Based on our readings and discussions, what are "three" court cases that you found interesting and why?
Weekly discussions and responses mixed with perplexing issues, ideas, and insight from the classroom of Mr. Pyle
Weekly discussions and responses mixed with perplexing issues, ideas, and insight from the classroom of Mr. Pyle
Some court cases I found interesting were the; "Brandenburg v. Ohio," "Wolf v. Colorado," and "Griswold v. Connecticut."
ReplyDeleteIn "Brandenburg v. Ohio" the made a danger test less restrictive by ruling that using inflammatory speech would be punished only if there was imminent danger that this speech would incite an illegal act. I find this case interesting, because this is a case I believe Supreme Court got right. I agree with the ruling with views that speech used to incite danger and chaos is restricted. However, in case of our political duty as American citizens to rise up against our government, with what guns we have left, or sticks, we need speeches that will motivate and actually cause "chaos." I believe this ruling is a necessary evil.
In "Wolf v. Colorado" the Court applied protections against unreasonable search and seizure to the state under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case is interesting on the basis that this grants protection to the everyday citizen being subjected to a "search" and it also delays police work as one would have to go to almost the extremes to receive a warrant to search one's property. I am bent on this ruling in part that I can conjure up situations in which this can benefit rather A)the cop(s) or B)the citizen. If the cop is looking for explosive residue, due to a incident resulting from an explosion, and comes across a suspect who may, or may not, have explosive material in his basement. The only lead the officer has is a slight grey residue on the citizen's hand. Under the ruling the officer must receive a search warrant to check the parameters of the house. In the time it takes to receive a search warrant the citizen might have thrown away crucial evidence.
In "Griswold v. Connecticut" the Court ruled that the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments created "zones of privacy" and enhanced the concept of enumerated rights. This case is interesting to me in part that the Court defines an ambiguous term such as "zones of privacy"
All the cases had an interesting verdict however I found that Roe v. Wade was the most eyecatching. This gave women the opportunity to choose whatever they want to do with their pregnancy. It kind of lessened the role the governement has on the people. Secondly, Texas v. Johnson interpreted the burning of the US flag a crime. It restricts people's first amendment right to freedom of speech. Americans will take advantage of that. The defendant was desecrating America. Lastly, Bethel School District v. Fraser was an interesting case. This case depicted how teenagers minds have shifted from "conservative" ideas to obscene. The school is able to put a stop to inappropriate language.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAlthough I may agree of stopping inappropriate language at schools, efforts stopping it is futile as teens these days do whatever they want and won't care what the teachers do, unfortunately.
DeleteSo do you feel that its under a woman's personal right to aboard their children? Personally for me a new individual is being created which means its their choice whether they live or die but since they have no voice its up to those who are advocate for these infants that should fight for them so that the mother doesn't come to that choice.
DeleteI agree on the whole obscenity issue from school. I may want to stop inappropriate language at school, since teens and kids pretty much say what they want and don't pay attention to any grown up to stop them from using profanity.
DeleteIn Engel v. Vitale, school-sanctioned prayers were ruled as being unconstitutional in public schools. I found that it was an important step in separating religious implication by the state of New Jersey and others. Just as I do agree that physician assisted suicide should be legalized but strictly regulated, and not banned because of religious beliefs. Such beliefs cannot be implicated and are not in accordance with the 1st amendment. In remaining firm to the Constitution we, as a nation, remain as one that promotes personal freedom to worship as we want and discourages any government religious implications.
ReplyDeleteIn Roe v. Wade, women were recognized as having the right to privacy in deciding whether they wanted to terminate the continuation of a pregnancy. I do not believe that abortions should take place in my life, but I cannot force my beliefs on others in this country who share different views. Taking such a decision, the court recognized the 1st amendment and gave women to do as they'd please with a pregnancy under strict regulations.
In Miranda v. Arizona, the court ruled that even suspects of a crime must be read their rights so that the judicial system may not take advantage of uninformed defendants. Making police officers and others have the obligation to read suspects their rights (right to a lawyer, right to remain silent, etc.) sets fair grounds for the suspect to defend himself if at all possible. Not doing so would be taking advantage of a suspect and not letting them put up a fight in defending their selves or in learning what resources to allocate to defend their selves.
I agree with AJ that Engel v. Vitale was necessary to separate church from state and allows schools to be more open toward all religions. Even though I have a different view on Roe v. Wade I respect your opinion and see it as a first amendment right that gives women more freedom.
DeleteI agree with aj and Stephanie that Engel v. Vitale was an important step in seperatig church and state by the court determining it unconstitutional and in the Miranda case in which affect all the criminals arrested after Miranda and allowing citizens to hear there rights and that anything they say will be used against them in a court of law. The abortion becoming legal like Stephanie I agree that I'm not happy with the courts desion in the Roe v. Wade but has been a decision that has terminated many pregnancies and has pioneered a way for women to have more rights.
DeleteIn Texas v. Johnson the court ruled that the burning of a flag is only a symbol and therefore protected by the first amendment. I found this interesting because many people consider flag burning to be disrespectful however the court ruled it was protected by the bill of rights.
ReplyDeleteRoe v. Wade was a landmark ruling that gave women the right to terminate their pregnancy because it was their right to privacy. This was a very controversial topic and continues to be one. The fact that the court took on this case and made such a liberal ruling is surprising.
In California Regents v. Bakke the court ruled that affirmative actions based solely on race quotas were unconstitutional but they could be one part of the admissions process. After just applying for college and scholarships this case definitely gave me a lot to think about and allowed me to better understand university policies.
I agree with Stephanie at the surprise of such a liberal decision from the court on Roe v. Wade. It revolutionized the definition of privacy and selflessness for women. Also I agree that California Regents v. Bakke is interesting because it's a complex issue. The Court decided that race/ethnicity shouldn't be the only factor for admissions, yet it seems that Universities still try to push for diversity and may deny a few students here and there.
DeleteI agree with Stephanie. The California Regents v. Bakke is an interesting case for the fact that while/after applying to colleges we are able to see the effects of this case on students and university policies.
DeleteThe liberal ruling the court made was inevitable. Technically, women do have the right and power to terminate a pregnancy. Whether we like it or not, things are just set that way. I wouldn't want an abortion to happen in my family or life, but others do, and the court has to respect their thoughts because they are still within the boundaries of the constitution.
ReplyDeleteThis was supposed to be a reply to Stephanie, not a post on it's own.
DeleteMiranda vs Arizona,Gideon vs. Wainwright, and Mapp vs. Ohio were my personal interesting cases that I learned in class. the three cases revolved around the Criminal Justice system which is the caree r field I strive on pursuing and learning these cases will help greatly to be knowledgeable of what I will need to know when I get to college. I feel it was to the people personal interest to be away of their Miranda warning and have the right to an attorney in tough cases where they have been victim to a accused crime. I also think that police have full right to search those who they suspect to be in a possible heinous crime, for the safety of those around, to lawfully search them.
ReplyDeletei too feel that police should be able to conduct searches of people or things they find suspicious for the safety of the greater community and that if arrested for suspicion we still have rights that protect us as well
DeleteEvery case has its own unique verdict, but there are a few cases that I find interesting. The decision in Engel v. Vitale about school sanctioned prayer being unconstitutional seems understandable. There are students in school that believe in another religion or don't believe in any religion yet some catholics still impose thier religion on others. I may be catholic myself, but I know some believing in another religion or athiest and we respect each other's belief. Just like what the Golden Rule says, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
ReplyDeleteTexas v. Johnson, in terms of free speech, seems to be the most "colorful" of its type. Burning the national flag is a form of symbolic speech, even if its offensive to other people. There are limits to how much symbolic speech can be shown to the public, as it may accidentally incite violence. In my opinion, it's best to do an act that can be least offensive to other people.
Roe v Wade may be the most discussed case in the history of the Supreme Court. The decision of letting women terminate thier pregancy has broaden thier rights throughout the United States. It has been a touchy subject not only in class, but in the family since most members are against abortion. I am somewhat against it myself, but I cann respect those who who want an abortion.
I also found the Engel v. Vitale case very interesting. I also agree about how there are many people today who are agnostic or athiest. The morning prayer would be seem to be offensive to those, especially since it was imposed on the students.
DeleteI agree, I also find the outcome of Engel v. Vitale very interesting. Before, prayer in school was allowed and indeed enforced, but however due to the changing, vast diversity in America I see why the decision was made to prohibit these prayers in school.
DeleteI think all the cases are very interesting but just like everyone says they all have their own unique differences. Miranda vs Arizona was one that i like because it gives the person the right to defend their self instead of having the police take advantage of them. Rode v. Wade was one that I personally liked because it gives women the right to choose what they want to do with their bodies when it comes to having a baby. When it comes to that topic I take it very serious because of the rights that it gives women. Texas v. Johnson is another one I can go on about simply because it is our National Flag and it means a lot to our nation. Also because it is very serious to our family reason being we have troops in our family.
ReplyDeleteI agree, some people are inconsiderate of others who have gone into the army and fought and have seen things that can be traumatizing and for people to burn flags in front of them can be hurtful to that person.
DeleteThree of the court cases i really enjoyed were Miranda v. Arizona because I think that is something people needed and is fair for everyone, Bethel school district v. Fraser because it was an interesting speech that he gave and was not very polite and people shouldn't be allowed to give speeches like that, and Roe v. Wade because although I am against abortion I still think that women should have the right to decide whether they should terminate the pregnancy or not.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Mayda on the basis that we should be protected from the Federal government. I also believe that we should also be protected from people who want to incite chaos.
Deletemost court cases are interesting and amusing to find. In Roe V Wade, It give women the right to chose abortion if they wanted to. This cause an uprising of the equal rights movement in the 70's. Texas v Johnson was another case I found amusing. That it reflects what our troops do and the people who worked hard in america. So burning a flag may cause unpatriotic towards people either offensive or traumatized during their service from the military. Engel v Vitale showed religion controversy for not allowing prayers in school. It was ruled out later that no prayers be allowed on school announcement.
ReplyDeleteI agree about Roe v. Wade because it was a cause of the equal rights movement in the 70's and it gave woman the right to choose if they wanted an abortion.
DeleteThe three court cases that I found most interesting were Brown v. Board of Education because it showed that American society was still divided along racial lines and it proved that school segregation was unconstitutional, Gideon v. Wainwright because of how he tried to defend himself without a lawyer and then wining his freedom after proving that the court had violated the 6th amendment, and finally Miranda v. Arizona because of how it showed the importance that the Miranda rights have when someone is arrested.
ReplyDeleteThe Gideon v. Wainwright was the one I found the most interesting because he later was able to prove himself "inoccent" because they had abused his 6th amendment.
DeleteI can see why you found those cases interesting. With Brown, it showed how much of racism was around America and it took a case to bring all children together in schools. Also with Gideon v. Wainright and Miranda v. Arizona, this helped us with having more rights when it comes to being involve in a case or even when some one gets arrested.
DeleteMost causes are very interesting and cause much controversy. Roe v. Wade was an interesting case because it gave the women right to decide if they wanted to terminate their pregnancy. It allowed them to chose for themselves and expanded women rights. Another case that was interesting was Miranda v. Arizona because it established that everyone should be read their rights. This gave the people more power because they have more knowledge of what happens. At last, the Gideon v. Wainwrigh case was very interesting because the court denied the right to have an attorney represent him in court. The court abused his 6th amendment, causing huge controversy. He was only allowed to represent himself, which was unfair because he had little knowledge of his rights.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Elizabeth Roe V. Wade was a very interesting case because it did expand women rights. Even though now she wishes abortion was illegal.
DeleteGideon vs. Wainwright is interesting because if the defendant confesses his/her crime without being told of their rights, the confession cannot be used in the case because it was obtained illegaly.
ReplyDeleteTexas vs. Johnson also is interesting because the flag is a like a very important symbol, and then someone comes along and burns it in public, and the outcome is that you can burn it, but not in public.
Roe vs. Wade was interesting as well, giving the fact that women would rather kill the baby within them just to avoid the trouble of giving birth, and then some time later she wants abortion to stop, she must have seen that there wasn't as many kids as there was before abortion was legalized.
Gideon v. Wainwright was interesting because it established lawyers in the court of law as a NECESSITY, not to mention how Gideon strongly educated himself in law in prison and handwrote a writ of cert to the Supreme Court. I think it's an important case because it protects individuals against unfair trials.
ReplyDeleteMapp v. Ohio was interesting because the unreasonable search that took place at Mapp's home got her arrested for a completely different reason than the police had claimed at fist. I think it's also interesting how the Supreme Court was able to upheld the Constitution and support the citizens by protecting them against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Roe v. Wade is very interesting because of its controversy and its importance. The fact that the Court made abortion legal and gave women the right to a choice was a landmark in history. It has sparked a heated debate on morality, life, and rights. It's even more interesting that the woman who use the alias of Roe and helped abortion become legal, is now fighting against it.
Engel v Vitale, because of the controversial topic and the profound impact it had on our everyday life at school. Also, it was sort of a door opener for cases on the meaning of the 1st amendment and its interpretations in the school setting.
ReplyDeleteMiranda v. Arizona because it was such a huge case for the American criminal system. The fact that there is a process for arresting someone gives the criminal rights, which, in hindsight, was unheard of at the time.
Roe v Wade, gave rise to the question of the legality of abortion in a time when women were not considered to be able to make such an important decision. It was a start up in the womens rights movement.
Miranda v. Arizona was one of my three court cases I found intersting only thing I dislike about it is that even if a person is guilty of a crime if an officer fails to read his/her miranda rights the person can be free to go.
DeleteRoe v. Wade is one that I definitely find interesting. It legalized abortion and is at the center of the current controversy between “pro-life” and “pro-choice” advocates. This is a fine example of what people call the separation between the church and state. This type of controversy has always interested me because I'm very curious as to see how these decisions are decided and what the final verdict is.
ReplyDeleteRegents of the University of California v. Bakke is another interesting court case. It imposed limitations on affirmative action to ensure that providing greater opportunities for minorities did not come at the expense of the rights of the majority. The question that sparks debate is whether minorities are actually at a disadvantage or are they not.
New York Times Company v. Sullivan is one other case I find interesting. The U.S. Supreme Court held that First Amendment protection of free speech is not dependent on the truth, popularity, or usefulness of the expressed ideas. Our first amendment helps us in the freedom of speech, along with other freedoms. I find that what we are allowed and are not allowed to say is very contradicting. It all depends on the norms of society.
I agree with your view on Roe v. Wade. The controversy we have now between the two views on abortion is a prime example of whether the government and nation can truly separate views of church from the policies in government. It will be hard, but a decision will eventually have to be agreed on.
DeleteRoe V. Wade was very interesting and is still very interesting because now this woman believes the complete opposite of what she first wanted. This case caused a lot of spark because this case made abortion legal. Gideon V. Wainwright was also very interesting because it guaranteed the right to legal counsel. The whole act behind this was very interesting as well as the decision made. Miranda V. Arizona was also interesting because it required the Miranda rights to be read, and if they were not read to suspects during the interrogation any of their statements or confessions could not be used against them.
ReplyDeleteI agree now she regrets what she did.
DeleteI believe all the court cases are unique in their own way. Personally, I was most interested in Roe v. Wade, Miranda v. Arizona, and Gideon v. Wainwright.
ReplyDeleteI liked Roe v. Wade because it gave women the opportunity, and right, to decide what to do with their own body and life. It was a great leap in women rights.
I liked Miranda v. Arizona because if enforced the fact that everyone has rights, and they have to be informed about them.
I liked Gideon v. Wainwright because it is only fair that everyone has their own attorney, weather they can afford it or not.
The court cases I found the most intriguing where Miranda V. Arizona due to the fact that it gave suspects the right to remain silent when being questioned by an officer. Texas V. Johnson where I was surprised the court ruled with Johnson after burning an american flag. Lastly I would have to say it'd be Gideon V. Wainwright where a suspect has the right to an attorney even if he cannot afford one.
ReplyDeleteFrom the court cases that we discussed during class, I found the cases of Miranda v. Arizona, Roe v. Wade, and Citizens United v. FEC. Starting with Miranda v. Arizona, it should had been always a right to tell the prosecutor his/her rights before being detained. Having a court case just to prove this point was sort of slow for the governments part. Second would be Roe v. Wade due to its controversial subject of Abortion. This case made a lot of uproar within the states and its understandable due to people's beliefs and other things. But, the most interesting would have to be Citizens United v. FEC. This court case basically gave companies the right to vote and that is absurd. How can the government allow for this to happen? This case should be visited again because it is not fair for everyone else that is in other words, human.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. The gov't has given the companies too much power. It has gotten way out of hand. It's like they run the gov't now and no one has a voice, but them.
DeleteThe first case I find interesting would have to be Dred Scott. Although his owner took him to a "free" place & passed away he was still considered a slave. He was somewhere where slavery didn't exist & no longer had an owner, he was a free man.
ReplyDeleteThe second is Mapp vs Ohio. They violated the 4th amendment & found evidence which they tried to use against him in court. I think its good that they weren't able to use that evidence.
The third is Abbington vs Schempp. Kids go to school to learn, not to be forced to read the bible. There are kids from everywhere with different religions!
I agree as well with the court case of Abbington vs. Schempp, because religion should not be express in school in any way, because the USA is a nation of multicultural religions and there shouldn't be a dominate in schools. I also like the fourth amendment because it protects us from unethical searches.
DeleteI agree, everyone has different beliefs and should not be put into those kind of uncomfortable situations by force.
DeleteOne of the cases I found Interesting is Miranda V. Arizona because if the police don't read the rights to de suspect even if he confess he is guilty the police can't use that against him.
ReplyDeleteTexas V. Johnson is another one it is interenting how it is ilegan to burn an American flag in public, but if you burn it in your home it is legal.
Bethel School District V. Fraser because it put a limit to the freedom of speech in school.
I found the miranda Vs. Arizona case interesting because of the fact that they would actually let a person that is guilty and has admitted to being so go free due to the fact that they " didn't know their rights, that's pretty stupid and allows them to go back out and repeat their actions.Rode vs. wade was interesting because although women should take responsibility for their irresponsible choices and not take it out on the life of an innocent child, they do deserve the right to choose. Lastly, I found the Abbington vs. Schempp case interesting because no one should be forced to exercise a belief that they do not share with others by force.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Leslie that they would let a guilty person go free but I also disagree because the innocent are aware of their rights instead of being pressured into being guilty. The pressure can make them declare themselves guilty just because they didn't know their rights.
DeleteI agree with Leslie for how she gave her point of view on the Rode v. Wade case. I agree that its not an innocent child's fault their parent(s) can not live up to their responsibilities that they gave themselves.
DeleteI found Miranda Vs Arizona case the most interesting because it makes authorities let innocent and or guilty people aware of their rights before saying anything that can be used
ReplyDeletein court against them.
Abbington vs Schempp was another case i found interesting because it did not let allow kids to read the bible in school. Everyone has different beliefs and with that court case it may have saved riots from happening.
The last court case i found interesting was Gideon v. Wainwright because if i was poor and had to go to court id want a attorney. This court case helped out to provide for the less fortunate.
I agree with Japhet on Miranda v. Arizona and Gideon v. Wainwright because they both play roles with each other, they go along with one another.
DeleteWade V. Roe is one of the case that i though was interesting. The decision reached in this case arose a lot of controversy and it gave women the right to make the decision that best fit their situation. It was a very delicate case since it was a life or death situation.
ReplyDeletePlessy V. Furgeson ruled that blacks and whites where to be kept "separate but equal." The case seems interesting to me because the blacks are still being discriminated against just not in an obvious way like before. It seems retarded to me how they thought that would make things better.
Brown V. Board overturned Plessy and encouraged desegregation in school. I like this case because it is actually fair and gives the blacks equal opportunity. It made way to a new beginning.
The first case that was very interesting was Miranda vs. Arizona, because even when a murderous criminal admits that he did a crime, but can get away without any charges just because the police officers did not tell them their rights.
ReplyDeleteGideon v. Wainwright is the next one, because everyone has a right to be represented equally, even though it comes out of taxpayers pockets.
And lastly, Roe v. Wade, because women have the right to decide whether they want to keep a pregnancy or not.
I agree with Miranda v Arizona being a very interesting case. I think it's amazing how a criminal may be released and not be at fault all because of not being read his/her Miranda rights. I think that's absurd of the government to a certain extent but I agree with it because it has helped like in the case with the Boston Marathon bombers by having the suspects tell everything they know.
DeleteRode v. Wade was a very interesting case because topics such as abortion still are topics that nowadays still cause a lot of controversy. Roe v. Wade shows a big step in women fighting to exercise their rights.
ReplyDeleteAs well, the Miranda Rights were pretty interesting for the fact that if they are not read to the individual ,even though they may be a criminal , they have to be released.And then nothing can be done because an individual can not be tried for the same case twice.
Finally, Gideon v. Wainwright was interesting because even though it was specified in the constitution that everyone should have a right to an attorney, poor individuals had to speak for themselves until Gideon changed this.
I agree with Jess on the Miranda Rights and Gideon v. Wainwright because those were my most interesting as well that gave more justified opportunities.
DeleteMy three most favorite court cases have been Roe v Wade, Engel v Vitale and Brown v Board.
ReplyDeleteRoe v Wade was interesting because of the ongoing issue continuing today of when exactly life begins. The decision of Roe v Wade at any moment now may be reversed and I think that just makes the case that much more interesting.
Engel v Vitale is a very interesting case, possibly the most interesting to me nowadays. It prevented school-initiated prayer however just a few weeks ago I've heard of the state of Florida signing a law of some sort which has allowed school initiated prayer and had hopes of other states following. I'm not sure if it will happen but whatever the case may be it will be very interesting to see everything unfold.
Brown v Board has always been an interesting case. Not only have we known that case for what it feels as ever but it has allowed for us to be in schools. Being a Hispanic I am eternally grateful for Brown v Board granting me the opportunity to receive an education next to a diverse amount of students.
I found Miranda v Arizona interesting because saying a few sentences can make all the difference for using evidence in a court case, I also liked Bong Hits for Jesus even though it ended up limiting student rights over a stupid poster, and I also liked Mapp v Ohio because now police require a warrant to search homes or vehicles, searching Mapp's home and her arrest were completely unreasonable any way.
ReplyDeleteI agree on every case that you discussed about. I hate how bong hits for jesus limited our rights as a student.
DeleteRoe V. Wade was one of the most interesting case courts because the women who was known as Roe wants to go back and argue on the opposite side. It’s ironic in the way that she legalized abortion and now she wants to ban it.
ReplyDeleteCitizens United V. FEC where the Supreme Court decided to name corporations people. In politics and elections the “person” that gives the most money has a better chance of influencing the candidate.
Gideon V. Wainwright this case was interesting because Gideon, an illiterate person, decide to study the law and claim rights that he believed he had. At the end the Supreme Court ruled on his behalf. Thanks to the persistence of Gideon, individuals that can’t afford an attorney one will be appointed to them.
I agree with John because ultimately it is a woman's decision wether she wants abort or not its apart of women's rights.
ReplyDeleteThe three court cases that I found highly interested were Mapp v. Ohio because it extended the federal exclusionary rule to the states. The evidence that was gathered in someone's home can't be used in court if they were gotten illegaly which means that the officer did not issue a warrant to enter the person's home. I think it is fair that without a warrant evidence can't be used against one. I wouldn't want that to occur to me.
ReplyDeleteMiranda v. Arizona because it is a requisite for police to make suspects aware of their rights. However their could be a consequence and if an officer makes a mistake and doesnt read the person's rights then the guilty person can go free. However it allows for the innocent to prove their innocence.
Plessy v. Ferguson because it ruled that segregation is legal as long as accommodations were "separate but equal." I find this interesting because this was still unfair at the time but this is when the United States is considering other minorities equal but at the same time is still segregation because they are separate.
I found Miranda v. Arizona interesting because the ways it made the person arrested the ability to be innocent or at least they can know their rights.
ReplyDeleteGideon v. Wainwright was also interesting, because it some what goes along with Miranda v. Arizona and it is goes with the Miranda Rights statement.
Roe v. Wade was interesting because at that time she was in favor of abortion but now she goes around saying the exact opposite.
I agree with your view on the Roe vs Wade case. She did a complete 180 on her standing dealing with abortion which in a sense makes the case seem far greater than it enttentionally was. Although we are far from a verdict that will please everybody I believe this case made a huge impacts on this country as a whole.
Deletei agree with jorge about the roe v wade case how now shes against abortion. Its wierd how all of a sudden she changed her mind and side of what she thought was right and wrong.
DeleteI found Roe v. Wade to be a very interesting case because it allowed women to get an abortion if they choose to do so. The topic of abortion is a very sensitive topic, which is why I found this case to be very interesting. I found Plessy v. Ferguson to be a very interesting case because it allowed segregation as long as it remained "separate but equal." I also found Gideon v. Wainwright to be interesting because of how it allows for poor defendants fair representation in court. Also, in order for these defendants to receive representation tax payer dollars would have to be used, making this method very questionable and therefore interesting.
ReplyDeleteagree with osvaldo upon all three cases these cases allowed americans outburst be heard look at gideon roe and plessy these three indivisuals have helped shaped our american government to what it is now
DeleteIt’s amazing how many court cases have occurred that have truly impacted the nation as a whole and how we live our lives today. Many of the court cases were interesting, but these seemed to have made more of an impact in my view:
ReplyDeleteMapp v. Ohio was interesting due to the fact that Mapp was already going to be arrested, since the officers did have that arrest warrant. Yet they went and searched Mapp’s home without a warrant and found another reason to arrest her. This grew on the views of the protection of people against searches and seizures without warrants.
Engel v. Vitale was another interesting case due to what we view suitable in a school environment. This case separated prayer from school which I view as a good thing since there are plenty of other people with different religious affiliations that would not be too comfortable. Now we have a moment of silence that replaces the prayer, in which I find more suitable so individuals could do what they view in the allotted time of the moment of silence.
Plessy v.Ferguson was interesting due to the attempt to covering up segregation by stating certain things as being separate but equal. Minorities were still segregated but in saying that they were equal was supposed to mean something and make it seem like it’s not segregation.
For me, choosing only 3 court cases was extremely difficult. Mapp v Ohio, was another court cases that amuses me because of the simple fact that it gave, in a way, a voice to the alleged criminal. Although we are supposedly innocent until proven guilty, it wasn't until these cases, including Miranda v Arizona that the defendant is actually given a fighting chance. Sure. it allows for foul play, but it also emphasizes the change in beliefs and centralization on civil rights.
DeleteI agree with you, Raul. Engel v. Vitale made school a better environment. Religion does not need to be a part of public schools. If individuals wish to worship a deity they can do it outside of the campus on their own time.
DeleteThe Miranda v. Arizona, is one of the cases that I find interesting because I believe that it should be enforced that either a police officer or someone along the transition of the booking process, read the rights to a criminal to prevent them from escaping their punishment just because they didn't have the rights read to them, if those criminals committed the crime they should pay for it, I just wish that there could be an alternate method to deal with criminals that claim to be innocent in order to find the truth.
ReplyDeleteI also find gideon v. Wainwright interesting since I plan to go into the law field and I believe that everyone should be allowed for an attorney to represent them in a court of law in any situation.
I also find Roe v. Wade interesting because I rememberin the early years of when abortion was made illegal shop women had an abortion at home using wire hangers, so in order to prevent that, I believe women should have every right to do what they want with their bodies.
Roe vs wade ,Miranda vs Arizona , and gideon vs wainwright all help me understand the rights we have as Americans. As I look at the roe vs wade case the argument over abortion is the doctors decision or the individual's decision only enhance the chances of society to become more irrate still till this day it's a big conflict
ReplyDeleteIn Miranda vs Arizona is reading your rights needed when you're caught dead in the act well of course as the criminal I would want my rights read ,but as a law enforcer I am at risk of forgetting to recite the "Miranda rights" all for the simple fact that being repetitive is boring.
In Gideon vs wainwright I feel as though tax payers should pay for their fellow citizens representation in court for as you see not everyone is able to conceive the type of money that it takes to afford a top flight lawyer
The most 'interseting' or funny one in my opinion would have to be "bong hits for jesus" or Morse vs Frederick. This case was interesting to me that this happrned on broad casted television, in the middle of such an exhilarating moment. This was especially interesting to me, because it did not occur on school grounds yet some how a school matter.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting case to me, as a women, would have to be Roe vs Wade, because it seems to be taking on an issue even now we can't decide upon. She, the women who soli
sought out to legalize abortion turned around years later tring to undo her hard work by fighting now to make it illegal.
Finally the three most interest case would gave to be the Texas vs Johnson case. This case was very humorous to me because on a certain level it contradicts its self. It declared tgt buring a flag in public was illegal while burning one on privetly owned land wasnt. So in a since you could sit on your porch burning a flag singing the ametican anthum and cant be attested.
Citizens v. FEC was one of the interesting ones I believed for the fact that corporations were named people by the supreme court. I think they made a dumb decision letting that happen and now only benefits the candidate of their chose even if the candidate potentially run our county, state, country, etc. down.
ReplyDeleteAs a girl who is religious and I have been preached that abortion is wrong I will stand by my faith and say I'm STRONGLY against it so when I see the court case roe v. wade I think of how the value of having children have gone down.
One of my favorite we've discussed in class for Damians leisure was the case morse v. fredrick "bong hits for jesus". it made me think of how limited we are at school and how ballsy those kids were to do such a funny and outrageous stunt.
Miranda v. Arizona is intresting how any case can be dissmissed if the cops arrestting you do not read you your rights.Also anthing you say before they read you your rights can not be used against you you in court. Basically these rights can control alot of things if you go to jail or not and lets you know what rights you have now. Helps out especially for people that are not from American.
ReplyDeleteGideon v. Wainwright this poor man wasnt appointed an attourney, and was forced to try to defend himself. whats cool and intresting is that he didnt give up and wrote to the supreme court to hear his case in which they did. All people deserve to be treated equal and deserve the same rights.
The best one so far is the bong hits for jesus case. Where a kid from highschool held up a sign on world wide tv at the liting of the fire saying bong hits for jesus. The school let them go to the parade and cancelled school that day. i think it wasnt as bad people made it seem and was in violatin against the first amendment.
i think that he really was trying to exercise his first amendment rights school was "canceled" so it should had been fine but things happens for a reason right...
DeleteI agree because Miranda Rights help those who have no idea what their rights are so when they are arrested the know what they can do going into court.
DeleteAlso everyone should be treated equal therefore if they don't have the money to hire an attorney to fight for them then they should get one from the court to help because they might not know what to do.
Three court cases I found interesting were: Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, Mapp v. Ohio. The Miranda v. Arizona court case was interesting because of the fact that although Miranda was still arrested up untill now regardless of the crime we have rights that are not taken away from us like the right to an attourny and etc. Only bad thing is that if and officer making the arrest fails to tell the person being arrested his/her rights the person can be released and maybe cause another crime maybe even worse. The Gideon v. Wainright was interesting to me because regardless of the little knowledge Gideon had he still managed to fight for his own freedom. Mapp v. Ohio was intersting only because of the fact that even though Mapp was getting arrested already the law enforcement still found even more evidence in her home to use against her so that she would get put away although they didn't have a warrant to search her house. I still think that it was the right thing to do and search around the suspect house for anymore evidence to prove even more that she was a criminal of was in violation of something.
ReplyDeleteMiranda v. Arizona was one of the most interesting cases to me because I had never knew the background of the Miranda Rights. It intrigued me especially with the current cases happening today that involve the meanings of the Miranda Rights.
ReplyDeleteGideon v. Wainwright was also interesting because how it happened. It seemed to me that it was accidental and it became something way more than what it intended for. Which grasps my attention because Gideon was far from prestigious
Brown v. Board of Education was always interesting to me because it shows how the Plessey V Ferguson case contradicted itself thinking that being separate but equal is constitutional when it wasn't.
I found many of the cases we studied fascinating. My favorites are as follow:
ReplyDelete1.) Roe v. Wade- This particular case was a landmark case in Women's rights movement. It allowed women to get an abortion if they choose to do so. I stand on the decision of allowing women to chose if they want to get an abortion or not.
2.) Plessy v. Ferguson- While truly a stain in Supreme Court judgement history, the case was a reflection of the nation's flawed and bigoted mentality. The decision allowed segregation as long as it remained "separate but equal." What a load of BS! It was blunt racism and discrimination with a nice little title.
3.) Gideon v. Wainwright- This decision allows for underprivileged and disfranchised defendants to have fair representation in court. It is highly important to ensure that everyone gets a fair treatment in the court system.
tinker v. des moines , texas v. johnson both showed me the rights of protesters and the freedom of speach is legal as long as it is not offencive . and gideon v. wainwright made sure that every one has the right to a lawer even if they can't afford one they deserve to be represented
ReplyDeleteI thought the Gideon v. Wainwright was quite interesting that a man that didn't have equal representation that could write on note book paper proves that are founding fathers principals of being equal represented and heared by the court is exact what occur a man of a lower class that was in prisoned was heared by the court and changed taxes and equal representation in todays court room. The Roe v. Wade is also interesting how the supreme court allowed women to have abortions and that how many years later she regrets the mistake she made and how she affected today's politics with abortion being a hot issue by the court allowing this the nations population has been affected greatly. The final case that interested me was Brown v. Board that in a vey segregated time in which America was separate but equal how one little girl wanted to go to a different school has affected me and other minority students greatly by actually obtaining equality for all no matter what the skin tone and over ruling Pleasy v. Ferguson and helping society come together as a whole rathe than separate but equal.
ReplyDeleteRoe v. Wade I find interesting the fact that she change her mind after so many years, but I mean after 3 generations of abortions who can blame her. in a way you can say that the supreme court revolutionized the way one se individual rights over one's body when it comes to females. Board v Board of Education the reason I choose this case is because is linked up to me. it goes to override plessy v Ferguson in "separate but equal" I sure wouldn't want to go to the other side of town having a school right next to me. As we all know Latinos were treaded just as bad as colored people and so in a was I'm linked. Abbington vs. Schempp is in my list of cases because of the fact that I know I wouldn't like the states to tell me what to do in regards of my religion, I could be a Buddhist for all they know so I think that they did good in reinforcing the first amendment.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Martin on the Roe V. Wade case being that she had three "Opps" but it was until that last one that knocked sense in to her she was hesitant because how society viewed abortion.
DeleteThe decision in "Roe v. Wade" changed the way people saw abortion with woman. This case made abortion more common and caused alot of young woman to start taking his route.
DeleteMiranda v. Arizona, Gideon v Wainwright and Brown v Board of Education.
ReplyDeleteMiranda V. Arizona mainly since today a lot of cops or court cases have been using evidence that accused idiviuals have given before Miranda was stated to them.
Gideon V. Wainwright is just funny since Gideon didnt even know what he was doing in the first place when he was in court representing himself and then to write to the supreme court and have them accept to view his case is funny in my opinion.
Brown V. Board of Education even after the case of sepreate schools being unconstutional the US still had segregation saying they were "equal"
Roe v Wade was an interesting court case in my opinion. It fought for women's rights to have a abortion. Given that women should have to right to do what they please with their body and I believe women should have that right.
ReplyDeleteMiranda v Arizona was a very helpful case for those who didn't know their rights because of this case everyone is read their rights before being arrested. So it is helpful for those who don't know them and just need them to be explained thoroughly.
Engel v Vitale is another case I find interesting because it was over my beliefs in prayer in school. There are different religions out there which have different beliefs. Which for that reason is why now a moment of silence is given. This way is fair because every individual can do what they please during these few seconds.
I found the court case "Wolf v. Colorado" was interesting because Julius Wolf was going to court for committing abortion but because the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause does not prohibit the admission of evidence obtained during an illegal search and seizure in State courts, wolf won the case. The second court case I found very unique was "Mirainda vs Arizona". Because of this case, every time a cop arrest someone he has do read that certain individual his or her rights if not the basical walk free. My third and final case is "Brown v. Board". This is probably one of the most significant cases in the Supreme Court history because it broke the color boundary in education. No school was allowed to deny a student due to his or her race, skin color, height, size, shape, smell, and or apperence.
ReplyDeleteEven though all cases contained an interesting turn out or verdict, I found that Roe v. Wade to be the case to catch my attention. This gave women the opportunity to choose whatever they want to do with their pregnancy, and in a way took away from control of the government on the people. I liked the ruling in Texas v. Johnson, since it interpreted the burning of the US flag a crime, even though it restricts people's first amendment right to freedom of speech. The third case I found interesting to me personally, Bethel School District v. Fraser. This case demonstrates how teenagers’ minds have shifted from "conservative" ideas to containing or being language regarded as taboo in polite usage.
ReplyDelete