Thus, the Court holds that, by the indistinguishable nature of the characteristics and duties of the members and their aides, the protection provided by the Speech and Debate Clause should be extended to the aides. The Court adds one caveat: aides are exempt from grand jury questioning only if a member of Congress invokes the privilege on their behalf. The Court interprets the Speech
In the case Marbury v. Madison the Supreme Court invalidated a law, passed by Congress, by declaring an act unconstitutional for the first time. The doctrine of Judicial Review was set forth by this case. The Court did not want to show vulnerability of its judicial prestige so it only asserted minimal power. Marshall’s decision suggests he was aware of the long-term objective to enhance judicial powers and diminish state autonomy. In Fletcher v. Peck in 1810 Marshall was ready to declare a state law unconstitutional.
Q: The Texas high court held that the expert testimony relied upon the plaintiffs to establish their case was not reliable. Why did the court not order a new trial? After the cases have been presented, but before the case goes to the jury, a party may request that the court enter a judgment and it’s favor because there is not legally sufficient evidence on which a jury cannot find for the other party. The defense is more likely to prevail on such motion. That is, the judge holds that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient grounds, even what is claim is true, to be able to win a verdict.
And the finally precedent in this case is Article II of the U.S. Constitution because this is where it states that a single President responsible for the actions of the Executive Branch as a whole. 5) There is no “official” action that is being challenged. Paula Jones simply wants to be able to sue President Clinton without having to wait until the end of his term 6) At issue is weather or not the separation of powers or the need for confidentiality of high-level information can justify an unqualified Presidential immunity from a court of law. 7) For a separation of powers reason, is a serving President entitled to immunity from civil litigation that came from events that happened before he took office?
Provide the citation for the United States Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The citation is Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). 6.) What effect did the United States Supreme Courts have on the Texas statute? The Supreme Court stated that the statue did not meet the states goal of preventing breaches of peace because there was already a Texas statute which prohibited all breaches of the peace.
Thus in a effort to prevent immigration laws from producing excessively harsh effects, Congress implemented provisions in the Immigration and Nationality Act (the Act) under which the Attorney General may, at his discretion, suspend an alien’s deportation. 8 U.S.C §§ 1254(a)(1) (…the Attorney General may, in his discretion, suspend deportation…). This discretion comes at a high burden for the alien. The burden is on the alien to prove that deportation will result
Exclusionary Rule Evaluation In the 18th century the exclusionary rule under common law did not allow coerced confessions of defendants to be admitted in trial courts. It did not protect defendants from evidence that government officials seized during illegal searches from trials. Weeks v. United States (1914) held that the exclusionary rule was a part of the Fourth Amendment, and any illegally seized evidence cannot be used against the defendant. The decision made the exclusionary rule a constitutional requirement, but it did not bind states. Incorporating the rule to the state level was initiated in 1961 by way of the opinion of Mapp v. Ohio.
ROMER v. EVANS (1996) In 1992, Colorado voters adopted Amendment 2 to their State Constitution preventing any level of government to take action designed to protect persons from discrimination based on their "homosexual, lesbian, or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships." In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court in 1996 concluded that the amendment violates the Equal Protection Clause because it imposes a disability on homosexuals without a legitimate state interest. The Court reasoned that the purpose of this Amendment “seems inexplicable by anything but animus toward the class it affects,” thus lacking a rational relationship to legitimate state interests. Supreme Court Justice Kennedy argued that protection offered by
The Defendants argued that a federal common-law cause of action to abate GHG emissions does not exist, that the claims raised political questions unfit for adjudication by the courts, that Congress has displaced any possible federal common-law cause of action seeking regulations of GHG emissions, and that Plaintiffs did not have standing to sue on account of global warming.15 Relying on Baker v. Carr, the district court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ suits as presenting non-justiciable political questions.16 In Baker, the United States Supreme Court described the test of whether a case is justiciable, in light of the separation of powers doctrine, as “whether the duty asserted can be judicially identified and its breach judicially determined, and whether protection for the right asserted can be judicially molded.”17 Courts recognized six factors as
Legal defenses can have a signification effect on disposition of the case. Factual Defense In a criminal trial when factual defense is used the defendant and attorney are claiming to the courts the defendant had nothing to do with the crime which took place. The defendant is insisting he or she is not to be held criminally liable for the charges brought forth by the state. The defendant may say he or she was in was not in the location of the crime at the time of the crime and may have an alibi as evidence (Schmalleger, Hall, Dolatowski, 2010). Legal Defense Justification and excuse is the two forms of legal defense.