Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Skinner V. Oklahoma case analysis
Skinner V. Oklahoma case analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Skinner V. Oklahoma case analysis
The Court has long recognized that the right to procreate is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the Court overturned a state statute that required mandatory sterilization of any person that was convicted of certain habitual crimes. The Court in Skinner states that the right to procreate was a fundamental right; the Court limited the state’s power to enforce involuntary sterilization. Jack Skinner was convicted for stealing chickens and convicted twice for armed robbery and the Court was attempted to impose sterilization for these offenses. Mr. Skinner was prosecuted under an Oklahoma statute “providing that any criminal convicted on two or more occasions from crimes involving moral turpitude would
The Bryan v McPherson case is in reference to the use of a Taser gun. Carl Bryan was stopped by Coronado Police Department Officer McPherson for not wearing his seatbelt. Bryan was irate with himself for not putting it back on after being stopped and cited by the California Highway Patrol for speeding just a short time prior to encountering Officer McPherson. Officer McPherson stated that Mr. Bryan was acting irrational, not listening to verbal commands, and exited his vehicle after being told to stay in his vehicle. “Then, without any warning, Officer McPherson shot Bryan with his ModelX26 Taser gun” (Wu, 2010, p. 365). As a result of being shot with a Taser, he fell to the asphalt face first causing severe damage to his teeth and bruising
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Legal Case Brief: Bland v. Roberts (4th Cir. 2013). Olivia Johnson JOUR/SPCH 3060 April 1, 2014. Bland v. Roberts, No. 12-1671, Order & Opinion (4th Cir., Sept. 18, 2013), available at:http://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/121671.pdf (last visited Apr. 4, 2014). Nature of the Case: First Amendment lawsuit on appeal from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, seeking compensation for lost front/back pay or reinstatement of former positions. Facts: Sheriff B.J. Roberts ran for reelection against opponent, Jim Adams, in 2009.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Lynch vs. Clarke (1844) was the most important case before the passage of the Fourteenth amendment dealing with this matter. It involved the discussion of whether Julia Lynch was a citizen or not. The nature of this case meant that she must either have been born a natural born citizen because she was born to her parents, that although were aliens, on U.S. soil, or that she was not a citizen at all because her parents were aliens regardless of the place of her birth that she had never made any attempt to be naturalized. The court ruled in her favor. The ruling established that under the common law of England, Julia Lunch would be considered a natural born citizen of the U.S., the common law of England formed the basis
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
No other element of the Women’s Rights Movement has generated as much controversy as the debate over reproductive rights. As the movement gained momentum so did the demand for birth control, sex education, family planning and the repeal of all abortion laws. On January 22, 1973 the Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision which declared abortion "fundamental right.” The ruling recognized the right of the individual “to be free from unwanted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.” (US Supreme Court, 1973) This federal-level ruling took effect, legalizing abortion for all women nationwide.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
Also the prime suspect had other charges pending against him such as possession of illegal substances and the homeowner of the vacant crime scene said the man was a recovering addict. During the conversation with the officers Johnson refused to give up his DNA sample. The man profess he had not commit any murders and did not commit any crimes regarding the matter. Officers then compel him to give his DNA sample with a warrant compelling him to follow the order. Moreover, after the crime was committed it was discovered that Johnson try to sell one of the victims’ cell phone. He was trying to get rid of the evidence that could implement him on the crime. Witness came forward to verify this story that Johnson indeed try to sell the cell phone for cash. In addition, witness said that Johnson try to be the pimp of the victims that he was
Tarlton v. Clark is a case in which the courts refused to rehear the case regarding the inmates alleged right to a conjugal visit. The courts held in Tarlton that the conjugal visits fail to reach a level which would be a constitutional right. Seeing this has not deterred inmates from claiming eighth amendment violations due to denial of conjugal visit requests. Anderson v. Vasquez was a case in which death row inmates claimed a violation of their eighth amendment rights for denial of conjugal visits, also adding that they have been denied the right to preserve sperm for artificial insemination for their spouses. While adding this extra condition may appear to present a new issue; the courts held that because the original complaint did not list the denial of artificial insemination it would not be considered as a pretext to hear the case. In doing so the courts showed that said inmates never requested to preserve their sperm through prison officials and restated that inmates do not have a constitutional right to conjugal visits
The Roe vs. Wade decision held that a woman, with her doctor, could choose abortion in earlier months of pregnancy without restriction, and with restrictions in later months, based on the right to privacy. It invalidated all state laws limiting women's access to abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy based on the Ninth Amendment to the United States Constitution, a part of the Bill of Rights. The Court's decision in this case was that the Ninth Amendment, "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy.
The 1973 Supreme Court decision in the case of Roe vs. Wade is the foundation for our current abortion policy as well as the cause of so much controversy today. Though always an issue, nothing prior can compare to the momentum that it has now. In the span of 30 years since the ruling, the combination of science, morals and religion have spun off numerous sub-issues to the effect that people have been left either aligned to one side of the argument, or caught in the middle, unable to choose. The key issue at hand is whether the 1973 ruling of Roe vs. Wade should be upheld or should all abortions be illegal. The issue is so divisive because abortion brings up closely related but unresolved moral issues, and tries to bring a legal answer to them. The consequences would be monumental for those who have a stake in a resulting decision. Women’s rights, first and foremost, would be affected because many women in the pro-choice movement believe this decision is a reflection of the amount of power the government should have over the individual, women in particular. They would take the results as a major setback in the women’s rights movement should abortion become illegal. Pro-life groups see this as a moral debate over life, with the elimination of abortion meaning that the fetus has been recognized as a living human being with rights like any other. Religious advocates, particularly those siding with the pro-life movement see the attitude towards abortion as a reflection of sexual permissiveness in the American people. As for the American people themselves, while having strong feelings about abortion, are not ready or willing to get rid of it. Though both sides push for common things like better sex education for th...