It is a wide held belief that this symbol is beyond the reaches of civil protest and should be worshipped like a deity. The United States Supreme Court has ruled differently about this and the next three court cases will explain why. The first court case that will be discussed is Street v. New York. In 1968 the Supreme Court heard a case in which the defendant, Sydney Street was so outraged over the attempted murder of a civil rights leader, James Meredith and the lack of police investigation of the crime; he burned an American flag in protest and stated “"Yes; that is my flag; I burned it. If they let that happen to Meredith, we don't need an American flag (Street, 2013).” It was against the law in New York to desecrate or speak against the flag; he was arrested, charged, and convicted.
FACTS this lawsuit was brought to the courts for a second time as the plaintiff alleged that because of his religious beliefs he was denied permission to purchase certain religious publications and denied other privileges enjoyed by other prisoners. The first appeal on this case the defendant court affirmed judgment dismissing the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The district court found that the plaintiff had not sustained his burden of showing that this was abuse. So the plaintiff appealed. ISSUE the district court stated that the books the plaintiff wanted was not necessary for the practice of Cooper’s faith.
That attempt was ill fated as well with the eventual police shutdown of the unauthorized site. Running out of options, McCorvey hired attorneys. In 1970, under the pseudonym “Jane Roe”, she sued the Dallas County District Attorney Henry Wade, who represented the State of Texas. The district court later ruled in favor of McCorvey due to the case’s merits, basing their decision on the Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which simply states that just because certain rights are not listed formally doesn't mean they can be violated. Additionally, the 1965 Supreme Court case of Griswold v. Connecticut, which regarded the right to use contraceptives, was used as precedent.
However due to actual risk of Vioxx, Merck & Co. voluntarily withdrew the drug from the market in 2004 (Wolsing Jennifer, p.214). In August 2005, Merck & Co. lost a lawsuit where it was accused for the death of Robert C. Ernst who died of taking Vioxx (Kaufman Marc, p.A.01). Throughout the Vioxx issue, most researchers have focused on the side effects of Vioxx and what consequences it brought, rather than the significance and validity of the evidence used in court. This paper will carefully examine if the scientific evidences used in the Vioxx litigation, including
He made the truth known to the public about the industry's disregard for health and safety during an interview with 60 MINUTES and during a deposition he was compelled to give in an action against the tobacco companies. ! A lawsuit was filed against him by Brown & Williamson because of his public disclosures about the industry's efforts to minimize the health and safety issue of tobacco use. (Louisville-based Brown & Williamson is owned by BAT Industries, Plc, the world's second largest tobacco concern.) The lawsuit was dismissed as a condition of the June 20, 1997 historic $368 billion settlement between the Attorneys General of 40 States and the tobacco industry.
The source of the exclusionary rule comes from the Supreme Court's 1914 verdict in the case of Weeks vs. U.S. The exclusionary rule basically says that illegally collected evidence will not be permitted in court. The rule was first used in the 1961 case of Mapp vs. Ohio. The exclusionary rule comes from the Fourth Amendment's safeguard against illegal searches and seizure of evidence or belongings. The exclusionary rule has typically been utilized to stop prosecutors and law enforcement from unlawfully collecting evidence.
Alfonzo once again claimed that Commerce Clause which is basically where Congress is granted separate power, which Alfonzo thought was a direct violation of the Constitution Of The Unites States. The Fifth Circuit overturned the original conviction by stating the charges and the laws are past the powers of the Congress and in response to that the U.S. government then appealed to the Supreme court. The reason they did this was so the Commerce Laws could stay in effect. The Governments argument was the possession of a firearm on or within a school facility would likely be to commit a act of violence which would effect the school and how it is run and also the well being of the population, and because of all this the government believe that the commerce clause should be upheld. In
The Link between Law, Democracy, Government Policy, and Employee Behavior Introduction: The link between law, democracy, government policy, and employee behavior is far beyond what we can imagine. Society has always been governed by different concepts and values from each. Law, democracy, and governmental policy seem to satisfy the purpose to guide and limit the behavior and practices of the people. Both the principles and importance of these topics have a huge impact on the public and its relation to the criminal justice system as well as its relationship with the private sector of the government. The concepts and values associated with law, democracy, government policy, and employee behavior govern the behavior and practices of the people.
Additionally they claim marijuana’s addictive, interferes with fertility and impairs driving ability. Does alcohol not do the same thing? They go on to say that it also affects the immune system and the brain as well as that medical marijuana is a front for drug legalization and recreational use. Just as on September 4, 2007 Member of the US House of Representatives Mark Souder was quoted as saying “In April 2006, following my request the FDA release an inner agency advisory confirming the smoke marijuana is not medicine because it has a high potential for abuse, has no currently accepted medical use of treatment in the United States and it has a lack of accepted safety for use under medical
The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.