1. Blueford v. Arkansas 2011: This was one of the cases that caught my attention because it deals with the statement of Double Jeopardy, which has very indistinct lines actual practice. This case would help clear up where and when Double Jeopardy can be used or not. The Constitutional issues that are involved in this case is whether the defendant can exclaim Double Jeopardy for offences that were ruled in favor of him, but the court was declared a mistrial. This case wasn't decided on yet, but I would vote that the defendant cannot use Double Jeopardy because the overall case was declared a mistrial.
2. Coleman v. Maryland Court of Appeals 2011: This case caught my eye because it deals with the question whether a former Maryland Court of Appeals employee can file for a lawsuit due to the court firing him after he requested sick leave. This issue encompasses the 11th Amendment on whether the citizen can justify the law suit. The case has not been decided yet, but I would vote that it is constitutional for the court to deny the law suit.
3. Filarsky v. Delia 2011: This case was interesting because it addresses whether an individual is precluded from claiming qualified immunities because they are a private lawyer and not a government employee. This case raises the issue of a person's rights to certain immunities. This case hasn't been decided on yet, but I would say that he is allowed to have the immunities.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Roe v. Wade
Facts:
1. The right to privacy was one of the big factors that went into whether it is legal for a women to get an abortion.
2. The state has to have regulations for abortions.
3. Viability is usually placed at 7 months.
4. In the beginning abortions were very hazardous for women.
5. The laws concerning abortion has been argued that it was the product of a Victorian social concern that discouraged illicit sexual conduct.
6. Others argue that another human life is involved and therefore shouldn't be done.
7. It is stated that the privacy ruling is not absolute.
8. Some women may not be psychologically ready to care for a baby.
9. The 14th Amendment is often referenced when dealing with abortion rights
10. The right to privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution, but over the years the courts have decided that certain acts of privacy are addressed in the Constitution.
Questions:
1. Since the court ruled on it, why doesn't the individual states take jurisdiction over the matter and decide whether it is legal or not.
2. Does a right to privacy give a good defense to allow abortions?
3. Should the government have stricter regulations on abortion?
4. When exactly did the controversy over abortions begin?
5. Would a new amendment be the only way to finalize abortions legality or does the court's decision sufficient enough?
1. The right to privacy was one of the big factors that went into whether it is legal for a women to get an abortion.
2. The state has to have regulations for abortions.
3. Viability is usually placed at 7 months.
4. In the beginning abortions were very hazardous for women.
5. The laws concerning abortion has been argued that it was the product of a Victorian social concern that discouraged illicit sexual conduct.
6. Others argue that another human life is involved and therefore shouldn't be done.
7. It is stated that the privacy ruling is not absolute.
8. Some women may not be psychologically ready to care for a baby.
9. The 14th Amendment is often referenced when dealing with abortion rights
10. The right to privacy is never mentioned in the Constitution, but over the years the courts have decided that certain acts of privacy are addressed in the Constitution.
Questions:
1. Since the court ruled on it, why doesn't the individual states take jurisdiction over the matter and decide whether it is legal or not.
2. Does a right to privacy give a good defense to allow abortions?
3. Should the government have stricter regulations on abortion?
4. When exactly did the controversy over abortions begin?
5. Would a new amendment be the only way to finalize abortions legality or does the court's decision sufficient enough?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
West Wing Episode
Connections:
1. The President has to appoint the new justice.
2. Congress has to confirm the President's choice.
3. They try to pick justices that are a part of their party, but will be confirmed by Congress.
4. The executive branch has to be ready with potential candidates in the event of the death of a justice.
5. The executive branch also tries to pick a moderate.
6. Deals are made to appoint justices.
7. The majority in Congress determines what the executive branch chooses.
8. Justices can choose to retire.
Questions:
1. Are the right choices made by these deals?
2. Can we trust the appointments that come out of these deals?
3. Is there a way to get out of any possible bad appointments?
4. Should there be another agency that checks these appointments?
5. Should moderates always be appointed to judges?
1. The President has to appoint the new justice.
2. Congress has to confirm the President's choice.
3. They try to pick justices that are a part of their party, but will be confirmed by Congress.
4. The executive branch has to be ready with potential candidates in the event of the death of a justice.
5. The executive branch also tries to pick a moderate.
6. Deals are made to appoint justices.
7. The majority in Congress determines what the executive branch chooses.
8. Justices can choose to retire.
Questions:
1. Are the right choices made by these deals?
2. Can we trust the appointments that come out of these deals?
3. Is there a way to get out of any possible bad appointments?
4. Should there be another agency that checks these appointments?
5. Should moderates always be appointed to judges?
Federalist #78
"In unfolding the defects of the existing Confederation, the utility and necessity of a federal judicature have been clearly pointed out."
In my opinion this is important because they are tell the reader that due to the lack of this branck the Confederation was weak.
"According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior..."
This is an interesting quote because it makes you wonder if judges can be removed of office today if they were doing something that is not classified as good behavior.
"The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution."
This is an interesting quote because it has the founding fathers commenting on their former enemies way of deciding the law has to be improved upon.
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."
This is important because they are stating that the independence of the judges is a way the public can be protected against any government that may encroach on their rights.
"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. "
This is stating the judges' calls have to maintain justice and must not go on the bases of they want.
Questions:
How long would a judge have to be in office for him to shed any party affiliation and if one does not and it reflects in their decisions should they be removed?
Who judges the justices' behavior and who defines whether it's good or not?
Will this branch alone create a better government than the Articles of Confederation?
Is it good to put a lot of independence in one branch that also is check against the other two?
Should there be an agency created to check the judges and make sure they base their decisions on judgement and not will?
In my opinion this is important because they are tell the reader that due to the lack of this branck the Confederation was weak.
"According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices during good behavior..."
This is an interesting quote because it makes you wonder if judges can be removed of office today if they were doing something that is not classified as good behavior.
"The experience of Great Britain affords an illustrious comment on the excellence of the institution."
This is an interesting quote because it has the founding fathers commenting on their former enemies way of deciding the law has to be improved upon.
"But it is not with a view to infractions of the Constitution only, that the independence of the judges may be an essential safeguard against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society."
This is important because they are stating that the independence of the judges is a way the public can be protected against any government that may encroach on their rights.
"The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. "
This is stating the judges' calls have to maintain justice and must not go on the bases of they want.
Questions:
How long would a judge have to be in office for him to shed any party affiliation and if one does not and it reflects in their decisions should they be removed?
Who judges the justices' behavior and who defines whether it's good or not?
Will this branch alone create a better government than the Articles of Confederation?
Is it good to put a lot of independence in one branch that also is check against the other two?
Should there be an agency created to check the judges and make sure they base their decisions on judgement and not will?
Thursday, October 27, 2011
2000 Election Reading #2
Facts:
1. Court gave a prompt anc conclusive ending to the chaotic election
2. On November 13th Katherine Harris announced that the statutory deadline of November 14th was final
3. Bush raised three federal challenges to the Florida Supreme Court's decision
4. Florida Supreme Court with a vote of 4 to 3 said that there was a manual hand count required by state law.
5. Equal protection played a big part in the court's decisions
6. Justices had to be careful they were not considering anything else, but the law whn making their decision
7. Bush won with a vote of 5 to 4
8. Court's opinion had no basis in precedent or history
Questions:
1. How will the courts deal with this if the problem ever arises again?
2. Should the decision have gone to Congress?
3. Should the recount of continued?
4. Would the Republicans be worried of how it would look if conservative judges ruled in Bush's favor?
5. Will this case set a clear precedent for any future cases?
1. Court gave a prompt anc conclusive ending to the chaotic election
2. On November 13th Katherine Harris announced that the statutory deadline of November 14th was final
3. Bush raised three federal challenges to the Florida Supreme Court's decision
4. Florida Supreme Court with a vote of 4 to 3 said that there was a manual hand count required by state law.
5. Equal protection played a big part in the court's decisions
6. Justices had to be careful they were not considering anything else, but the law whn making their decision
7. Bush won with a vote of 5 to 4
8. Court's opinion had no basis in precedent or history
Questions:
1. How will the courts deal with this if the problem ever arises again?
2. Should the decision have gone to Congress?
3. Should the recount of continued?
4. Would the Republicans be worried of how it would look if conservative judges ruled in Bush's favor?
5. Will this case set a clear precedent for any future cases?
Monday, October 24, 2011
The Common Good
I believe that the author has defined the problem to the ideology of the common good. It is a system we would like to have, but in reality the system doesn't suit our individual interests. The common good does exist, but as the author said it exists on many different levels, and in the end to common good can only be defined by the individual. The individual alone can decide what he or she does for the community and for society in general. Madison tried his best when drafting the Constitution to keep in mind the common good of the country, but the document itself which promoted the public fell under criticism from different politicians and to get the Constitution to be finally passed a Bill of Rights, that outlined the freedoms and liberties of the individuals not the common good had to be included. So in conclusion the people try to benefit the common good, but most are unwilling to give up personal goals to achieve it.
Second Politician update
Michael Castle a republican, was present at 109 or 1% of 11,825 roll calls between January 5, 1993 to December 22, 2010. Castle succeeded Thomas Carper, and he preceeded the current democrat representative, John C. Carney Jr. He has sponsored 244 bills and 15 of these bills were enacted. Castle's top campaign donation during 2007- 2008 was between $3,193,155 and $8,773,000.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)