"The criminal justice system, like any system designed by human beings, clearly has its flaws," said Ben Whishaw. Well, he hit the nail on the head with that saying. However, in the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale I think the United States court system did an outstanding job. It all started when Dale was just a young boy. He attained the role of an Eagle Scout, and soon after was offered the position of assistant scoutmaster. At the same time, Dale was a gay activist and part of the Lesbian/Gay Alliance group at Rutgers University. During a speech, he made it a known fact that he was, indeed, a homosexual. After a newspaper article on his involvement in homosexual groups at Rutgers University, the Boy Scouts administration became aware of James Dale's homosexuality. Consequently hi membership was immediately revoked in 1990. As a result, Dale was disappointed and wanted to know the reasoning behind his severed ties, so he wrote a letter. The Boy Scouts of America sent a letter responding with this, "the grounds for this membership revocation are the standards for leadership established by the Boy Scouts of America, which specifically forbid membership to homosexuals." After finding this out Dale's disappointment transformed to outrage and he sought after reinstatement. Dale's journey to reinstatement was not to short. On July 29,1992 Lambda Legal (Dale's law firm) filed a complaint in New Jersey Superior Court in opposition to Boy Scouts of America. On November 20,1995, a small court ruled against Dale. On December 8, 1997, an appellate court heard the argument of Lambda Legal. They argued that the actions of the Boy Scouts' violated the anti-discrimination law that New Jersey had in place. The anti-discrimination law p... ... middle of paper ... ...as brought up in order to make the point that the sexual orientation of a scout leader is irrelevant. The court ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts. However, I don't agree. I believe times are changing and I am all for gay marriage. I don't know why it should even be brought up, but if it is it still isn't relevant. In my opinion, the dissenting opinion got it exactly right: separating out and giving exceptions for homosexual's First Amendment rights is saying that they are entirely different from non-homosexuals. It might be different if the group was directly involved with sexual education, traditional marriage, or anything along those lines but the Boy Scouts of America has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Furthermore, why should it matter if the scout leader is a homosexual if scout leaders are specifically directed to avoid conversations about such topics?
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases, it is expected that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was revealed, the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage.
Many Supreme Court cases in the United States have reassured its citizens’ rights. One of those cases was that of the 1965 Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case. This case was about five students who were suspended from school for wearing black armbands. Should the students have been suspended? The Tinker v. Des Moines case was a very controversial Supreme Court case in which the right to freedom of speech and expression for students in public schools was violated.
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
Vernonia School District v. Acton was a US Supreme court decision that aims to uphold the constitutionality affecting random drug testing implemented by local public schools in Vernonia, Oregon States. This provision mandates student athletes to undergo drug testing before they are going to be allowed to participate in sporting activities. This particular measure established by the constitution stated that it propagates any illegal use of any prohibited substances for students in order to preserve the integrity of the society in particular with handling against drug use. An official investigation led to the discovery that high school athletes in the Vernonia School District participated in illicit drug use. School officials were concerned that drug use increases the risk of sports-related injury. Consequently, the Vernonia School District of Oregon adopted the Student Athlete Drug Policy which authorizes random urinalysis drug testing of its student athletes Substance abuse materials may include marijuana, which is cannabis that is commonly used by teens.
In cases having to do with constitutionality, the issue of the separation of church and state arises with marked frequency. This battle, which has raged since the nation?s founding, touches the very heart of the United States public, and pits two of the country's most important influences of public opinion against one another. Although some material containing religious content has found its way into many of the nation's public schools, its inclusion stems from its contextual and historical importance, which is heavily supported by material evidence and documentation. It often results from a teacher?s own decision, rather than from a decision handed down from above by a higher power. The proposal of the Dover Area School District to include instruction of intelligent design in biology classes violates the United States Constitution by promoting an excessive religious presence in public schools.
This quote by Edward Humes sums it up the best, “The fundamental question Juvenile Court was designed to ask - What's the best way to deal with this individual kid? - is often lost in the process, replaced by a point system that opens the door, or locks it, depending on the qualities of the crime, not the child.” (No Matter How Loud I shout, 1996, p. 325). The courts need to focus on what is best for the child and finding punishment that fits the child not the crime.
It was celebrated by the homosexual activists fighting for the equal rights in the hope that the future legal advances may follow. Social conservatives have deplored the decision for the same reason. Nevertheless, the ruling of the Court was neutral, therefore it was fair.
People have always been concerned about our judicial system making massive decisions in an undemocratic manner and while there are parts of our nation’s history (Jost). There have been decisions that were dreadful for our nation, Dred Scott v. Sandford; but there are decisions that everyone can agree with in retrospect, Brown v. Board of Education. Also, there are decisions that still divide us as a nation, Bush v. Gore and Roe V. Wade. There are a lot of issues that come from our current judicial system; however, I understand that the problems that come from it are not going to come from any quick fix, and we may have to live with some of them. Looking at the history of the judicial branch of the United States Government, I believe it needs to be limited in its judicial review power, but have certain exceptions where necessary in some cases.
Muscar, J. (2008). Advocating the end of juvenile boot camps: Why the military model does not belong in the juvenile justice system. UC Davis Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, 12(1), 2-50.
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Prior to the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy the United States and its citizens were not very tolerant to openly gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals. Prior to World War II gays were not specifically targeted for exclusion from the military, although sodomy was considered a criminal offense as early as the Revolutionary War. However by the beginning of World War II, the military had shifted focus from excluding acts that were considered homosexual to focusing on members that were considered homosexual. In 1942, the military issued its first regulation that contained a paragraph defining the difference between a homosexual and a normal person. In fact, this regulation also described procedures for rejecting gay draftees. (Martinez, Hebl, & Law, 2012). The military based these procedures on medical rationale and psychiatric screening to...
We, all, have the opportunity to voice our opinion on subjects that matter to us. The First Amendment grants us freedom of speech and expression. However, this was not provided to all students in 1968. During this time, there were three students in Des Moines, Iowa, who wore black armbands to school. These armbands were a symbol of protest against the United States involvement in the Vietnam War. After the Des Moines School District heard about this plan, they instituted a policy banning the wearing of armbands, leading to the suspension of students. A lawsuit has been filed against the Des Moines School District, stating how this principal goes against the students’ First Amendment rights. Thus, in the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District case, Justice Abe Fortes determined the policy to ban armbands is against the students’ First Amendment rights. Yet, Justice Hugo Black dissented with this decision, determining the principal is permissible under the First Amendment.
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
In December 1965, an issue was caused by teachers’ in violating students’ freedom of speech. In December some students from Des Moines Independent Community School District, in Iowa were suspended for wearing black armbands to protest against the American Government’s war policy in support Vietnam (Richard, Clayton, and Patrick).The school district pressed a complaint about it, although the students caused no harm to anyone. Students should be able to voice their opinions without the consequences of the school district.
The American Court System is an important part of American history and one of the many assets that makes America stand out from other countries. It thrives for justice through its structured and organized court systems. The structures and organizations are widely influenced by both the State and U.S Constitution. The courts have important characters that used their knowledge and roles to aim for equality and justice. These court systems have been influenced since the beginning of the United State of America. Today, these systems and law continue to change and adapt in order to keep and protect the peoples’ rights.