Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America. He said that the right to privacy is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right should not be taken away from the persons by the state. In another ruling ten days after the first one, J. William in ACLU vs Clapper arrived at a diametrically opposite decision with a different reasoning. The judge appreciated the right to privacy as envisioned under the constitution but argued that the value of intelligence outweighed the right.
On March 6, 1996, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Compassion in Dying v. Washington held that preventing a competent adult from seeking physician assistance in committing suicide interfered with an individual's liberty interest and, therefore, violates an individual's substantive due process rights. Less than a month later in a similar case, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Quill v. Vacco held that the New York statute criminalizing assisted suicide violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the state has no rational or legitimate interest in preventing a mentally competent terminally ill patient in the final stage of his or her illness from taking a lethal dose of a physician-prescribed medication. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both decisions; the Washington case became known as Washington v. Glucksberg. On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on suicide is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, states are free to decide for themselves whether to allow physician-assisted suicide.
In prohibiting that deprivation, the Constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty. Liberty in each of its phases has its history and connotation. Liberty under the Constitution is thus necessarily subject to the restraints of due process, and regulation which is reasonable in relation to its subject and is adopted in the interests of the community is due process" (449). The court ruled that the minimum wage law did not violate due process. The State of Washington thinks that it is unlawful to employ women workers in any industry within the state where the wages are not adequate for
(Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case. Emerson argued that the “liberty” part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was too broad to encompass the right to privacy that allowed married couples to get information and use birth control. The court struck down the Connecticut law saying that it violated the right of privacy protected by the US Constitution. (Ivers, p.33) According to the 53-32 of the General Statutes of Connecticut provided that "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned." and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut states “Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
They soon filed a suit in a New York State court to banned the prayer,they kept on insisting that the use of this prayer in the public schools was contrary to their own and their children's beliefs, religions, or religious practices. The separation of church and state says that government should stay out of the business of enforcing any religious activities no matter what the case is. The Board of education's prayer is quite simple and it violates the 1st Amendment and because of this should be banned
The Court argued that the constitutional right to privacy was limited to matters relating to “marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, and child rearing education.” The publication of records of official acts, such as arrests, did not fall under the rubric of privacy rights. Reputation alone is not constitutionally protected interest. The three justices (minority opinion) disagreed with the findings of the majority. The dissenting opinion reasoned that the decision justified that intrusive action defamed and stigmatized the respondent as a criminal. Justice Brennan, writing for the minority, reasoned an illegitimate and improper enforcement of law that assaulted the constitution (Chicago Kent College of
Reason for the Exclusionary Rule The exclusionary rule was created to protect innocent people from being harassed from law enforcement. The exclusionary rule is judge made law and has been around since the beginning of the 1900’s. The Supreme Court ruled that illegal searches conducted by law enforcement officials should not be allowed in court because it was a breach of a person’s fourth amendment. This rule prevents officers from misconduct. Cost and Benefits When determining the cost/benefit analysis to the exclusionary rule, one must take into consideration the outcome.
First Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution “CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES” ( CORNELL, 2013, P.1) “First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition (First Amendment,
But, is pornography really that harmful? There are many reasons why the government is having trouble putting restrictions on pornography. As Cynthia Stark states in Social Theory and Practice," just because some find certain materials offensive is not a sufficient reason for restricting those materials." There has to be proper grounds for making such laws to prevent pornography distribution because either way you look at it, it goes against the free speech laws of the first amendment. Nadine Strossen of the ACLU had a good point when she said "the First Amendment contains no exception for sexual speech.