Justice Brennan Case Study

Litigant Henry Xavier Kennedy claims the liable decision in a jury trial for the wrongdoing of first degree fire related crime in the September 23, 1981 flame which leveled his log lodge. He guarantees that the jury charges, or now and again called directions to the jury by the judge, were mistaken in a few distinct ways and that there was insufficient proof to convict him of the charge. Kennedy 's building business was moderate, and he had two home loans on the lodge which was the building being referred to. He had restored a protection approach on the building for $40,000 days prior. Kennedy had told agents that he had a strong plausible excuse from 12:00 midnight until 4:00 a.m. which would dispose of him from any wrongdoing since he was

Kaelea Tullly Moran v. Burbine Case When detained by the Police in Cranston, Rhode Island for breaking and entering Brian Burine was immediately given his Miranda Rights and he denied his right to a lawyer. Though the entire process the piece seemed to have obtained evidence they Mr. Burbine had committed a murder in near by providence Rhode Island. He confessed to the breaking and entering and tot the murder when he waved his rights. Because Mr. Burbine’s sister knew he had an appointment with a certain lawyer she called his office but he specifically was not available but his partner was.

Case Name: Andrea v Clarence To determine if the arrest of Clarence was lawful, one must first determine if the police officers were trespassing at the time of the arrest. Did the police officers trespass on another ’s land in order to arrest Clarence? The police officers would be found to have trespassed if it was established that; • The action was direct and intentional • The police officers entered and/or remained on another’s land • The police officers were present on the land without consent or lawful justification

As New York Times v. Sullivan began in 1960 and continued through 1964, the South overflowed with racial tensions. Just one month before the Times published “Heed Their Rising Voices” in 1960, a student-sit-in at a Woolworth lunch counter sparked the sit-in movement that spread throughout the Deep South. Not long after that, the Freedom Riders boarded buses across the Southern States in ‘62 and faced violence from the Ku Klux Klan, which only provoked more protests. This situation attracted the attention of both the media and the Court. The “Heed Their Rising Voices” ad boldly summarized: “Again and again the Southern violators have answered Dr. King’s peaceful protests with intimida-tion and violence.”

After reviewing Justice Brennan’s dissenting opinion, I cannot agree with his argument that a conducting a protective sweep surpasses the purpose of the Terry v. Ohio decision. Justice Brennan agreed that a protective sweep was not a full-blown search, but it was much more intrusive than a limited pat down for weapons or the frisk of an automobile (Sifferlen, 1991). Also, Justice Brennan also stated he believed officers’ should possess probable cause to initiate a protective sweep of a home (Sifferlen, 1991). The Terry v. Ohio decision permits law enforcement officers to perform a pat down of the outer clothing, when the officer has reasonable suspicion to believe the subject he or she is dealing with, is armed and dangerous (Hall, 2015). The main purpose of Terry v. Ohio decision is to locate weapons that may be used to hurt the

For example, a man who was the lone dissenter, Justice John Marshall Harlan argued that constitution is colorblind because in the Civil Right citizens are equal each other even they are black or white. Not only that, Harland did not agree that legislature could not distinguish the race between people which involve civil right, he said that the justices did not deserved to hold the law when they were senseless. Despite Plessy and his lawyers provided all the argument about his case that him did not violation the law, they still could not change whatever the court decided about the Separate Car Act. The court showed that the Louisiana can process the law Separate Car Act.

On an observation paper about the Constitution, Mercy Otis Warren wrote that “There is no security in the system either for the rights of conscience or the liberty of the press.” (Document 2) Which in simpler terms meant that there was no protection for the people’s rights. And in even simpler terms, he was saying that the Constitution was worse than modern art. Not only did he state this in the article, he also said that the executive and the legislative branch were “so dangerously blended that they give just a cause for alarm.”

Court Cases Response Paper The main idea of the first essay, dealing with the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, is that the U.S. Constitution must be read with a loose interpretation because if the Constitution contained “an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind” (66). The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the reoccurring issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the state of Maryland attempted to place a tax on the Second Bank of the United States and it was being determined if Congress could indeed create said bank. Maryland believed that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution it had the right to tax the bank.

In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) was created to regulate the financing of political campaigns. According to the Federal Election Commission’s website, “the BCRA, and FEC rules, contain provisions related to television and radio ads that refer to a clearly identified federal candidate and are distributed (targeted) to the relevant electorate within a particular time period before an election” ( Federal Election Commission, n.d.). These ads are defined as electioneering communications. Characteristics of electioneering communication are: the communication refers to a clearly identified candidate for federal office, the ad is publicly distributed on radio or television, the ad is distributed during a specific time period before

Rehnquist states that just because a person claims that he is only writing an opinion, does not mean that people are hurt any less than had they not noted it was an opinion. The opinion goes on to say that there is no need to define a protection of opinions in order to guarantee freedom of expression. Brennan begins his dissent by noting that he agrees with a number of the points made by Rehnquist, including the guidelines set regarding the protection of opinions. However, he disagrees with how Rehnquist judged the actual cased based on these rules.

Martin Luther King Jr. This civil case evolved when the New York Times published an advertisement entitled, “Heed Their Rising Voices” published on March 9, 1960 and paid for by the “Committee to defend Martin Luther King Jr. and the struggle for Freedom in the South” which implicated Sullivan as being against the civil liberties of the black community in Alabama. The plaintiff claims that his reputation was slandered due to the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech. A jury in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County granted $500,000 to Sullivan. $500,000 was the full amount claimed against the petitioners.

Introduction Freedom of speech is a luxury afforded to every American citizen, however oftentimes that particular freedom may come with a cost. Both Roth and Sinderman were professors at institutions of higher education who spoke out in regards to their dissatisfaction with their institutions and in return, their contracts were not renewed for their positions. Their former places of employment did not directly link the actions of their employees to the termination; however, both Roth and Sinderman believed that speaking out led to the cause of their termination. Both of these cases introduced a clearer definition on what it means to be a tenured and non-tenured employee as it relates to the 14th Amendment. The term tenured can vary by the place of employment.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke at Georgetown University Law Center about freedom of speech on campuses or lack thereof. He described, from his perspective, how he felt college campuses needed more allowance of free speech, regardless of who it was coming from. The LA Times has expressed that even though his words are true, they worry the message will be misinterpreted because of who Sessions works under and his more conservative views. In Jeff Sessions’ address to Georgetown University Law Center, he claimed that freedom of thought and expression were under attack on college campuses and are beginning to turn into an “echo chamber of political correctness and homogeneous thought”.

The court noted that the material that Miller distributed by Miller was not protected under the first Amendment. The court said that the materials Miller distributed were offensive to people, therefore violates the California Statute. (“Miller v. California. ")This is a similar argument that is used

If we fail to question the validity of these decisions then we are empowering the Court to usurp powers not guaranteed by the Constitution itself. Brennan maintained, “judicial power resides in the authority to give meaning to the Constitution, the debate is really a debate about how to read the text, about constraints on what is legitimate interpretation.” For Lincoln it was the duty of all citizens to interpret the Constitution that right should not be reserved for the select few members of the Supreme Court.