They said that the form of suspension was necessary to prevent the disturbance of school activities. Facing the verdict, they appealed their case to the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. There was a tie vote in the Court of Appeals. This allowed the District Court’s ruling. Disappointed, the Tinker’s appealed their case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution involving the clause of double jeopardy states that no person shall “be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…” This statement gives no right to the government to prosecute or punish a criminal for the same offense. Going through trial in a case is not only financially straining for both the court and the individual but also emotionally. There are three conditions necessary for a defendant to have protection under double jeopardy against a second prosecution. The earlier prosecution must progress to the point of jeopardy attachment. Second, a prosecution must then involve the same offense.
Despite the increased responsibility and independence the senate became more subservient to him, “Though at first the senate showed real independence, it soon realised the risk of encroaching too far” (Scullard). This was due to the fact of the growing treason trials and Sejanus’ influence, senators afraid of their safety began to win favour by sycophancy. Whilst through his reserved temperament and ambiguous instructions led confusion to the senate steering towards deterioration, Tacitus notes he remarked them “men fit to be slaves”. This declining power of the senate under Tiberius became more obvious when he administered the empire from Capri failing to create the diarchic balance, Scullard writes “Tiberius had tried and failed and his failure was made irremediable by his retirement to Capri” illustrating the impact on Princeps becoming more dominating issuing imperial
Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.proxy- library.ashford.edu/ehost/detail?vid=6&sid=dbd5da4d-7de8-4f43-a782- 34a1b887f22d%40sessionmgr113&hid=117&bdata=JkF1dGhUeXBlPWlwLGNwaWQm Y3VzdGlkPXM4ODU2ODk3JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=aph&AN=86 410593 Wattenberg, B. (Writer). (2000). 1930-1960 [Television series episode]. In A. Walworth (Executive producer), The First Measured Century: The Other Way of Looking at American History.
Business Research Ethics RES/351 May 28, 2012 Negussie Nega, M.A., DM What unethical research behavior was involved? In 2002 Citigroup Inc. was part of a lawsuit where analyst released biased information concerning stocks to the investors causing many individuals to lose money. The memo stated the analyst was reluctant to release the information because they fear a backlash from the investment bankers. The unethical behavior in the article was that several securities firm violated a basic ethics code when the research department doctored number that misleads the investors. The investors purchased stock based on tainted research.
Individuals, coaches, and clubs, have brought equal protection claims against many institutions having selfishly destroyed men’s teams, but courts seem to be reluctant. For a valid equal protection claim (EPC), "a plaintiff must allege in the pleadings that the government intentionally discriminated against [them] by classifying him or her for different treatment under the law than one similarly situated" (Bentley pg. 9). This notion seems to be paradoxical, having courts decisions endorsing the elimination of men’s games. There is a continuing rejection of court cases involving the violations of Title IX using the EPC method, proving that reform is necessary.
When it comes to the Alton Logan case there is an automatic red flag thrown up on the attorneys decision to remain silent and a lot of critical comments are being thrown toward the attorneys because most of us find this silence by the attorneys to be unacceptable and very unmoral. When we start to read the details of this case we could easily begin saying that the two lawyers who represented Andrew Wislon should have spoke up and that saving an innocent man was more important than the attorney-client privilege law but then again it is easy to argue that the lawyers did the right thing by not breaking the attorney- client privilege law and if you’re willing to keep an open mind and try and see where these two lawyers are coming from in this moral decision they made, you might be swayed a different direction or at least understand the attorneys decision a little
The President went forward to accuse the Democrats for conspiring to remove him from office because he had refused to boost their high support prices. Consequently, he admitted for not supervising his campaign staff adequately thereby leading to the Watergate scandal. During the televised speech, the President was noted to be nervous and was even misspelling some of his words but he still managed to control himself and plead his
The charges were essentially trumped up, but Socrates was a controversial figure in the city. Also, his behavior at the trial did not make the jury very happy. The jury first voted on his guilt or innocence, and that vote was pretty close, but the majority voted that he was guilty. Then, he was given an opportunity to suggest a punishment, and his speech at that point apparently angered many of the jurors. Many of those who had initially voted for his innocence now voted for capital punishment.His suggestions for punishment included: being awarded a pension from the government for performing a public service and paying a very small fine.
Even though they were simply accused of having left wing views, but it could not be proven. Others tried to use the amendment to avoid being held in contempt of congress, they were black listed. Many of them were unable to return to their what would have been successful careers. People were jailed, blacklisted; thus suffered financial issues due to loss of employment and even had their passports revoked based on accusations that couldn’t be prove nor for fear they would try to over throw the government just because they had a different political view. Many of these people were innocent of even opposing the government or acting on their views if they did oppose.