• Is The Confederate Flag Free Speech?
    Articles,  Blog

    Is The Confederate Flag Free Speech?

    In March, 2015, the Supreme Court heard arguments about Texas’s ban on confederate flag license plates and whether the ban is in violation of the First amendment. 2015 marks 150 years since the end of the Civil War, and some have argued that the southern confederate flag is a symbol of national shame and institutionalized racism. So, do states have the right to ban the confederate flag? Well, the question is being posed by a group known as the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Their logo, which includes the confederate flag, has been approved for use on nine other state license plates. The group has also attempted to have a former…

  • SC19-1341 Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Implementation of Amendment 4, (Voting Restoration)
    Articles,  Blog

    SC19-1341 Advisory Opinion to the Governor Re: Implementation of Amendment 4, (Voting Restoration)

    >>ALL RISE. ZECHARIAH MORGAN HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA IS NOW IN SESSION, ALL WHO HAVE CAUSE TO PLEAD, DRAW NEAR, GIVE ATTENTION AND YOU SHALL BE HEARD. GOD SAVE THESE UNITED STATES, THE GREAT STATE OF FLORIDA AND THIS HONORABLE COURT. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. PLEASE BE SEATED.>>GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME TO THE FLORIDA SUPREME COURT. FIRST CASE ON THE DOCKET TODAY, ADVISORY OPINION TO THE GOVERNOR REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION AMENDMENT NUMBER 4.>>GOOD MORNING, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT. I AM JOSEPH JACQUOT ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNOR SPEAKING UP TO 10 MINUTES. ON BEHALF OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE,…

  • Can the Police Use Evidence They Got Illegally? | Mapp v. Ohio
    Articles,  Blog

    Can the Police Use Evidence They Got Illegally? | Mapp v. Ohio

    Mr. Beat presents Supreme Court Briefs Cleveland, Ohio May 23, 1957 Someone sets a bomb off at Don King’s house. Yep, that Don King, the future boxer promoter who at the time was a controversial bookie who had many enemies. So yeah, apparently one of those enemies was whoever bombed his house that day. The Cleveland police got a tip that a another bookie named Virgil Ogletree might have been involved with the bombing, and that he was hiding out in the house of Dollree Mapp. They also suspected stuff to make a bomb might be at the house. Three Cleveland police officers get to Mapp’s house, knock on the…

  • Stare Decisis: Precedent vs the Constitution
    Articles,  Blog

    Stare Decisis: Precedent vs the Constitution

    Precedent does not trump the constitution, even when the court says it does. Stare decisis is Latin for “to stand by things decided.” In short, it is the doctrine of precedent. According to the Supreme Court, stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” In practice, it is the judicial policy of sometimes adhering to a prior decision even when it was wrong. As the majority put it in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood vs Casey, it is the practice of adhering to a prior decision “whether or…

  • After failed legislative attempts on DACA, fate of ‘Dreamers’ lies with Supreme Court
    Articles,  Blog

    After failed legislative attempts on DACA, fate of ‘Dreamers’ lies with Supreme Court

    JUDY WOODRUFF: Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will hear arguments that could decide the fate of hundreds of thousands of dreamers. That’s the younger generation of undocumented immigrants brought to this country by their parents and protected from deportation. The justices will hear arguments over a series of lawsuits around the Obama era decision and President Trump’s efforts to end it. Whatever the outcome, it will be one of the signature decisions of this session and will land right in the middle of the 2020 campaign. Amna Nawaz looks at the stakes and how we got to this moment. AMNA NAWAZ: In 2012, then President Barack Obama was running for reelection…

  • Roe v. Wade – Visual Guide (Pt. 3/3) | Wardenclyffe Academy
    Articles,  Blog

    Roe v. Wade – Visual Guide (Pt. 3/3) | Wardenclyffe Academy

    Before applying these conclusions in detail to the issue of abortion and then measuring that application against Texas’ criminal abortion laws to determine their constitutionality, the Supreme Court briefly considered Wade’s arguments. Citing the well-known facts of fetal development, Wade first argued that the unborn are persons “within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment” which would make the unborn’s right to life guaranteed by the Amendment. However, the Supreme Court was not persuaded by this argument for three reasons. First, it observed that there had been no cases in which the unborn were considered persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, it could only find support…

  • What is the Lemon Test?  Lemon v. Kurtzman [No. 86]
    Articles,  Blog

    What is the Lemon Test? Lemon v. Kurtzman [No. 86]

    The Lemon Test is a three-part test that the Supreme Court uses to determine whether a law violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” The three parts of the Lemon Test are as follows: first, a law must have a secular purpose; second, the law’s principal or primary purpose can neither advance nor inhibit religion; and, finally, the government may not be excessively entangled in religion. The Lemon Test came from the 1971 Supreme Court case, Lemon v. Kurtzman. At issue was whether the government could provide state funding to…