Controversial Supreme Court Cases?
The Dred Scott decision, where they decided that property rights were more important than human life, today property rights are practically nonexistant. As for slavery, we are testing how much freedom people are willing to sacrifice in return for "free" stuff and services from the government. And when foreign debtors demand payment we cannot supply,they will take their pound of flesh from this country somehow, we may see our children or grandchildren enrolled in a chinese owned factory someday. The case is certainly controversial, and it shows the "framers intent" issue, that judges were supposed to consider when interpreting the constitution in their decisions, considering as Jefferson put it "Man has no property in man, nor has one generation any hold over another." If you look at honest projections of where the national debt is going, this issue of slavery or compulsory labor/services and question of property as things or people/labor time, is not a thing of the past, it could well be a part of our future. Just consider how much of what we owe is consumed by all levels of government combined, and what happens when you can't pay the government what they claim you owe. Who or what is property or chattels? Remember the Emancipation Proclaimation was signed as a economic tool of war, it only applied to Southern states in rebellion, it was not until the constitution was ammended that slavery was outlawed. With passage of Obamacare, we have just seen how little regard there is for constitutional law, or consent of the people. Then there is the New Haven Vs. Kelo decison, where they took private property from one individual, and gave it to a developer, to build a exclusive country club in New Haven, CT, which does not serve the "public interest" but makes the individual a serf or slave because they are no longer safe from seizure of their assets by an aristocracy.
There were several controversial decisions reached in 2016 on the Supreme Court that an interested observer could point to:Whole Women’s Health v. HellerstedtFisher v. University of Texas at Austinand more.The names and issues of these cases are not common knowledge amongst citizens likely due to the fact that they are not going to be the last word on the issues involved. In a few years, they will be footnotes.What could make 2016 a year to be referred to decades from now in relation to the Supreme Court will be what happened on February 13th and November 8th. These bookends at the beginning and end of this year have the clear potential to be monumental at the Court. I am referring to the death of Justice Scalia and the election of Donald Trump of course.With the death of Scalia, the narrow balance of the Court was poised to be altered for decades in favor of a more liberal constitution of the Constitution deciding body upon the widely expected election of Clinton. The narrow, shocking election of Trump (along with a majority republican senate) has instead suddenly turned the tables. Now the Court may experience a more conservative bent for decades to come.Well into Scalia’s tenure he was obviously well aware that the majority of the decisions made had often narrowly gone against his jurisprudence. He spent much of his effort in dissent. Oh so close, but no victory cigar for Nino.“The wins,” he sighed then, “The wins. Damn few.”‘You get one shot': How Justice Antonin Scalia viewed the worldSometimes it takes the winds of time to pass over the dry grave before victory is won, before vindication is achieved.Perhaps it will be the ghost of Scalia, dissents referenced in future majority opinions, that will finally win the day.Nearly a year ago now, back on January 25th, 2016, the final written opinion of Justice Scalia was quietly slipped into the box at the Court. Appropriately, a dissent.For the agnostic, merely coincidence. For the believer, confirmation.His last two words:“Mission accomplished.”MONTGOMERY v. LOUISIANAhttps://www.supremecourt.gov/opi...
What is the British equivalent of the Supreme Court/ the American Court System?
So, provided that a pair of human beings sense in a god, and picture that this conception must be a factor of our judicial attitude absolutely everyone ought to? could you love expenses from greater of our founding fathers that say the opposite? which includes from remarkable oll Washington? there grow to be an huge proliferation of fake quotations of a spiritual nature attributed to American political and spiritual leaders. In specific, many authors and site owners characteristic sayings to the yankee Founding Fathers that happen to have been made up out of thin air. i assume that this extends to sayings via potential of the Founding mothers on faith besides, besides we don't do no longer forget having ever important any of the latter. rather, that quote from Washington is fake. one greater Christian lie.
Unlimited Power. No Accountability.The exact opposite of Government of the People, By the People, For the People.For the last 75 or so years, Liberals have been in the majority on the court.So they didn’t care.But now, for the first time in our lifetime, there is a possibility of having Five true Conservatives on the court.What kind of power is at their disposal?The Defense of Marriage Act was a bipartisan Bill passed by overwhelming majorities in both Houses of Congress.The House - 342 in favor (224 Republicans/118 Democrats), 67 againstThe Senate - 85 in favor (53 Republicans/32 Democrats), 14 againstA Republican controlled House and Senate agreed with a Democrat President, that this was the overwhelming will of the people.The margins by which this Bill was passed were so large they could have sent it to the States and ratified the issue as the 28th Amendment to the Constitution.But On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 5–4 decision, that the will of the people means NOT ONE DAMN THING.Five people, appointed for life, answering to no one, overturned lower court rulings, overturned what people had directly voted for when the issue was on ballots, (even in California) and overturned what the President and the Congress had signed into law.Five people, appointed for life, answering to no one… their word is law.The Founding Fathers had a word for this - Tyranny.That is what the Democratic Party fought for the Supreme Court to become.But now, for some strange reason, it has occurred to Democrats that life under Five Republican Tyrants with unlimited power, for the next 40+ years, might not be fair.But it was fair… when the shoe was on the other foot.
Ranked at the top would have to be Worchester vs Georgia in 1832 in which the Supreme Court ruled that Native American lands were sovereign and could not be taken. No one thought the court would rule this way and the general belief was that Americans had a "Manifest Destiny" to control all of the United States. It should be noted that this is the famous case in which President Andrew Jackson purportedly said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it" and then proceeded to drive the Native Americans off their lands in what became known as the Trail of Tears. Proving what modern day Justice Stephen Bryer stated that the court can interpret the law but has no power to enforce it.Ironically, the court ruling that President Andrew Jackson would not enforce is the basis of sovereignty for Native American lands today.
One thing so many people don’t seem to understand is what we have been taught as patriotic and showing patriotism is completely subjective. There are not many rules for how anyone MUST act during any patriotic display. Our Constitution is brilliant in the way it shows the strength and fiber of our country, and in it’s freedoms.There are no specific rulings dealing with kneeling during the anthem. The US Code states that people SHOULD stand hand over heart for the anthem. HOWEVER, SHOULD is not a legally enforceable duty. It’s merely a suggestion legally. SHALL or MUST would be legally enforceable. The code is unenforceable and, as such, has no penalties associated with it for those who don’t do what it asks.The Constitution has been challenged on this and the Supreme Court has ruled - not specifically on the kneeling, but you’d find the same result for these rulings likely. In 1943, the Supreme Court ruled in one case to protect citizens from being forced to participate in patriotic ceremonies that offend their conscience or beliefs. In 1989, the Supreme Court also protected flag burning as an expression of speech.Seeing these two rulings makes it fairly obvious that if the Constitution protects people from participating in the ceremonies and protects flag burning, then kneeling would logically follow as protected.