In 1994, a student at Virginia Tech University, Christy Brzonkala, claimed that two other varsity football students, James Crawford and Antonio Morrison raped her. One year later in 1995, she filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. Antonia Morrison was found guilty and he was immediately sentenced to be suspended for two semesters from Virginia Tech, but Crawford was not given any punishment. Then, due to an appeal, Morrison's punishment was set aside as well, because it was found to be excessive. After this happened, Christy Brzonkala dropped out of Virginia Tech. Right after, she decided to file a lawsuit against Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court. She alleged …show more content…
that Morrison’s and Crawford's attack violated 42 U.S.C. section 13981, which was part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994. It was meant to provide a civil remedy for targets and victims of violence because of gender. Morrison and Crawford attempted to dismiss Brzonkala's suit, saying that the civil remedy in section 13981's was unconstitutional and that Congress could not enact it under the Commerce Clause. Both sides of the case provided valid arguments and points.
This case was highly influenced by the result of United States v. Lopez (1995), which was a case where the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990 was declared unconstitutional. The Lopez case was significant in the fact that it limited the scope of the Commerce Clause. It caused the exclusion of any activities that were not directly economic in nature, even if it is related indirectly to economics. In this case, one side of the argument stated that violence against women does not significantly affect interstate commerce, therefore Congress does not have the power to hold charges against Morrison based on the VAWA under the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court further noted that activities in a state must be considered in the aggregate only if they are economic in nature. The other side of the argument also stated many valid points. Justice David Souter argued that the effects of sexual assault are definitely economically felt, making it proper subject for regulation by the commerce power. A law professor that participated in this case, Julie Goldscheid, also stated that Congress found that gender based violence deters and restricts women's ability to select and perform their jobs. It was also found that it slows down national productivity, and increases medical costs in
general. There were many topics that were discussed during the case, but the main decision that needed to be made was whether Brzonkala and Congress had the right to enact the Violence Against Women Act under the Commerce Clause paired with the Equal Protection Clause of the fourteenth amendment, which states that a state must treat an individual in the same way as another individual in the same situation. The two possible decisions were either Congress had the power to charge Morrison under the Violence Against Women Act, or the power would be considered unconstitutional. This case was a very close one when it was decided on a 5 to 4 vote in the Supreme Court under the majority opinion by chief justice William Rehnquist. The majority opinion held that Congress did not have the authority to enact the VAWA under the Commerce Clause since the statute did not directly affect interstate or intrastate commerce. As mentioned before, a large part of the majority argument relied on the 1995 case of US v. Lopez to negate the justification of the Commerce Clause. Justice Clarence Thomas concurs, but he states his belief that the Supreme Court should develop a new standard for review of Commerce Clause cases.
On the 11th of June, 1982 following the conviction of a criminal offense, Robert Johnson was sentenced to two years probation. The terms of his probation included his person, posessions, and residence being searched upon reasonable request. When a search warrant was executed for Johnson’s roommate, officers testified that with enough reasonable suspicion, they were able to search Johnson’s living area as well.
This case involves a sophomore at a high school named Christine Franklin, who alleged that she was sexually harassed and abused by a teacher and sports coach by the name of Andrew Hill. These allegations were occurring from 1986-1988, a total of two years. These allegations included Hill having explicit conversations with Franklin, forcing her to kiss him, and forceful intercourse on school grounds. Franklin claimed that she let teachers and administrators know about the harassment and that other students were going through the same harassment. The result of telling the teachers and administrators was that nothing was done about the situation and even encouraged Franklin not
Dan Locallo is a very contradicting man. When he began his career as a prosecutor he was anything but polite to the defense lawyers. Locallo himself describes himself as “kind of an asshole” towards defense lawyers (Courtroom 302, 59). During his time as a prosecutor, Dan Locallo became intrigued by the opportunity to become a judge. When Steve Bogira asked Locallo why he wanted to become a judge, his reply seemed simple. Locallo claimed that he never wanted to become a judge because of a “power-trip” he does claim that “the power of attraction was a great influence” (Courtroom 302, 59). However, Locallo admits that the real reason why he wanted to become a judge was because he would have the “ability to make decisions, to do justice” (Courtroom 302, 59). As a judge, Locallo seems to express three different personalities, which tend to change depending on the current case at hand. His personalities are being compassionate judge, being an understanding judge, or being a hard-nose tough judge. Each of these personalities are not only determined by the case, but also by whether Locallo will profit on the long run; whether or not he will get reelected as a circuit judge at the end of his term.
Judge Mark Sanders used the teacher's admitted guilt to warn others about following in her footsteps, describing her "predacious" behavior in grooming the child, deeming her sexual assault on him serious even though it it didn't cross into sexual
The People vs. Hall and Dread Scott Decision both were very interesting cases. Their similarities zoomed to expose the preamble of the Constitution and make the authors of it think over what they meant by "all men are created equal." This question is still present today, are all men created equal? Or does it mean by men, the white Americans with European decent?
In 1971 in Mobile County Alabama the School Board created a state statute that set aside time at the beginning of each day for silent ’meditation’ (statute 6-1-20), and in 1981 they added another statute 16-1-20.1 which set aside a minute for ‘silent prayer’ as well. In addition to these, in 1982 the Mobile County School Board enacted statute 16-1-20.2, which specified a prayer that teachers could lead ‘willing’ students in “From henceforth, any teacher or professor in any public educational institution within the State of Alabama, recognizing that the Lord God is one, at the beginning of any homeroom or any class, may pray, may lead willing students in prayer, or may lead the willing students in the following prayer to God… “ (Jaffree By and Through Jaffree v. James). Ishmael Jaffree was the father of three students, Jamael Aakki Jaffree, Makeba Green, and Chioke Saleem Jaffree, who attended a school in Mobile County Alabama. Jaffree complained that his children had been pressured into participating in religious activities by their teachers and their peers, and that he had requested that these activities stopped. When the school did nothing about Jaffree’s complaints he filed an official complaint with the Mobile County School Board through the United States District Courts. The original complaint never mentioned the three state statutes that involved school prayer. However, on June 4, 1982 Jaffree changed his complaint. He now wanted to challenge the constitutionality of statutes 16-1-20, 16-1-20.1 and 16-1-20.2, and motioned for a preliminary injunction. The argument against these state laws was that they were an infringement of the Establishment Clause within the First Amendment of the Constitution, which states that Congr...
The Supreme Court case, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe, was argued on March 29, 2000, in Texas (Santa Fe Independent School Dist. v. Doe). The verdict was decided on June 19, 2000 by the Supreme Court. The case questioned the constitutionality of the school’s policy that permitted student-led, student initiated prayer at football games. The Supreme Court justices had to take the Establishment Clause of the first amendment into account when making their decision (Cornell University Law School). The case originated in the Santa Fe Independent School District, located in Texas. The District was against Doe, a Mormon and a Catholic family involved within the District. The purpose of the case was to determine if the school policy was in violation of the first amendment’s Establishment Clause which creates a divide between religion and government. The first amendment freedom of religion was the right at stake in regards to the Establishment Clause that defines a line between church
In 1975, the United State Supreme Court held that state law could provide students a property interest in their education, but forty years later and courts remain uncertain of when such an interest exists. In Goss v. Lopez, the United States Supreme Court extended due process protections to a group of high school students in Ohio. The Court determined that Ohio state law provided the high school students a property interest in their continued enrollment at the school, and that such an interest was protected under the due process clause. The Goss decision came during a time when a due process revolution was happening in the United States. During this revolution, the Supreme Court recognized many new property interests in government benefits as the basis
Was Dred Scott a free man or a slave? The Dred Scott v. Sandford case is about a slave named Dred Scott from Missouri who sued for his freedom. His owner, John Emerson, had taken Scott along with him to Illinois which was one of the states that prohibited slavery. Scott’s owner later passed away after returning back to Missouri. After suits and counter suits the case eventually made it to the Supreme Court with a 7-2 decision. Chief Justice Taney spoke for the majority, when saying that Dred Scott could not sue because he was not a citizen, also that congress did not have the constitutional power to abolish slavery, and that the Missouri compromise was unconstitutional. The case is very important, because it had a lot
In the United States Supreme Court case of Roper v. Simmons of 2005 the Supreme Court ruled in a five to four ruling that the death sentence for minors was considered “cruel and unusual punishment,” as stated by the Eighth Amendment, according to the Oyez Project online database. Christopher Simmons, the plaintiff, was only seventeen at the time of his conviction of murder. With the Roper v Simmons, 2005 Supreme Court ruling against applying the death penalty to minors, this also turned over a previous 1989 ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky that stated the death penalty was permissible for those over the age of sixteen who had committed a capital offense. The Roper v. Simmons is one of those landmark Supreme Court cases that impacted, and changed
Facts: Two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter a colored woman and Richard Loving a white man, got married in the District of Columbia. The Loving's returned to Virginia and established their marriage. The Caroline court issued an indictment charging the Loving's with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. The state decides, who can and cannot get married. The Loving's were convicted of violating 20-55 of Virginia's code.
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
We as society might not agree on everything. What been agree on we need regulations and they need to be run by governments. In those governments the people should or shouldn’t use grace before law.
Crime rate has steadily lowered as more guns enter the private market. There is no single answer to end the debate on gun control. Many variables must be examined, but the evidence presented cannot be ignored. Gun control does not end violence, but makes the law-abiding citizens more vulnerable. In the 1878 Arkansas case of Wilson v. State, a judge stated, “Common sense dictates that inanimate objects, such as guns, are not responsible for human behavior.