Monday, October 20, 2014
Current events - Supreme Court
This past week in class, we have learned a great deal from another with regards to the role of the Supreme Court in determining policy in the United States. We have learned that our high court serves as an 'ump' of sorts, sifting through various disputes between the states and our federal government. We have also discovered that sometimes, quite shockingly, that pendulum (judicial decisions) had swung in directions we wouldn't really expect (again.. Depending on the judicial interpretation). For homework, I have asked you to find a current Supreme Court case (within the past two years... Maybe even within the past two months) that has dealt with more current disputes between the federal and and state governments. Below, discuss a case you found, where you found it, and the main idea behind the case. Then, discuss the verdict, where it would fall on our class continum (that we drew on the board) and why. Discuss the long term impact that this case has had or will have on American society, and your opinion on the judicial decision. Feel free to respond to each other!! Discuss!! I'm watching... Hehe :)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The Article I read was about the Texas Voting ID Law. This case was ruled in favor of Texas. The case was, Texas govt was trying to change the law for the IDs that were valid at ballots. They wanted to stop accepting certain IDs like a college one. But they still accept gun licenses. Many believe this is a way so that the Republicans in Texas can prevent minorities from voting at local elections. They law is giving more power to the State and it is also weakening the Voter's Right Act which allows colored people the right to vote without an restrictions. This right is now taken away from many minorities. Now because of this law being approve, minorities or people without valid IDs voices won't be heard. Many issues that they face won't be able to be resolved if they can't vote.
ReplyDeleteI agree. It's not fair how this right is taken away from minorities, and how there are less people not being heard all because of strict identification laws.
DeleteThe case I read was the Windsor v. United States. This case was about a same-sex couple Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, with Spyer dying in 2009 and leaving her estate to be claimed by her spouse. When Windsor decided to claim the estate, Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act had denied this because a "spouse" is referred to only a man and a woman. The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of Windsor as it struck down Section 3 of DOMA for being unconstitutional under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause which guarantees of equal protection. After this decision, the federal government recognized same-sex marriages that have been approved by the states. This case falls under for the federal government because now they could rule any states that have banned same-sex marriages as "unconstitutional". I agree with the outcome of this case because marriage equality should be something that everyone has, not be denied. Besides, our society is constantly changing and the younger generation is more accepting to the idea of same-sex couples. Marriage is based on the mutual love and respect between people, not just a man and a woman. With the DOMA being unconstitutional, many same-sex couples could receive the same federal benefits that were denied to them due to the act that was enacted in 1996.
ReplyDeleteI picked the Supreme Court case of Riley v. California. This case was about David Leon Riley who belonged in a Lincoln Park gang of San Diego, California. On August 22, 2009 Riley was stopped for a traffic violations but eventually arrested for possession of firearms. When arrested Riley had his cell phone in his pocket. In his phone a gang unit detective found videos and photographs of Riley making gang signs and other gang indication that determine whether Riley was gang affiliated. Through the information found in his phone, Riley was subsequently tied to the shooting on August 2. Was the evidence found in Riley’s cell phone a violation of his Fourth Amendment, the right to be free from unreasonable searches? The case was ruled in favor of Riley; 9 votes for Riley, 0 votes against. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote the opinion for the unanimous Court. The Court decided that you must have a warrant to search digital data. The Court characterized cellphones as mini computer which is filled with massive amount of private information. This case falls on the continuum close to state. This helps broaden the definition of the Fourth Amendment. This will impact American society in the long term because of the technological advancement. As technology advances, it is important to know your private information on this devices are being protected. I agree with the decision the Court has made because your private information is important to you, and I do not wish to be held against me during Court without my acknowledgement.
ReplyDeleteThe case I read was about the Texas ID Voting Law, i obtained the article from http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ginsburg_s_dissent_in_texas_voter_id_law_supreme_court_order.html . The case was about Texas changing the types of identification a voter could use to vote with. Texas would not accept a college ID but will accept a Gun licence (even though it is Texas). The court went in favor of Texas allowing the restrictions made by Texas in the upcoming elections. this case would favor states rights on the class continuum because the court sided with the sate of Texas in the verdict and they are allowing the sate of Texas do something that is potentially unconstitutional and in violation of the Voting Rights Act. My opinion on the case is that if they can get away with this i wounder what other things Texas might try to get away with.
ReplyDeleteThe case I read was Bond v. United States , the case is about Carol Bond , a woman who after learning that her husband was cheating on her with a friend, Myrlinda Haynes, decided to take revenge on her . Working in a chemical factory Bond obtain a toxic chemical and applied them on Haynes' doorknobs , car door knobs, and mailbox. After receiving a few minor burns, Haynes contracted a private investigator and figured out that the one who place those chemical there was Bond. Bond was then charged with several violation with the Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 , this treaty states that it is unlawful for a person to own, possess, or use toxic chemicals that can cause temporary harm , permanent harm , or death to others. Bond then went wanting to dismiss the case since the act violates the states 10th amendment. The district continued to deny her wanting to dismiss the case and she plead guilty with the knowledge that she could keep on appealing to a higher court. She did so by appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which basically stated that Bond could not appeal , but later the Supreme Court said that she can and the U.S Court of Appeals said that only Congress can enact and enforce that type of act. In a 6-3 decision , the Supreme Court voted with Bond declaring that federal law can not intrude with local laws, and even though they can create a legislation that can enforce these type of treaties they have to respect the federal and local powers. Under the continuum this would fall under the states since this ruling gave them power over the federal government under the 10th amendment when it comes to implementing their laws. I believe that this decision is correct since the federal government didn't over power the states and held that the states and its people are protected under the 10th amendment.
ReplyDeleteI also read the Texas voter ID case. This supreme court case basically anticipates the idea that Texas must use their strict voting rights; meaning that they need proper identification such as passport, or military ID rather than a college ID. Chief justice Ginsburg claims that not everybody in Texas can afford the identification they are in favor of, and most of the people who cannot afford it are either African American or Hispanic, so it can be seen as a case that ties in with racial discrimination as well. Although she says this, the supreme court rules in favor of the state of Texas allowing them to use their strict voting ID rights. Under the continuum, this case would lay under States Rights. I do not agree with the supreme court ruling of this case because it’s not fair that those who cannot afford it will not be able to voice their opinions through the election process. Everybody deserves the chance to vote, and here we see that not everybody is given a fair opportunity. I do agree with some of the points that Chief Ginsburg makes on how it can be seen as discriminatory, and it’s sort of disappointing that until this day there is still some sort of inequality among different races. We should all be entitled to vote, and it should not matter where you stand financially.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/10/ginsburg_s_dissent_in_texas_voter_id_law_supreme_court_order.html
So I also researched the Texas voter ID case.
ReplyDeleteThe decision is such a setback on civil right groups.
The Supreme Court voted for Texas to have stricter ID requirements when voting. These forms of identification include birth certificates, driver's licences, and more. However, not everyone has extra money lying around to obtain copies of these documents. This especially affects people of minority groups.
Although I feel that the Supreme Court was trying to create a safer and more accurate way to vote, the decision just seems to show more discrimination rather than anything else. Anyone should at least have the opportunity to vote regardless of race or income. This is America. Everyone should have the right to vote. To be turned away for not having the money to get a proper ID is ridiculous. It's just like the poll tax except hidden masked under different words.
The case i read was Arizona v. United States. In 2010 , Arizona had taken the lead in the efforts by states to adopt policies that would control many of the aspects of the lives of hundreds of immigrants who had entered the U.S. without their legal documents or permission. The law was challenged by the federal government as unconstitutional, claiming that Arizona was trying to take over the federal government’s superior power to enforce federal immigration laws. The supreme court nullified the sections making it a crime to be in Arizona without legal papers, making it a crime to apply for or get a job in the state, or allowing police to arrest individuals who had committed crimes that could lead to their deportation.By the vote of 5-3, this gave more power to the federal government. I agree with the decision because this was a form of racial bias and no one deserves to be treated that way or arrested because they are missing a few documentation. Some people escape their country for many different reasons and to also get a chance at experiencing the "American Dream". The wise thing to do would be to urge those immigrants to file for citizenship or get the proper legal documentation.
ReplyDeleteI read about United States v. Windsor, also known as the case that struck down DOMA (The Defense of Marriage Act). DOMA was enacted in 1996 during the Clinton administration. For the purposes of federal law, the words "marriage" and "spouse" referred to legal unions between one man and one woman. Since then, many states have authorized same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court held Section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional because it violated principles of equal protection by treating relationships that had equal status under state law differently under federal law. DOMA is unconstitutional under the fifth amendment. Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who died in 2009 were married in 2007 and their marriage was recognized by New York State law. But because it wasn't recognized by the federal government, the government taxed Edith Windsor $363,000 because Thea Spyer left her estate to her spouse. If their marriage was recognized by the federal government the estate would have qualified for a marital exemption, and no taxes would have been imposed. This was a very strange case because while the state recognized their relationship together the federal government didn't, and same sex couples could not have gotten benefits from getting married from the federal government. This case contradicts the people's fifth amendment right, to equal protection under federal law. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Windsor and struck down section 3 of DOMA for being unconstitutional under the fifth amendment. I completely agree with the overall Supreme Courts decision because the federal government and the state government should be on the same page on certain topics. If makes it very difficult to have the state recognize something but not have the federal government recognize it.
ReplyDeleteI watch a video of how Arizona was trying to stop immigrant from voting by asking for more then there proof of citizenship but, The federal government think it restrict old people from voting ! this happen match 18 ,2013 and here a link to the video in case u guys want more information . http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law-jan-june13-scotus_03-18/
ReplyDeleteI have also read the case United States vs Windsor in which Windsor Who had been married to her spouse Thea in which was recognized however when she had to leave the estate her marriage to her recent deceased wife wife was not recognized and so they the federal government imposed 363,000in taxes. Windsor filed a law suit in which would change time. t is surprising how and like Alondra said our world is evolving the future, us have a very conflicting views on topics such as gay marriage then the older generation. The idea of marriage between a man and a men or women and women was unheard of, unnatural. Right now in the 21st century we see same sex couples it is not something that disturbs us or even that we reject it. We welcome it because every person should have the right to marry who they love regardless of the gender. That is our mindset. I find it curious that the constitution isn't revised it causes so many conflicting opinions I understand that it is a hard transition from decades of same sex couples/ bring unnatural but as the 21st century it has changed Same sex marriages now have to worry about benefits, will their children be okay where will everything go to at the end. Will their spouse be okay?
ReplyDeleteThe case I chose was the Voter ID Law in Texas. In this case the Supreme Court ruled to allow Texas the right to enforce the New Voter ID Law. What this law does is that it makes it a requirement for a person to show their ID when they go to a voting center. The reason the court passed this law was because Texas had made it difficult for black and Latin Americans to vote. Therefore, in order to make it so that everyone can vote fairly and equally the Vote ID Law was passed. Sherrilyn Hill President and Counsel for the NAACP Legal Defense Fund accuses Texas for creating a obstacle that will discourage voting. Even the U.S. District Judge calls the law "Unconstitutional burden on the right to vote". The court is serving as an umpire because based on the problems in Texas with the voting prevention of minorities, their decision was to make it so everyone could vote fairly. I do agree with the courts decision because the pout behind it is to have everyone vote and not be discriminated against because everyone has the right to vote. But the problem I see is that people view this as a taxation on voting because what about those who can't afford to get an ID or don't have the proper ID will they be turned away? And this places a huge restriction on the right to vote. You should have to prove to someone you are who you say you are. You are allowed to vote anonymously and this goes against this right completely.
ReplyDeleteI think Eduardo and I did the same case. So what I found was that Arizona was requiring states residents to provide either a driver's license, passport, birth vertificate or a physical proof of citizenship before they can actually vote. The existing federal law only requires for a sworn statement of citizenship on a voter registration form. The supreme Court ruled that Arizona's requirements were conflicting with the Federal Law. Justice ginsburg, said that congress expressly said in the federal law how citizenship isbto be managed. The election clause of rhe constitution actually gives authority to bothstate and federal to regulate elections. Opponents argued that the law unfairly targets minorities, immigrants, and the elderly. The obama administration supports the challenge to the Arizona Law. I disagree with the Arizona's requirements for elections because no one should be unfairly targeted like this case targets minorities and immigrants, etc. States have the right to have some regulations but to a certain extent. The federal gov always stays supreme.
ReplyDeleteI just read an article about the state of Texas and abortion clinics. Texas seems to be in the news a lot.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court ruled that the state law of Texas over these abortion clinics was too strict. The state law placed restrictions and regulations on these clinics, including ones dealing with its facilities/buildings, staff, and equipment. Over twelve clinics would have been closed if not for the Supreme Court's ruling over the state government.
"State officials said the law’s requirements were needed to protect women’s health. Abortion providers said the regulations were expensive, unnecessary and a ruse meant to put many of them out of business." Quotes the NY Times article.
I agree with the Supreme Court's decision on this case. It would be frightening to even think about the outcome of the opposite ruling. Many women would not be able to reach a clinic within a reasonable distance of their residence. These clinics provide women and their families with an option in case they are not prepared to care for a newborn child.
[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/26/supreme-court-doma-decision_n_3454811.html]
ReplyDeleteI chose the case that struck down DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA was signed by President Bill Clinton in 1996 and it defined marriage as one only between a man and a woman and no one else. This denied same sex couples the federal rights granted to a straight couple. One of the many federal rights granted by marriage are property rights. When Thea Spyer died, her wife Edie Windsor was denied these rights due to DOMA. The court ruled in favor of Windsor using the equal protection clause, saying everyone is guaranteed equal protection under the law. This case forced the federal government to recognize same sex marriage and is considered a huge victory in the LGBT community. The impact of case paved a way for the legalization of same sex marriage in all states. I side with the decision of this case because not only straight couples should be granted the right to marriage. That should be a given right to everyone despite sexual orientation. Now with DOMA ruled unconstitutional, same sex couples are now guaranteed marriage rights under the federal law. This case lifted the ban on same sex marriage and reminds that the federal government is law.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/25/justice/scotus-arizona-law/
ReplyDeleteI chose the Arizona immigration law dispute. In this instance, Arizona state wanted to enforce stricter immigration laws while the federal government didnt want something so harsh. Federal courts blocked four elements of the state's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Paul Clement, the lawyer for Arizona argued that the federal government isnt doing enough to deal with immigration problems in states like Arizona. In this case the supreme court is acting as the ump, deciding to stop the states from enacting stricter immigration laws even though a lot of people in those states want harsher immigration laws. One of Arizona's provisions was the ability for law enforcement to stop and check anyone for legal papers just because they "looked suspicious". This was a very controversial provision because it reflected a bias toward anyone who is not white.