McDonald v. City of Chicago In the case Columbia v. Heller, the court struck down a handgun ban in the District of Columbia and a similar case is now being presented to the Supreme Court, McDonald v. Chicago. Both Justices Scalia and Breyer have been asked to make a decision on how this case should rule (Oliver, PS12 Section, October 22, 2009). In this discussion I will support Justice Scalia on the terms of strict constructionalism/originalism to keep the Constitution the way it is. Scalia’s opponent, Justice Breyer is referred to as a contextualist who is in favor of modifying the Constitution as times change (Scalia, 2006, 270). Although Breyer could possibly present a convincing argument, he lacks substantial evidence.
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy that states that a court has the right to, and should go beyond what is stated in the Constitution about an issue that is being brought up and look towards “broader” suggestions of the impending decision on said issue. Basically, the court “strikes down a law and then makes a statement that [may] change a law or policy in a significant fashion (Stankiewicz)”. A good example of judicial activism is the case of Roe v. Wade. In this case the Supreme Court determined that Texas law criminalizing, or essentially trying to outlaw abortion was unconstitutional. Strict Constructionism, on the other hand, is a distinct legal philosophy that limits or controls some judicial interpretation.
Was the “pat-down” of the driver legal? Yes, Officer Smith had a legal right to request the driver out of the vehicle for a pat-down. In the case of Terry v. Ohio, the Supreme Court discussed the requirement of dealing with armed and dangerous individuals. The court stated that an officer does not need probable cause to arrest in order to conduct a reasonable search for weapons as long as the suspicion is developed by factual information. In this fact pattern, Officer Smith acted on facts that a car matching the description of the automobile current pulled over of possibly being involved in a previous case involving a fellow officer murdered on the road side.
Statutes are created when original court cases are heard and ruled upon. Case law is created by rulings that are a result of examining statutes. Case law can either uphold the original statute or strike it down. Case law turns out to be an interpretation, or a “second look” at statutes, determining whether or not they uphold the U.S. Constitution. It seems to me that statutes can be either struck down after interpretation or continue to be enforced.
On appeal, Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the motion to suppress. Soon after, Hudson was convicted of drug possession. Hudson then filed an appeal which brought the case to the Supreme Court. Provision of the constitution involved in this case: This case involves the exclusionary rule which comes directly from the Fifth Amendment. It states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant.
If that individual argued to the court that a motorcycle is not a "vehicle," then the court would have to interpret the statute to determine what the legislature meant by vehicle and whether the motorcycle fell within that definition and was covered by the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. The first rule and most important rule is the rule dealing with the statute's plain language. This rule essentially states that the statute means what it says. If, for example, the statute says "vehicles," then the court is going to assume it means vehicles and not "planes" or something else.
A question of law concerns the application or interpretation of the law-such as whether flag-burning is a form of speech protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Development: How does jurisdiction relate to persons and property? How does jurisdiction relate to corporate contracts? Particular courts has jurisdiction (can exercise in personal jurisdiction) over any person or business that resides in a certain geographic area. On the other hand, because corporations are considered legal persons, courts use the same principles to determine whether it is fair to exercise jurisdiction over a corporation.
Right to Concealed Carry Leo Schaefer Excelsior English Composition ENG 101 Ms. Harvey October 30, 2013 Right to Concealed Carry Since the beginning of history, humankind has been able to find different ways of protecting oneself and property. In today’s society of heightened criminal activities, protecting personal property and one’s livelihood can be challenging. Looking back as early as the 1700s, each residence possessed a weapon for home protection and allowed citizens to bear arms against foreign invaders. In the present time, several states have forbid citizens to carry a firearm which takes away from the individual’s right to protect life and property. One way to counter this disadvantage of protection is through concealed
In this study I looked at different media and sources that state their point of view on the subject, whether they are against guns or with guns. Gun control groups used propaganda, statistics, and tragic events to support why guns should be outlawed in America. While Gun-right activists talk about liberty and how the founding fathers established the Constitution in order to secure these freedoms, with the right to bear arms being one of them. 3. RATIONALE 3a.
Chicago, McDonald sued Chicago arguing that the gun ban violated his individual Second Amendment right to have a gun for personal use. The case was brought before the Supreme Court and in 2010 in a five four split the Supreme Court held “An individual’s right to keep and bear arms is incorporated and applicable to the states through the 14th Amendments Due Process Clause” (Guncite 2). Justice Alito set forth “that it is a fundamental right and the 14th Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the states” (Guncite 2); this was the first time that the Supreme Court extended these rights to the states. The justices emphasized that this ruling and the Second Amendment “only protects a right to possess a firearm in the home for lawful uses such as self defense” (Guncite 4). The Court made it clear that the Second Amendment does not protect all types of firearms or uses and that some state regulation is “constitutionally permissible” (Schwartz