The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution: a. The most important rule of law is the U.S. Constitution. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution places limits on the power of the police to make arrests, search people and their property, and seize objects and contraband (such as illegal drugs or weapons). These limits are the bedrock of search and seizure law. The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[1] (Constitution, 1789).” b.
In Arizona, A person is guilty of trespassing if he is present on any public or private land in the state and does not have his or her Alien Registration card or has failed to register. There is no such provision under Alabama’s law. Under both laws, it is unlawful to hire or pick up passengers for work if your actions impede the normal flow of traffic. Under both laws it is unlawful to conceal, harbor or shield or attempt to shield an alien from detection, including any building or means of transportation. Alabama’s law states that no court shall enforce the terms, or regard as valid, any contract between an alien and a party if the party knew at the time that the alien was unlawfully present in the United States.
In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. 4) There are a few precedents that contributed greatly to the case. First, Nixon v. Fitzgerald explained “the sphere of protected action must be related closely to the immunity’s justifying purpose.” Secondly, Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer made it to when the President takes official action; the court has the authority to determine whether he has acted within the law. Thirdly, U.S. v. Nixon held that a subpoena duces tecum could be directed to the President. 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.
The petitioner has never previously been adjudicated guilty of a criminal offense or a comparable ordinance violation nor adjudicated delinquent for committing a felony or a misdemeanor specified in section 943.051(3)(b), Florida Statutes. 2. The petitioner was not adjudicated guilty of nor adjudicated delinquent for committing any of the acts stemming from the arrest or criminal activity to which the instant petition pertains. 3. The petitioner has not secured a prior records expunction or sealing.
The court rejected Scott’s appeal, referring it to that African American doesn’t have any rights under the Constitution. The decision was positivity written down by the government explaining the power of the people and their property. The government stated that the power should not exercise others; they should not have power over the person and his property. No laws or traditions upon the relation between the slave and the master and can be overruled by the power of the government. The government had no right to take away the right of the American citizen that he or she had reserved by the Constitution.
Johnson appealed his conviction all the way to the Supreme Court. Robert Justin Goldstein wrote a 272-page book on this issue examining this milestone case in America’s history, Flag Burning & Free Speech: The Case of Texas v. Johnson. The book was published in November 2000. He depicts both sides of the intense case with true trial evidence. His thesis throughout the book: “Is burning the American flag as an act of protest protected by the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech.” Goldstein takes us from the 1989 incident that ignited the national controversy back to the origins of the flag as a symbol of America’s liberty and democracy.
The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights). Freedom of speech is a good example of the limitations we have as US citizens because we are not permitted to use that amendment if it affects public safety. For example, we are not allowed to say that we have a bomb in an airplane when it is not true. As long as it does not provoke any other consequences in other people we can use the first amendment. The second amendment works the same way; we have the right to have a gun as long as it does not interfere with public safety,
One of the major points against gun control is the violation of your second amendment rights, you have the right to keep and bear arms for personal protection. This paper will show there is no common sense in banning all firearms as a means gun control and it leaves law abiding citizens increasingly vulnerable to violent crimes. No Common Sense in Gun Control Over the past forty years, legislators have spent a lot of time, effort and revenue on legislation regarding gun control. Gun control advocates insist that increased gun control will lower the soaring crime rates of the early 70's. However, “recent research on the prevalence of defensive gun use has prompted growing concern that government efforts to regulate gun ownership and use may be counterproductive” (Ludwig, 2000, p. 363).
Croson Defendant(s): City of Richmond Prior Proceedings: J.A. Croson sued the city in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia challenging the City of Richmond's ordinance under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which states that, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” The District Court upheld the ordinance, however, when Croson appealed to the Fourth District Circuit Court, the court first affirmed the lower court's decision. Then when the decision was sent to the state's Supreme Court for further review, the Court was in favor of Croson. Facts of the case: In 1983, the City of Richmond, Virginia, with response to affirmative action ideals, created a local ordinance that required non-minority-owned contractors receiving city construction contracts to “set-aside” 30% of the subcontracting work for minority contractors. This was based on the fact that, for five years prior to the “set-aside” program, less than 1% of city construction contracts were awarded to minority contractors, despite there being a 50% minority population in Richmond, along with other factors.
On June 19, 1963, President John F. Kennedy sent comprehensive civil rights legislation to Congress, asking it to “make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law (Cornell, 2014).” However, there was stiff political and social opposition to the legislation (Cornell, 2014). Following President Kennedy's assassination in November, 1963, President Johnson continued to support the legislation, saying that “no eulogy could more eloquently honor Kennedy's memory than the earliest possible passage of the civil rights bill for which he fought so long (Cornell, 2014).” Finally, and after much compromise, President Johnson signed into law the Civil Rights Act of 1964 on July 2, 1964 (Cornell, 2014). Today, the EEOC conducts enforcement litigation under several federal statutes that prohibit job discrimination (Cornell, 2014). The federal statutes prohibiting discrimination in employment are: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; the Equal Pay Act of 1963 (EPA), which protects men and women who perform substantially equal work in the same establishment from sex-based wage discrimination; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967