Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier I, Tim, write this opinion to dissent with the majority opinion on the case of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier. I am in favor of the minority opinion considering that it is more of a situational aspect compared to the majority which would reflect as a principality aspect. The curfew set for this town is too extreme. There are many understandable reasons as to why a minor would be out past 11 p.m. such as a friends/family birthday dinner, work, studying or even extracurricular activities. Many guardians allow their child under the age of 18 to be out past that time. I believe curfews should be set by the guardian of a child and not by the law. I tended to favor a loose interpretation for this case. Although students have the right …show more content…
I believe the school has the right to get rid of those pages since the articles were most definitely going to be a distraction to the students that attend the school. Also, the articles violated several people so it is better that they are removed. T.M. v. State of Florida I, Tim, write this opinion to dissent with the majority opinion on the case of T.M. v. State of Florida. I am in favor of the minority opinion considering that it is more of a situational aspect compared to the majority which would reflect as a principality aspect. The curfew set for this town is too extreme. There are many understandable reasons as to why a minor would be out past 11 p.m. such as a friends/family birthday dinner, work, studying or even extracurricular activities. Many guardians allow their child under the age of 18 to be out past that time. I believe curfews should be set by the guardian of a child and not by the law. In this case I leaned towards a strict interpretation of the laws because I believe that freedom of assembly is an important right. As said before, every American should have equal rights but the person in charge, like the guardian of a minor, should be the one to restrict these
Separate Opinions: in the dissenting opinion, the minority argued that the ruling of the majority opens up a Pandora’s Box. Arguing that the ruling would encourage offenders to flee and, consequently, put more innocent bystanders at risk. In addition to this separate opinion by the dissent, several other key arguments by the dissent are bulleted
The dissenting opinion was given by Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall. Their concerns were that the majority opinion may be the beginning of the exclusionary rule slipping away. Brennon had observed that the Court had slowly began to let more things slide against the Fourth Amendment, and that the ?good faith? exception directly contradicted the Fourth Amendment. He also held that it may seem that the Court may pick and choose what evidence it allows in interest of obtaining a conviction. (United States v. Leon , 1984)
VI. Opinion: Justice Fortas delivered the opinion of the Court. The Judgment of the Arizona Supreme Court is reversed and the matter remanded. Justices Black and White concurred with the Court’s opinion. Justice Harlan concurred in part and dissented in part; and Justice Stewart dissented based on his opinion that juvenile hearings are not the same as adversary proceedings.
“The principle of stare decisis does not demand that we must follow precedents, which shipwreck justice.”
Although Justice Thomas has written more dissenting opinions, he has also written some majority opinions including: ACLU v. Ashcroft, which decided that “COPA’s reliance on community standards to identify material that is harmful to minors’ does not by itself render the statute substantially overboard for purposed of the First Amendment”. United States v. Scheffer, which ruled that according to Military Rule of Evidence 70...
Dissenting Opinion- Written explanation of the views of one or more judges who disagree with (dissent from) a decision reached by a majority of the court
Surprisingly, both Associate Justice Brennan's majority opinion and Chief Justice Rehnquist's response, the dissenting opinion, cited Street v. New York to support their contradictory conclusions. In Street, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of the defendant, who "burned a flag in the street shouting 'We don't need no damned flag' " (323). Brennan argues that the precedent in this case supports the majority opinion: "[In Street] we c...
A good question is what's the point of fighting this, Burlington has curfew bylaws and I don't say anything about them. Well it's simple, Burlington's curfew is there in case it has to be used, like a police officer's sidearm, they don't go around shooting everyone for anything, but should the rare occurrence that they need it, it's there.
As shown above, curfew laws can play a very critical role in a teenager’s life. It can assist with keeping the city safer, help them get enough sleep, and help them build their personal skill under a well-structured system routine. A lot of people might find curfew laws for teenagers unconstitutional and contradict the first amendment, so they decide not to abide with it. But by doing so, they are placing more a bigger experience to teenagers who are still working on developing their skills to take on new challenges. After all, Teenagers are the future of our society if we don’t teach, coach, direct, and offer guidance their future will be unstable and unproductive and that will affect the entire nation.
Through using case laws, the First Amendment, and previous cases, Justice Abe Fortas explains the reasoning behind why the principal was not permissible. In the first two paragraphs, Fortas provides a brief summary stating how the policy banning armbands go against the First Amendment. In the following paragraph, Fortas says, “Only a few of the 18,00 students in the school system wore the black armbands.” When introducing his first argument, he supports this fact explaining how “the work of the schools or any class was [not] disrupted.” As for the fourth paragraph, Justice Fortas provides a counter argument with what the District Court said. The District Court concluded the school authorities were reasonable since it was based upon their fear o...
Jason Tashea, writer for The Baltimore Sun states, “Youth delinquency primarily occurs afterschool and not during curfew hours” (1). This started a fierce debate in Baltimore, as Tashea points out,
As an old saying goes “parenting does not come with a guide book”. Most parents fear and will agree that adolescence is the age when the kids are the most difficult to handle. It is the age in which the child is experiencing a transitional stage. The child is experiencing physical changes and psychological human development that brings a desire to try to connect to the world. It is the age when the child starts to become more independent and starts to think he/she knows it all, and that is when problems arise. In this report I will analyze the positive and negative impact of curfews on teens. I will make a comparison and draw a conclusion to answer the question if curfews help to keep teens out trouble.
Strict rules create rebellious teens. Many people think that curfews are a fundamental way to keeping teens out of trouble, but this is not the case. Curfews are neither applicable, justified, nor are they a way to diminish criminal activities committed by adolescents. Curfews are ultimately useless because there are too many reasons that contradict why a curfew would work.
Students need to be supervised after a specific time of night. This isn’t because they will do something disruptive, but they might run into trouble and not know how to react. Stated in an article by Ebscohost, “Hundreds of U.S. cities have laws of curfew that apply to kids 17 and younger, and with that crimes and deaths have went down significantly over the last couple of years”. This valid fact supports the opposition that curfew is over all a good idea for students and parents. If more cities could recognize this now the world can be a safer place. In another example while being in darkness you are more vulnerable to get hurt. You cannot see as easily as you would if you were in light thus making it easier to hurt you. While being inside in a well-lit room or sleeping, you are guaranteed to be much more safer than being outside. Students shouldn’t even be out that late; there is no need to be. All stores are closed, no one is outside, and you are just waiting for trouble to strike.
Should teenagers be restricted to a curfew? That's a question many parents question themselves. What is my son up? What is my daughter doing? How do I know if they're safe? What time will he/she be home? When following curfews, teens tend to stay out of trouble more because criminal activity or high-risk behaviors is more likely to occur later in the evening when parental supervision is not present. Therefore teenagers need have a curfew, imposing curfews would help keep young teens out of trouble legally, set strict boundaries, and provides safety.