Decision : In a unanimous decision, the U.S. District Court ruling was affirmed, and the President must abide by the subpoena. Reasoning : 1. The court stated that they did have power to hear this case: "Since the court has consistently exercised the power to construe and delineate claims arising under express powers, it must follow that the Court has authority to interpret claims with respect to powers alleged to derive from enumerated powers." 2. The court said that it was difficult decide with the argument of executive privilege because there was no real claim to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets.
Although justices belong to different parties and they may have views determined by their political beliefs, the role of a justice is to carefully determine and interpret laws based on the Constitution. To do this, they must provide legitimate reason to defend their decisions and therefore, judicial review is beneficial for a successful nation. As a result of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court found that it did not have jurisdiction over the case and therefore could not issue a writ of mandamus. This is the first instance of judicial review by the Supreme Court. Regarding judicial review, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in his opinion that, “It is empha... ... middle of paper ... ...es his point by saying that it does not specify the extent of those powers.
A lot of people argue that immigrants should not have the same rights as an American citizen, but that idea is not so American, is it? America is known as the land of the free,but if people who come here to make a life for themselves, legally, are denied of their rights we are selling false hope. When the Constitution was written, the founding fathers had everyone in mind, but now people are starting to tweak that idea. If memory serves well, the 5th Amendment explicitly states that no person shall be be held to answer for a crime unless a jury is present nor should be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself. Note that it says no person, it does not say everyone excluding foreign nationals.
The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury…nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property… nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation"(Cornell). The clauses within the Fifth Amendment outline constitutional limits on police procedure. Within them there is protection against self-incrimination, it protects defendants from having to testify if they may incriminate themselves through the testimony. A witness may plead the fifth and not answer to any questioning if they believe it can hurt them (Cornell). The Bill of Rights, which consists of the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution, enumerates certain basic personal liberties.
The Supreme Court has refused to apply strict scrutiny to felon disenfranchisement except where discriminatory intent can be proven”. (The Missing Right) Having the amendment added will protect America from current and future abuses of power. Eric Holder’s proposition along with that of Mark Schmitt’s “Right to Vote” Amendment would not only protect the rights of ex-convicts - they would protect the voting rights of every American citizen. A wise man once said "If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."
Thus, the due process clause does not govern how a state sets the rules for specific disciplinary procedures. For example, in the Bill of Rights it specifies that if a citizen were accused of a crime, then that citizen would have the right to defense from a lawyer. But, suppose the state, or federal, government did not privilege that citizen to a lawyer. Then, that government would have violated this citizen the right to due process that is assured in the constitution. This thriving constitutional controversy has been in the discussions by a majority of the Supreme Court decisions.
Never did the Constitution define or give examples of what a well regulated militia is or types of weapons deemed reasonable for protection. It then should be left to Congress, or more importantly the Supreme Court to interrupt this vague language. I think the government could reasonable regulate guns, without compromising the second amendment, but like Clede I believe Congress should concentrate more on who is using the guns and not guns themselves. Patrick Henry felt that we should preserve our public liberties, and if need be by force. As Patrick Henry stated, "The great objective is that every man be armed."
He further argues that the Fifth Amendment rule against self – incrimination was never intended to forbid all pressures against self – incrimination. Justice White argues that the Fifth Amendment forbids self – incrimination only... ... middle of paper ... ...e provided the criminal/suspect with procedural safeguards sufficient to secure the constitution’s privilege against self- incrimination. The Fifth Amendment rights keeps the criminal from testifying against themselves through questioning. The main purpose of this is to stop the government from compelling a confession through deception. The Amendment may be pleaded for in the court of law if the criminal believes that answering during an interrogation by the police will lead to self – incrimination.
ARGUMENT The defendant, Jared Jones’ self-incriminating statements should be suppressed because his statements were obtained through a violation of his Fifth Amendment right, to not self-incriminate. Officer Watson and Officer Holmes subjected Jared to questioning that satisfied the requirements of a custodial interrogation, in which Jared should have been advised of his constitutional rights. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that “no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Similarly, the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article 22 provides, “that no man ought to be compelled to give evidence against himself in a criminal case."
The Exclusionary Rule was created by the Supreme Court and says that “evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure could not be used against a person in federal court” (Great American Court Cases 360). The Exclusionary rule is considered just because it protects the people’s constitutional rights from being violated and provides a check on the power of law enforcement and state courts. Early in British history, the establishment of the Magna Carta gave its citizens basic human rights such as the right to a fair trial by jury in circumstances of accused misdemeanor. However, this document allowed “general warrant[s which gave consent to arrest accused criminals but did not have limitations on their search or seizure and that] did not expire until t... ... middle of paper ... ...g v. United States , 555 U.S. ___ (2014) available at: http://oyez.org/cases/2000-2014/2008/2008_07_513 (last visited Thursday, November 19, 2014). - - -.