice Constitutional Law images I found:
Constitutional Law 1 Moot Court
Image by Bikoy
September 3-4, 2008. For Constitutional Law 1 class, our professor made us replay (in our own way) the Supreme Court proceedings in Lambino vs. COMELEC. My blockmates and I took on different roles as Supreme Court Justices, petitioners and respondents. I was on the side of the Sigaw ng Bayan / People’s Initiative petitioners as Erico Aumentado. Some of us even took on the role of the Solicitor General and amicus curiae Joaquin Bernas.
To what degree can a U.S. President “make law”?
Question by stonerosedesigndotcom: To what degree can a U.S. President “make law”?
To what degree can a U.S. President “make law”?
(Could, for example, George Washington, invoked an “executive order” to free the slaves, or give women the right to vote, etc., claiming that to not do so would inevitably lead to national disruption (or that it’s an inevitability?)
Best answer:
Answer by jennyann 4
Watch bush as he does the best job of getting away with things
Know better? Leave your own answer in the comments!
Q&A: What is the point of having courts, and constitutional due process, if Obama can assess and collect fines?
Question by : What is the point of having courts, and constitutional due process, if Obama can assess and collect fines?
After the BP shake down, it seems apparent that liberals have relieved America of the need for courts and due process.
Obama clearly threatened BP, and BP paid up “voluntarily”
What did the constitution mean when it said “No person shall be deprived of liberty or property, without due process of law”
Does the constitution mean anything to liberals?
Best answer:
Answer by Pink08
Barack Obama is President of the United States. Accept it.
What do you think? Answer below!
Agree w / Ron Paul, Obama is on the edge of the dictator w / his constant use of decrees?
Question : agree w / Ron Paul, Obama is on the edge of the dictator w / his constant use of executive orders
Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX), says that President Obama continues to use an executive order “brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an optional dictatorship.” “It is arrogant,” Paul said Obama’s executive order is often used as a late feature. “It’s pulling the whole principle of the Constitution and how we use the idea they could do and take over legislative functions and brag about it. – And Congress does nothing and the courts do nothing, it is very, very bad.” “It’s dictatorial , is what it is, “said Deputy Paul before the end of the interview. Best answer:
answer Rockit
ne.Paul tom.Prezident of the extremist and an idiot, he gets to do things like this.
What do you think? Answer below!