The first Supreme Court, discussion help

SUPERIOR-PAPERS.COM essay writing company is the ideal place for homework help. If you are looking for affordable, custom-written, high-quality and non-plagiarized papers, your student life just became easier with us. Click the button below to place your order.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper

please replies to my classmates posts for example you can start like this Hi nice post i like the fact that …..

Brandon wrote:

The first Supreme Court case that came to mind was the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This
case arguably had the most profound impact on criminal law since the
constitution was erected. Well the case all started in 1963 when Ernesto
Miranda raped and kidnapped an 18 year old women. The case appeared to
be a lock for the prosecution. Miranda was identified by the girl and
after being interrogated admitted that he was guilty. But, ahh here
comes the issue… Miranda was never informed of his constitutional
rights prior to being interrogated. So he subsequently appealed his
conviction on the pretense that his constitutional rights were violated.
The issues his case dealt involved the 5th amendment (right to remain
silent) and 6th amendment (right to counsel). In a shocking move the
court held, in its 5-4 opinion, that Miranda’s rights were violated.
Therefore, overturning his conviction. Chief Justice Warren wrote the
opinion of the court which said “The person in custody must, prior to
interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain
silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he
must be clearly informed that the has the right to consult with a lawyer
and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he
is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” If
that sounds suspiciously similar to the Miranda rights that you have
heard on shows like Cops and in the movies then you would be correct.
This case is what forced law enforcement officials to read individuals
suspected of crimes their constitutional rights when they are being
custodially interrogated. This case ties in with the economic classes’ termfrom
the book. While everyone should have equal protections under the law,
arguably minorities and people from poverty (low economic classes) often
were forced to speak to speak police without an attorney present or
they couldn’t afford one. But, after this case suspects had the
constitutional right to counsel—even if they cannot afford one.

Timothy wrote this:

In one of the landmark Supreme Court Cases, Tinker v. Des Moines
(1969), Justice Fortas affirmed that a student maintains their
constitutional rights while in public school. In 1965, John and Mary
Beth Tinker wore black armbands to school against the policies set forth
by the school in Des Moines, Iowa. The black armbands at the time were a
symbol of protest against the Vietnam War. The two Tinker students were
suspended from school after they refused to remove the armbands and
were told they were not allowed to return to classes until they agree to
remove the armbands. Instead of complying, the Tinkers filed a suit
against the school in the U.S. District Court claiming that the wearing
of armbands is a form of free speech–called symbolic speech. The
District Court ruled in favor of the school claiming that the armbands
were a disruption to learning–this means that the District Court
favored undisruptive learning in schools over a student’s right to free
expression. The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Court of
Appeals: Eighth Circuit and was once again disappointed after the Court
of Appeals sided with the District Court (Street Law, Inc., 2016).

By 1968, the Tinkers have taken their case to the Supreme Court with
the following question: “Does the constitutional right of free speech
protect the symbolic speech of public school students?” In 1969, the
Supreme Court reached their decision with a 7-2 vote in favor of the
Tinkers (Street Law, Inc., 2016).

Tinker v. Des Moines is a case that is an example of federal question.
A federal question is a legal issue directly involving the U.S.
Constitution, statutes, or treaties. The case brought before the Supreme
Court questioned whether or not the protected right to free speech and
expression, as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
applies to students in public schools (Hanes & Ekern, 2013, pg. 58).

James wrote this :

Smoking bans and other tobacco related regulations have been increasingrapidly since the first surgeon general’sreport in 1964 thatdefinitively linked the use of tobacco with certain diseases. Despitethis
report being 50 years old, there has been no federal smoking ban
enacted. The lack of federal action allows state legislators tocreate a vast array of alternative policymethods
to reach goals more specific to that state. Policy analysts can then
use varying policy proposals to fine tune previously suggested proposals
byfocusing on specific problem areas within a given policy. By creatingmultiple
policy alternatives, analysts can then create entire models of multiple
policies, that work cohesively to mitigate problems associated with one
policy or that promote the positive effects of another. Despite the
differences betweentobacco regulations state by state, the country has been moving forward with a tri-tiered
policy model that combines public education like labeling laws,
monetary incentives in the form of excise taxes, and blatant deterrence
in the form of smoking bans and age limits to reduce the negative
affects associate with tobacco use. 

Why do you think it may have been beneficial for Delaware to be one of the first states to implement such a policy?

 Policy makers can seek to be the first to enact a policy for personal
political gain, but also because being first or early can be beneficial
to the cause, and subsequently benefit those who the policy will effect.
The text for this course mentions a bandwagon effect associated with
being the first of its kind policies or movements. The Bandwagon effect
works by drawing in substantive interests that are concerned with being
on the ‘winning’ side of an issue. Secondly the bandwagon effect works
to suppress opposition by not providing proper time or an easy way to
create an opposition. So by being early or first in policy creation a
state or cause can benefit as people will pick sides based on the
problem definition. Additionally, the oppositions ability to mobilize,
or point to handpicked statistics that show a negative fall-out of
similar policies in other states is diminished.

Cary wrote this:

I think it is vitally important to look around at other jurisdictions
on how they handle policy in other areas that you are not from. It will
give you stronger insight to why a certain area or group of people have
or do not have a specific law set in motion, such as the indoor smoking
ban. When I first read the prompt I thought to myself ‘This is such a
one sided argument and all states should have an indoor smoking ban.’ To
gain more insight I tried to look from the other perspective of why you
would NOT have a smoking ban initiated in your state. It appears there
are just a few states left, about 10 or so, that do not have a statewide
ban on indoor smoking. It appears as though some smaller localities
want to give their citizens the freedom to do as they wish, even if that
means smoking indoors. Another argument is that is smoking is allowed
in public then they will be less likely to smoke in their home where
there could possibly be children. If you ban smoking completely indoors,
you are going to have some bars and clubs that may lose business
because the people who come in prefer to smoke there. Lastly, it is just
very difficult to enforce the ban everywhere. Especially in smaller
facilities, they may choose to ignore it because they simply have no
desire to follow the rules. I honestly could not think of any reasons to
keep smoking allowed but after looking around at research I found some
valid arguments for it. For this precise reason it is important to look
around before making any decisions or alterations as a policy analyst. 

As for Delaware being first on the smoking ban, I think that it set a
tone that Delaware cares for the health and safety of its citizens.
This is looking at what will benefit the greater good of society. While
smoking is legal, limiting the usage may make some people upset, though I
think more people would be upset becoming ill from secondhand smoke
which they did not consent to. In this case I am glad Delaware sided
with keeping public order over individual rights. Plus, this sets a
precedent to other states in the nation. When they are evaluating
whether or not they should initiate a smoking ban, they are going to
look at the positive results Delaware has seen since the smoking ban was
created. This allows Delaware to have recognition to doing the right
thing before others.

Dear writer what would you reply to these classmates post

Got stuck with a writing task? We can help! Use our paper writing service to score better grades and meet your deadlines.

Get 15% discount for your first order

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper