Texas the Austin division had a judge that ruled in favor of the defendants, the University of Texas and found that their policy was “narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest” which therefore made it constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Rein et al.) The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, also ruled in favor of the University of Texas stating that they presumed that university’s upheld good faith in compelling government interest in maintaining racial
Justice Thomas reached the same conclusion regarding the incorporation issue on different grounds: Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority decision also reaffirmed that certain firearms restrictions mentioned in District of Columbia v. Heller are assumed permissible and not directly dealt with in this case. Such restrictions include those to "prohibit...the possession of firearms
DECISION: No. The appellate court agreed with Cruz that the trail court was wrong in determining that Cruz ineffectually presented Fagor with valid service of process. It also concurred with Cruz on the issue of extrinsic mistake and equitable relief. REASON: Cruz complied with the requirements for proof of service to an out-of-state corporation “by sending a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the person to be served by first-class mail, postage prepaid, requiring a return receipt”. Cruz also complied with the requirements to send a summons and complaint to a corporation by sending it to the president of Fagor, Patricio Barriga.
Is Senator Gravel’s alleged arrangement with Beacon Press protected by the Speech and Debate Clause? No Opinion of the Court (White) The Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from any prosecution that disrupts the legislative process. Therefore, Gravel is justified in his claim that he is protected under it. The aides of a member of Congress are perceived by the Court to be “alter egos” of the member itself. 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.
Hayden Price 12/4/13 Poli Sci 2040 CASE BRIEF 10: Clinton v. Jones (1997) 1) Clinton v. Jones 2) 520 U.S. 681 3) Paula Corbin Jones, who was an Arkansas state employee, sued President Bill Clinton for sexually harassing her while Clinton was still the Governor of Arkansas. Her lawsuit sought more than half a million dollars in damages. Clinton insisted that the case be stayed, and resumed only after he had left office. He also insisted that Presidents could be sued for neither their official nor their unofficial actions while in office. In 1994 a lower federal court judge postponed the trail indefinitely and this postponement was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
These two court cases are the same by dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment. On the case of Loving & Virginia, they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the freedom of choice to marry and not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations; the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state. Virginia violated the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. Another similarity was that they both had to deal with marriages.
However, there are inevitably some questions arising about the electoral college and whether it still works best for the US today. Some say it should be completely scrapped, with a more democratic direct election taking it's place; others day that it can be mended by reforming it, and the final argument is to defend it, and leave it as it is. One reason to end the electoral college system is because it is not democratic enough. The winner of the nationwide vote could in fact lose the election because of the way the electoral college works. Popular vote winners have been denied the presidency in 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000.
Benton v. Maryland, 39 U.S. 784, 89 S. Ct. 2056, 23 L. Ed.2d 707 (1969), supports the the U.S. Supreme Court rules that the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause is relevant to both state and federal proceedings. Prior to this ruling, an individual accused of violating state law could rely only on that specific state’s protection against double jeopardy. Some states offered greater protection against double jeopardy then others do, and commonly the level of protection offered is less than that offered under the federal Constitution. The Supreme Court said this was impermissible. The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy was designed to protect individuals from being subjected to the threat of trial and possible conviction for more than one time for an alleged offense.
Ogden claimed that this was true only for goods, not navigation. Gibbons then sued Ogden for entry into the state and the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. John Marshall ruled in favor of Gibbons, determining that it was within the federal government’s power to control navigation and that the regulation of “commerce” included laws of navigation. Conduction of interstate commerce was a power reserved to Congress, Marshall ruled. I believe that Marshall granted this case cert.
Mildred and Richard moved to Washington D.C. and with the help of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) they filled to have the sentence set aside on the ground that it violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law and affirmed the convictions. Issues: 1. Does Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding: A vote of (9-0) in favor of Loving 1.