Question 12 List the key points in the Pickering Case (cite your answer)and then respond to the following question: Is it right to force a person to trade away constitutional rights as a condition of employment Marvin Pickering, the appellant of the Pickering v. Board of Education, was a high school teacher at Township High School District 205, Will County, Illinois. He sent a letter to the local newspaper exposing the Boards allocation of funds for the school. In his letter he criticized them for putting forth more money to the athletic programs than to the educational programs .In court he argued that his writing of the letter was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, yet supposedly the letter contained fabricated statements and was going to disturb the schools positive progress and administration. The Board rejected his argument and ruled in the schools favor. Unfortunately, Mr. Pickering was removed from his teaching position but he did not stop fighting for his case.
IMMIGRATION OUTLINE INA codified in Title 8 of the US Code, enforced by INS AUTHORITY TO REGULATE IMMIGRATION CONSTITUTION Govn’t of enumerated powers… can only do what is necessary and proper • Commerce Art I§8cl.3 – no state power to interfere o Migration is commerce, state statute making it a crime to bring indigent person into state is unconstitutional. • Naturalization – Art I§8cl.4 constitution grants power for uniform rule implies regulation? o Prevents confusion of separate state laws • War power – Art.I§8cl.11 authority to stop entry and expel enemy aliens • Migration and Importation Art I §9 cl.1– was really attempt to protect slave trade • Foreign Affairs Power – associate
Two Jehovah's Witness school children, ages 10 and 12, Lillian and William Gobitis were suspended from school for refusing to salute the American flag in Minersville, Pennsylvania. The Gobitis children were Jehovah's Witnesses; they believed that such a gesture of respect for the flag was forbidden by their religion. Their parents claimed that the children's' due process rights had been violated by the school district, they believed their children had the right to refuse to say the Pledge. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court upheld the mandatory flag salute The Court held that the state's interest in "national cohesion" was "inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values" and that national unity was the idea of national security. The court found that the flag was an important symbol of national unity and that school children should respect and salute
The Tinker Standard was a decision by the United States Supreme Court that defined the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine weather a school's disciplinary actions violates student's first amendment rights. The Tinker Standard came about in December of 1965 in Des Moines, Iowa when John F. Tinker younger sister Mary Beth Tinker and friend Christopher Eckhardt decided to wear black armbands to their schools in protest of the Vietnam War and supporting the Christmas Truce called for by Senator Robert F. Kennedy. The principles of Des Moines previously adopted a policy that restricted students from wearing armbands to school. Any student who failed to follow the policy would be sent home immediately and suspended until they decided to follow the schools policy.
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
When school is in session, school officials have control over students and their behavior. However, the power of public school officials over students is not supreme. Public schools are under the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment which gives citizens protection of their individual liberties from governmental interference. Public school officials must obey the demands of the Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled in the 1943 case West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette that school officials violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments when they punished students and their parents for the students’ refusal to salute to the American flag.
The Supreme Court has squarely held that the Fifth Amendment provides no rights to non-citizens who have no established connection to the country and who are held outside sovereign United States territory. See Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S; at 269 ("[W]e have rejected the claim that aliens are entitled to Fifth Amendment rights . outside the sovereign territory of the United States."). See also Zadvydas v. Davis, 533 U.S. 678, 693 (2001) ("It is well established that certain constitutional protections[, such as the Fifth Amendment,] available to persons inside the United States are unavailable to aliens outside of our
It applies to evidence gained from an unreasonable search or seizure in violation of the Fourth Amendment (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961). If evidence falls within the scope of the exclusionary rule led law enforcement to other evidence, which they would not otherwise have located, then the exclusionary rule applies to the related evidence found subsequent to the excluded evidence as well. Such subsequent evidence has taken on the name of “fruit of the poisonous tree” (Silverthorne Lumber Co. v. United States, 1920). The Exclusionary Rule is a court-created remedy and deterrent, not an independent constitutional right. Courts will not apply the rule to exclude illegally gathered evidence where the costs of exclusion outweigh its deterrent or remedial benefits.
Australia stands alone internationally in perpetrating this injustice. The Migration Litigation Reform Act 2005 (Cth) excludes asylum seekers from their legal rights. It grants the Court the ability to deliver judgment on any issue, including the case as a whole, if they believe it has no reasonable grounds for success. This may seem reasonable, however the definition of ‘no reasonable grounds for success’ is as follows: For the purposes of [these sections], a defence or a proceeding or part of a proceeding need not be: (a) hopeless; or (b) bound to fail; for it to have no reasonable prospect of
(C) W ill the certification form be available to homeschooled applicants? 3 (A) and (B) The Texas Supreme Court, in the case of Texas Education Agency v. Leeper, 893 S.W. 2d 432 (1994), held that “Texas law does not require children who are taught in legitimate home schools to attend public schools.” Id. at 435. The Court viewed legitimate home schools as those encompassing the teaching, in a bona fide manner, of “a curriculum designed to meet certain basic educational goals, including a study of good citizenship.” Id.