1) Essay Using the case Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), make the argument for legal formalism (original intent) of the Connecticut law banning contraceptive information or devices. Then make the opposite argument based on legal realism. The case came about when the state Planned Parenthood League opened a clinic in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1961, two staff members, Estelle Griswold and C. Lee Buxton, were arrested and fined under a rarely used law for giving advice and a prescription[->0] for a contraceptive[->1] to a married couple. The defendant argued that she had a constitutional right to privacy that was violated by enforcement of the 1879 state law. (Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case.
The Federal District Court upheld the tiebreaker and dismissed the charges because they said that State law did not bar the District’s use of the racial tiebreaker. They said the State’s Civil Rights Act bars only preferential treatment programs where race or gender is used by government to select a less qualified applicant over a more qualified applicant. The Parents appealed and the Circuit Court reversed the decision. The Court found that while achieving racial diversity and avoiding racial isolation are compelling government interests, Seattle’s use of the racial tiebreaker was not narrowly tailored to achieve these interests. The District appealed this decision and the Ninth Circuit Court sat En Banc to hear the case.
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.
The suit alleged that the terms “appears to be” and “conveys the impression” were too vague and thus violated the 1st Amendment. Procedural History: Respondents filed suit in District Court. The District Court granted the government summary judgment, which was reversed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. which concluded that based on Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973), pornography can only be banned if it is obscene, and if pornography exploits actual children it can be banned under New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S.474, 758 (1982). The Ninth Circuit found the CPPA to be substantially overbroad because it banned material that is not obscene under Miller and was not produced by exploiting actually children, which is required under Ferber.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially reversed the lower court, agreeing with AT&T that Pallas gave impermissible retroactive effect to the PDA. The court reversed and ruled in favor of the employees, avoiding the retroactivity problem by holding that the PDA applies to the actual calculation of pension and retirement benefits regardless of when the leave itself was taken. Because AT&T performed this calculation after the PDA had gone into effect, the denial of benefits violated Title VII. Issue * Does the Pregnancy Disability Act of 1978 (“PDA”) which prohibits discrimination on the basis of pregnancy, apply retroactively, and therefore, does an employer violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by failing to restore service credits to female employees who took pregnancy leaves prior to Congress’ enactment of the
Lincoln also declared a blockade of the Southern coast, an act of war that, arguably, recognized the status of the Confederacy as a belligerent nation rather than as a mere mass of individuals in rebellion against the Union (which Lincoln insisted they were). The suspension of habeas corpus was perhaps the most constitutionally significant of these acts. Often known as the Great Writ of Liberty, habeas corpus is the constitutionally authorized means by which a court may immediately assume jurisdiction over an arrested individual and inquire into the legality of the detention. If a court concludes that the detention is unlawful, it is empowered to immediately release the individual. In suspending the writ, Lincoln relied on the constitutional authorization that the framers had perceptively included years before in Article I, Section 9 (which reads, in part, “The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”).
Shortly thereafter, they were arrested for and found guilty of being accessories in the sale and distribution of illegal contraception. (T., G.R.) As required by law, they were fined one hundred dollars each and sentenced to jail time. Buxton and Griswold appealed the hearing to the Connecticut Supreme Court on the grounds that the law violated the United States Constitutional right to privacy. It was after appeal in 1965 that the Supreme Court finally heard their case, which after the 1943 Tileston v Ullman case that had attempted to make an appeal on the behalf of patient health, and the 1961 Poe v Ullman hearing in which a doctor and his patient sued because the law was unfair but they had not been harmed by the law so they had to dismiss the hearing.
Due Process Due process refers to the rights that the federal government must respect in terms of individual citizens according to the law. Due process goes further to provide some level of protection from the state (Roach, 1999). Judges must uphold due process by accurately interpreting the laws so that the rights of individual citizens are protected. Procedural due process falls under the rights afforded to American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. This ensures that those standing trial receive a fair trial which includes the ability to appear before a judge (Roach, 1999).
The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court where they said that prior restraint, except in rare cases, is unconstitutional for violating the First Amendment. However, it cited when prior restraint can be used, including that, “…primary requirements of decency may be enforced against obscene publications.” Minnesota lawmakers were later able to shut down Neal’s paper for
Key Features The official start of the boycott was on December 1st 1955. Rosa Parks, a black seamstress, had refused to give up her seat to a white man on the Montgomery Bus service. Rosa Parks was an educated woman, a long-time member of the NAACP and had completed a course on “Race Relations” in the Highlander Folk School, Tennessee. She was subsequently arrested, which sparked outrage among the black community. The MIA(Montgomery Improvement Association) was formed with Martin Luther King as president.