of mandamus suit, forcing the Republicans to deliver, an original act in a Supreme Court case (Bamzai, 1059). The Chief Justice wrote the Court's unanimous opinion. The Court ruled that Marbury had been deprived of his lawful right to hold the office. Additionally, it was good to sue for the writ of mandamus. However, according to Section 13, the U.S. Congress had enlarged the jurisdiction of the Court unconstitutionally by improperly giving it the authority to give writs of mandamus. For this reason, Marbury was denied his writ application. In order for this decision to be made, the Chief Justice made a judicial… Continue Reading...
societal benefits.
Yours truly,
X
UNIT 5 DISCUSSION
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) was one of the most significant US Supreme Court cases of the post-Reconstruction era. The case involved Plessy, who refused to occupy a railway car designated for people of color alone and instead sat in a car deemed to be for whites only. The Supreme Court at the time held that it was constitutionally permissible to mandate racial segregation as long as the separate facilities were equivalent to one another. The Brown v. Board of Education (1954) decision, however, overturned Plessy, first noting the logistical impossibility of creating facilities which were truly separate but equal. As noted… Continue Reading...
made him suspect the individual in question.
However, this Supreme Court case eventually led to the allowance of the detainment of persons -- of searches and seizures such as traffic stops -- or the kinds of searches that one must undergo when flying. The Terry frisk initiated a snowball effect of more and more leeway on the part of law enforcement and security personnel to be able to detain persons, search them and their belongings, and seize items that may be constituted a threat. What Terry v. Ohio allowed the Court to do was to reinterpret the meaning of… Continue Reading...
have indicated, "courts have recognized the importance of protecting QA-type records at common law" levels and this is evident in the Supreme Court case Slavutych v. Baker (1976) in which it was decided that the confidentiality is essential in all communications. However, as the Ontario Superior Court decided in Steep v. Scott (2002), "the goal of improving the quality of health care and health services ahead of any litigation advantage that may accrue to a party by the use of QA-type records" is given precedent (Cranston, Rozmus, 2015, p. 2). Thus, while laws and court rulings do exist, the basic concept of balancing health assurance with privacy rights is one that… Continue Reading...
and Bush's claim Gore administration would dent the budget surplus. (Baker)
2. Has the US Supreme court case of Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission (2010) changed the landscape of interest group influence or is it largely the same as it was before?
The Citizens United ruling was released early in 2010 (January), and removed the union and corporate ban on producing financing electioneering and independent expenditures (Dunbar). It allowed unions and corporations to spend an unrestricted sum on ads as well as other political tools, making it easier to defeat individual candidates based on money and exposure. The decision was a 5-4 and while… Continue Reading...
Supreme Court cases.[footnoteRef:12] [11: Ryan Muldoon, Social Contract Theory for a Diverse World: Beyond Tolerance (London: Routledge, 2016)] [12: Aaron James, Fairness in Practice: A Social Contract for a Global Economy (Oxford [etc.]: Oxford University Press, 2013)]
Conclusion
In conclusion, contemporary political issues like taxation, mandatory vaccination, and universal healthcare can be addressed within the theoretical framework of social contract theory. Rousseau’s interpretation of social contract theory provides the best understanding of the obligations of both the government and the people. While people should respect the laws that the government… Continue Reading...
last years of the 20th century, a series of Supreme Court cases and government actions specifically involving marijuana led to a substantial increase in the power of the government at the expense of the Bill of Rights. As a result of the war against cannabis, Americans are demonstrably less free today” (Pollan, p.126). The federal government maintains that marijuana must be subject to the very same thorough scientific examination and clinical trials applied by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) to every other novel medication. This inclusive process aims at ensuring highest efficiency and safety standards (FOCUS).
The American… Continue Reading...
the American brand identity.
Similarly, Dudziak reframes the Brown v. Board of Education ruling to show how the landmark Supreme Court case has been systematically taken out of context. A more accurate understanding of Brown v. Board of Education situates the decision within the broader historical, cultural, and even international context. As Dudziak points out, the international community had long been suspicious of American values given the rank hypocrisy evident in Jim Crow. Brown was not just about the triumph of the justice system in securing… Continue Reading...
