Prentice Hall. ICRC. (2014, April 4th). The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf In Boumediene v, Bush, No. 06–1195 (United States Supreme Court December 5th, 2007). In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, No. 03—6696 (United States Spureme COurt June 28th, 2004). Mortlock, D. (2010, July 1st). Definite Detention: The Scope of the President's Authority to Detain Enemy Combatants. Ebsco Host, pp.
Smith v. Allwright A resolution of the Democratic Party of Texas, a group that the Texas Supreme Court had deemed a "voluntary association," allowed only whites to participate in Democratic primary elections. S.S. Allwright was a county election official; he denied Lonnie E. Smith, a black man, the right to vote in the 1940 Texas Democratic primary. Question Presented Did denying blacks the right to vote in primary elections violate the Fifteenth Amendment? Conclusion The Court overruled
Bush v. Gore Bush v. Gore was a controversial case that was heard on December 11, 2000. This case decided the outcome of the 2000 presidential election between Vice President Gore and Texas Governor George W. Bush. The election took place on Nov 7, 2000. Under our electoral college system each state votes for our new president separately, a winner is then declared in each state and is awarded “electoral votes” that is equal to the states number of representatives in the House and Senate. Gore led
carefully selected cases which she felt would produce the greatest results. To do this, she “pursue(d) a series of cases that illuminate(d) the most common instances of gender distinctions in the law (Ginsburg 14). In three cases, Reed v. Reed, Frontiero v. Richardson, and Craig v. Boren, Ginsburg was successful in arguing that legal distinctions on the basis of sex qualified as suspect classifications. Therefore the state must show a compelling interest in its legislation, and “must demonstrate that the
The Bush Vs. Gore campaign was at its climax in late October of 2000. The people of the nation were casting their votes, and the two leading candidates were neck to neck. The tension was sky high on election day November 7, 2000. Behold, we were to have a new president; so we thought. Election experts have called for "evolution" instead of a "revolution" in changing the way the country goes about its elections. Never in history has such controversy risen as in the election 2000; Bush Vs. Gore. Election
The Bush V. Gore case was one of the closest elections in presidential candidacy history, as it ultimately decided the 2000 presidential nomination between Texas governor George W. Bush and vice-president Al Gore (time.com) The case was conclusively decided on former Texas Governor, George Walker Bush, in a precise presidential vote, effectively naming Bush the 43rd president of the United States (time.com). The court’s decision was correct with the siding of Bush because the Majority Opinion argued
ambiguous as to whom the judge should rule due to a lack of relevant precedent. The ideal of the so called "hard case" defined by H.L.A Hart depose the pure positivists doctrine that judicial decisions cannot be the mechanical "slot machine". Boumediene v Bush was a hard case because habeas corpus was a rule in United States Constitution. And desired results can be attained from pure reference to case law and legislation to where a judge has to interpret statutes and therefore apply 'creative legislation'
In Larson v. Valente, the Supreme Court ruled that “the clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another” (Larson v. Valente), and a religious test is the definition of officially preferring one religious denomination over another. Also in Larson v. Valente, the Court stated that “this Constitutional prohibition of denominational preferences
The view point of Ideology 1.0 Comparison between Liberal Jurisprudence and Conservative Jurisprudence Conservative jurisprudence can be understood as an agenda of conserving existing conditions, upholding restricted rights in cases concerning individual, society, and sexual liberty interests in order to retain in its traditional style as similar in the past as possible whereas liberal jurisprudence place itself with a constitutional theory that expand individual rights. By applying these ideologies