Tu Le GOV - 3 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission In my opinion, the author supporting the baker has a better argument. One of the reasons that makes Richard's argument better is that he doesn't use superfluous examples and information. The case is about sexual-discrimination and most of the examples that both authors use does not comply the context of the argument. However, Richard brings up a better example that I can relate to in order to compare the two arguments of the "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission". Both authors gave a different example of how the conversation between the baker and the customers went. One claimed that the baker was kind enough to give the couple direction to
Colorado Petitioner v. Francis Barry Connelly was a case appealed on October 8, 1986 by the Supreme Court of Colorado and later decided on December 10th, 1986 by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case began in Denver when, without any prompting, Francis Connelly approached police officer Patrick Anderson and claimed he had murdered a young girl named Mary Ann Junta. Before hearing anymore details, Officer Anderson immediately advised Connelly of his Miranda rights. The respondent said that he understood his rights but still wanted to discuss the murder. Officer Anderson asked Connelly several questions, where he denied drinking and taking drugs, but had claimed to be treated for mental illness. Soon after, detective Antuna arrived and Connelly was once again advised of his rights. Connelly claimed that
My Response. I think the court made the right decision by granting the defendants’ motion for summary judgement as to the plaintiff’s sexual harassment claim, since her gender was not a contributing factor in this case. However, regarding the law in this case, I find it strange that just because Lynch treated both men and women equally badly, this would nullify Smith’s claim for hostile work environment sexual harassment, when such harassment clearly took place. Why does the harassment have to be towards one sex only for there to be a valid legal case? Should it not be enough that she was subjected to unwelcome sexual harassment?
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Holmes’s dissent in Lochner, criticizes the majority for essentially creating a new right through their substantive reading of the Fourteenth. The Court, by deeming the New York Bakeshop Act unconstitutional, does not take into account the beneficial qualities of the act. For example, protecting public health and welfare and providing proper working regulations for an industry that has a substantial need for it. The Court also overlooks the fact that the Act passed with a unanimous vote in the New York legislature. The decision is also an example of the court playing the role of the legislature by basing their decision not on law but on their own personal or political beliefs. The courts judicial activism becomes the main issue with the court’s decision in Lochner which greatly influences future decisions the court makes.
Abstract On June 26, 2015 a divided Supreme Court ruled in the landmark case Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex couples could now marry nationwide. At the time of the split ruling there were 9 supreme court justices, 5 of the justices were Republicans, and the remaining 4 were Democrats. In high profile cases it is except that the justices will vote along party lines. When the 5-4 ruling was reveled by the following statement. “It would misunderstand these men and women to say they disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right (Corn,2015).” written by
...gain ruled in favor of the Establishment Clause. These cases include Murray v. Baltimore School Board, Epperson v. Arkansas, and Stone v. Graham. It also set the grounds for the case, Lemon v. Kurtzman, which set up the “Lemon Test” for deciding if a religious function is Constitutional or not.
McCulloch v Maryland 4 Wheat. (17 U.S.) 316 (1819) Issue May Congress charter a bank even though it is not an expressly granted power? Holding Yes, Congress may charter a bank as an implied power under the “necessary and proper” clause. Rationale The Constitution was created to correct the weaknesses of the Articles. The word “expressly” particularly caused major problems and therefore was omitted from the Constitution, because if everything in the Constitution had to be expressly stated it would weaken the power of the Federal government.
Last summer, my then twelve year old son was asked to participate in the National Junior Leaders Conference in Washington, DC. So, I packed our stuff and we headed for our nation's capital. While there, we visited the Supreme Court and my son, never having been there before, was simply awed. A short time later, we went to the Library of Congress. At the time (I don't know whether or not it's still there), there was a display -- three or four rooms big dedicated to the Supreme Court case Brown v. The Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. While the case was something that Nicholas (my son) and I had talked about on a few occasions, it was interesting to watch him as he navigated through the rooms that had photographs, court documents, newspaper articles, and other memorabilia of the case and the people involved with it. About thirty minutes into our time there, he started to cry softly, but he continued making his way through the display. He went to every single display in those several rooms; he didn't want to leave until he had seen everything and read everything. When we finally left (almost four hours after we arrived), he said to me, "It's disgraceful the way our country treated black people; there was no honor in any of it."
... argument because it shows the problems with the amendment and his argument complies with the constitution. Furthermore, Kennedy brings up more valid points, whereas Scalia mostly relies on the reasoning that Kennedy’s argument lacks the evidence of enough legal citation. Also, Kennedy believes the amendment is unconstitutional on the basis that it violates the equal protection clause because it denies homosexuals special rights that any other minority has access to, and it singles out one class that it affects instead of creating a general law that affects everyone. Thus, Kennedy’s argument should prevail because it relies on the constitution as its main evidence to show that the amendment is invalid and should not be permitted, and Kennedy believes that the amendment violates the rights of homosexuals, which is clearly does by singling them out as a specific class.
Blackburn was candid that most of his clients were “in the (drug) life at some level” and many of them had prior arrests. For instance, Billy Wafer, was on probation for possession of marijuana at the time when he was accused of selling cocaine to Coleman. “I ain’t an angel but I’ve never sold drugs,” said Wafer. Wafer, unlike most of the other defendants, had his charges dropped because he had a rock solid alibi with time cards from his job. Also, his supervisor testified verifying he was at work when Coleman claimed he sold him cocaine.
The case of brown v. board of education was one of the biggest turning points for African Americans to becoming accepted into white society at the time. Brown vs. Board of education to this day remains one of, if not the most important cases that African Americans have brought to the surface for the better of the United States. Brown v. Board of Education was not simply about children and education (Silent Covenants pg 11); it was about being equal in a society that claims African Americans were treated equal, when in fact they were definitely not. This case was the starting point for many Americans to realize that separate but equal did not work. The separate but equal label did not make sense either, the circumstances were clearly not separate but equal. Brown v. Board of Education brought this out, this case was the reason that blacks and whites no longer have separate restrooms and water fountains, this was the case that truly destroyed the saying separate but equal, Brown vs. Board of education truly made everyone equal.
1942 Skinner v. Oklahoma states that procreation is a fundamental constitutional right. In 2008 judge Charlie Baird sentenced Felicia Salazar to a probationary term of ten years for injury to her 19-month-old child. After the child’s father beat the adolescent Felicia failed to seek medical attention for her child which greatly disturbed the judge. This led to the judge adding a strange condition to the probationary conditions. Judge Baird told her she was not allowed to conceive or bear a child during her probationary sentence. In 2012 Judge Tim Boyle ordered 44-year-old Corey Curtis to stop procreating until he could support his nine children which were fathered by six different women. Owing $90,000 in child support he was conditioned to a three-year probationary judgement. The questions that surfaced from this controversial topic are; did judges Baird and Boyle’s
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Ferguson v Skrupa decided in 1963 was about a Kansas ruling that made it a minor offense for any person to involve in debt adjusting. William Ferguson argued the issue was a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Debt altering was explained as making a contract with a borrower when he pays a certain amount of money to the person involved in the modifying and then that person dispenses the currency to creditors in agreement with a plan (FindLaw, 2017). The plaintiff alleged that his business was a useful and desirable one and a prohibition of the business by the State of Kansas would violate his rights under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. An injunction on the statute was granted by a three-judge
... in setting standards for society to conform to. Therefor Hart supported the committee with a more liberal view and Devlin didn’t with a more authoritarian, paternalistic view. It is clear there are both case and statute law which reflect both viewpoints. In the case of Brown it shows how law enforces moral values and places the public good over individual freedom. However the law on homosexuality now reflect a more liberal view and so gives freedom and individual choice.