When the court ruled that Phillips had to bake a cake for Charlie and David, he did have his First Amendment rights violated. In the future, the court should consider a different ruling, such as a fine and allow people to run their business in a way that doesn’t violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, rather than forcing him to provide the service. My decision would support the reasoning that people can have their own beliefs under the First Amendment, as long as they do not violate the rights of another. My decision would not force Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples unless he is making them for heterosexual couples; he has the decision to make wedding cakes for everyone, or for no one. This ruling supports that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act are…
In this Supreme Court Abel Fields is found not guilty. In 2011, 39 year old Fields was convicted in California for falsely speaking of serving in the military for eight years and receiving a Purple Heart. He was in violation of the Stolen Valor act. The Stolen Valor act protects the veterans who receive a Purple Heart after being wounded in war. In his previous ruling he was found guilty.…
The reason why Sherry felt like her Eight Amendment was violate by San Quentin prison is because she is a transgender male, who was transfer to “D” block where several sexual offenders are housed. While, she was there in “D” block, Sherry was brutally raped and beaten. Sherry stated her Eight Amendment right was violated because the San Quentin prison had knowledge by placing her in “D” block with several other sexual offenders that she would get assaulted by the other inmate. Now, by looking at Sherry case under the Farmer vs. Brennan (1994) case in section (1) and section (1) (A); it basically stated, “A prison system will be held liable for acting with deliberate indifference to an inmate health or safety if the prison system have knowledge…
Texas vs. Johnson (An analysis of the supreme court case Texas vs. Johnson and the current repercussions of the decision) The first amendment protects many of our basic rights such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, etc. The framers of our constitution left a broad wording to leave room for our country to grow and change as time went on. One of the adjustments our country has made over time is to define the actions and words protected under the freedom of speech. There are three basic categories of free speech; pure speech, is communication only through words, speech plus is speech plus an aid such as a sign or a chant, and symbolic speech, an action that communicates meaning without the use of words.…
The gag order did indeed violate the First Amendment right to Freedom of the Press. Furthermore, reversing the previous two decisions in favor of the Petitioner “Nebraska Press Association, et al.” The U.S. Supreme Court went on to say that allowing the press to report on criminal trials does not usually interfere with the defendants Sixth Amendment “Right to a Fair Trial” http://ezpltccd.edu:2048 GalejCX3457000022: U.S. Supreme Court Case number two, Branzburg vs. Hayes this case heard by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1972. The case was called Branzburg vs. Hayes 1972, Judge John P. Hayes, et al.…
Today I’m here to express my views on the U.S. vs. Fields a very distinct and intriguing case that involves the topic of free speech. First we have the defendant Abel Fields who was convicted under the Stolen Valor Act, after Mr. Fields portrayed himself claiming that he had “military experience” claiming he had a Purple Heart, also the Medal of Honor, Navy Cross, and even the Air force cross. This made him believe that it gave him the right to speak with authority on the issues but these claims were false. Abel Fields appealed his decision to the court, stating that he viewed the Stolen Valor Act as unconstitutional and believes that his right to the first amendment was being violated. Field’s prosecutors argue that even though Mr. Fields…
1) Legal 2) Attitudinal 3) Strategic With the vague words of the constitution and these 3 models this is how the Supreme Court justices are to make decisions. 1) The legal aspect of the decision-making is strictly based on the facts, laws & precedent.…
The court case was eventually partially overruled by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v. Ohio but officially secured that free speech could be drastically limited. Oyez states, the “The Court used a two-pronged test to evaluate speech acts: (1) speech can be prohibited if it is ‘directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action’ and (2) it is ‘likely to incite or produce such action’” (Oyez). Thus, the limitations of free speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio were solidified and displays how the effects of Schenck v. United States inadvertently affected many prominent court cases Overall, Schenck v. United States illustrates how one case limited the scope of the 1st amendment's free speech. Along the way, the court case paved the way for other court cases to be settled upon Schenck v. United States results, all of which solidified the deprivation of rights.…
The Constitution and the Amendments are the basics of the US’s politics. However, sometimes, people, especially young people and teenagers, don’t have enough knowledge about it and so, they begin to abuse it as an excuse for any problem. Fortunately, in his “Why First Amendment still matters to students” article, Tony Mauro addressed this issue, but in a smaller scale, in schools and among students. To be more specific, according to Mauro, school officials often develop amnesia about the Tinker case, the case where a student was being violated of her rights by school officials, whenever a student deviates from some standard of behavior. Even though he had good intention when saying this, Mauro’s point of view was off target.…
In this case a man named Abel Fields falsely said that he worked in the military for eight years. He also claimed that he had earned a purple heart which you only earn if are wounded in battle. This man never served in the military so everything he said was false. He was making these claims in a public safety meeting, he told the public that they should listen to him because of his experience.…
Jordi Castillo Mrs. Kehrmeyer English 11 11 April 2018 13th Amendment The Thirteenth Amendment is one of the most important rules known in the world. No one should be forced to be a slave and they shouldn’t be held against their will to work. This Amendment help change and better our world that we live in today.…
Amanda Black Exam Essays Fall Quarter 12/5/2007 Scalia explains his dissenting opinion to the overturning of Lawrence v. Texas by comparing the case to Roe v. Wade in three areas. He looks at stare decisis, fundamental rights, and legal moralism. There are three things that need to be proven before the court can overrule a decision in regards to stare decisis. 1) Its foundations have been eroded by subsequent decisions; 2) it has been subject to substantial and continuing criticism; 3) it has not induced individual or social reliance that counsels against overturning it.…
McKayla Magdaleno Mr.Young P.3 10/05/15 Bill of Rights Essay Hook: It’s 1798 and you’re helping construct and write the Bill of Rights, it’s super hot outside and you really just want to go home because you are only on the making of the 4th Amendment right as you get up to leave you get a brilliant idea on what the 4th Amendment should be. Statement: The first amendment reads “The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall be issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly, describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”…
Contracts are an integral part of society, having strong legal contractual principles gives confidence to consumers, investors and anyone who wishes to enter into a contract. Entering in a contract shows that in a primitive way that two parties are on the same page, however it is noted that a high proportion of litigation does actually stem from misunderstood contract (Duxbury (2011)).In this scenario Gary believes he has a valid contract with Mike and is disappointed to learn that Mike has sold on the Bike to Liz (third party). Using previous cases as precedent and analysing the conditions in which a contract is made, advice will be given to Gary on his legal position in regards to the contract and whether there is any suitable remedy that…
Heffernan makes the decision that he is morally obligated as an attorney to allow the appeal and make sure that the defendant is at least allowed to attempt a fair trial. But as Heffernan predicted, the appellant court ruled in favor of the judge’s previous conviction and the defendant was denied a fair trial and also denied the right to appeal to the highest court of state. Heffernan seems to express remorse over this decision and the morality issues we are currently faced with in our justice…