Supreme Court Case: US V. Park

In Mt. Veron Park Association v Chantelle Clark, Michigan Court of Appeals Docket No. 323445 (December 29, 2015) (Unpublished), the Michigan Court of Appeals held that a Condominium Association could not create rules and regulations that were inconsistent with the maintenance responsibilities set forth in the Master Deed and Bylaws. Specifically, the Mt. Veron Park Association adopted a rule and regulation that indicated that all co-owners must paint must have their front doors painted dark brown. The Association requested that the co-owner paint her door dark brown. The co-owner argued that the Master Deed and Bylaws placed the responsibility for the cost of maintenance, repair and replacement of the door on the Association, even though

The main event that led to the civil war was slavery.This can be seen in the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case in 1857.Also in bleeding Kansas in 1856.all of these events had everything to do with slavery in the North or South

To combat possible attacks from within, a Presidential Executive Order was established with the support of Congress. This Order called for the immediate segregation of all people of Japanese ancestry into camps. Fred Korematsu, a Japanese man whose parents emigrated here from Japan, decided to remain in San Leandro, California, and thus was convicted of violating the exclusion order. His case made it to the Supreme Court after Korematsu’s defense questioned the constitutionality of the

During the supreme court case U.S v. Lopez, the United States Federal Government’s argument was that carrying a firearm inside an educational environment would lead to a violent crime. A violent crime ultimately affects the population of a school. Due to this, the federal government believed that the commerce clause should be practiced in this case. The Supreme Court backed the previous decision offered by the Five Court of Appeals. In United States v. Lopez, the U.S Supreme Court stated that Congress actually has the ability to make laws under the Clause, but these powers were limited and could not affect the Lopez case.

As part of their journalism class students produced a newspaper with a collection of student-written articles about teen pregnancy and the impact of divorce on kids. As a result, the principal made the decision to delete the two articles from that edition of the school’s newspaper. Consequently, three students sued the school district alleging violation of their First Amendment rights.

Defendant Hankins filed a motion to correct an illegal sentence on appeal after pleading guilty to felony charges because he argued a Kansas trial court wrongfully considered a deferred judgment from Oklahoma in his sentencing calculation. The State argued that Kansas law required such deferred judgments from other states to be included in sentencing determinations. The Supreme Court of Kansas disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ dismissal of Hankins’ motion, finding that there was a discrepancy between Kansas and Oklahoma’s statutory standards for an entry of a judgment of guilt. Under Kansas law, the Court concluded, a conviction requires a judgment of guilt. However, under Oklahoma law, “an entry of judgment will not be entered for an offender who successfully completes a deferred judgment. The initial conditions are to be imposed ‘without entering a judgment of guilt.’” Therefore, the Court found that no

In the Supreme Court case, “The Dred Scott Decision of 1857”, Dred Scott, a Missouri slave, brought to Illinois by his owner, fought for him and his families freedom in the northern states where slavery was forbidden. While in Illinois Scott fought for his independance on the terms that him and his family now resided in a free state which declared him a free man. On March 6,1857, in a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court denied Scott’s freedom. The Supreme Court stated that any African American was denied the right to have American citizenship. Due to the fact that Scott wasn’t considered an American citizen he did not have the right to sue in federal court. After the case had been finalized many African Americans and abolitionists were enraged

Throughout the United States history, there have been many decisions that could have both made and broken the establishment as we know it. One such case that hinges on that statement would be that of the United States V. Jones. The Government is your friend, if you haven’t done anything wrong then you have nothing to hide. Respondent Jones committed a crime that is a known fact. The police had a warrant and they acted on that warrant, although it had expired which was there own fault, they attached a GPS onto his wife’s car because he was smart when using his own car and his own cell phone. Talking in code and only driving from his house to work in his personal car.

In the infamous Dred Scott V. Sandford case, in 1857, the Supreme Court upheld that no one of the African American race has the ability to sue any United States federal court. Chief Justice Taney ruled that African Americans were "chattel" and had no rights under a "white man's government". Furthermore, the Missouri Compromise was affirmed unconstitutional, because the Congress does not have the power to ban slavery in the Western Territories. Sandford was favored by the Supreme Court, which gave slave owners the right of property, in the Fifth Amendment, including slaves who were bought and sold like property.

Dred Scott (c. 1799 – September 17, 1858) was an enslaved African American man in the United States who unsuccessfully sued for his freedom and that of his wife and their two daughters in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857, popularly known as the "Dred Scott Decision". Scott claimed that he and his wife should be granted their freedom because they had lived in Illinois and the Wisconsin Territory for four years, where slavery was illegal. The United States Supreme Court decided 7–2 against Scott, finding that neither he nor any other person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States, and therefore Scott could not bring suit in federal court under diversity of citizenship rules. Moreover, Scott 's temporary

In 1962 the State legislature of Tennessee was determined by a law made in 1901 by setting the number of legislators for each county. Since putting the law in motion urban area had grown greatly in population. In addition to the population growth, Mayor Charles W. Baker of Nashville put in a suit, saying that the apportionment denied voters of urban areas equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The federal court refused the suit stating that they were not going to enter the “political thicket“ of State district, and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.

Prior to the Child Protection Act of 1984, which made the purchase of child pornography illegal, Keith Jacobson of Nebraska, ordered child pornography from a bookstore. At the time of the transaction, the purchase was legal under both state and federal laws. Following the establishment of the Child Protection Act, Jacobson’s name was noted on a mailing list form the bookstore where he made the purchase. The discovery of his name led to Government agencies and “pen pals” mailing Jacobson as a way to explore if he would break the law. The efforts began in 1985 and persisted for two and a half years. The mailings consisted of various questionnaires, and literature on the legalization of child pornography. One of the letters supplied Jacobson with a list of “pen pals” that had similar responses to the questionnaires; however, Jacobson did not initiate any contact with them. Following his failure to contact any of the names provided, the Government began to commence communication. Jacobson began to receive letters from these fictitious pen pals but stopped responding after only a couple of them. Government agencies also supplied Jacobson with various brochures advertising pornography of young males. After repeated efforts, Jacobson made the decision to make a purchase. He was arrested upon its delivery.

Dred Scott was a slave who had lived with his master in Missouri. He lived in Illinois, a free state, and the Wisconsin Territory for five years. He went to court for his freedom on the basis of his long residence on free soil. Two state courts made two opposing decisions, so Scott went to the Supreme Court in 1857. The Supreme Court ruled that since a slave was private property, he could be taken into any territory and legally held there. The judge appointed to Scott's case, Justice Roger Brooke Taney, decided that Scott couldn't bring a case to court because he wasn't a US citizen, the law declared slaves as property and owners could move their property anywhere, the Missouri Compromise was unlawful, and Congress didn't have enough power to decide where slavery could be permitted. This decision meant that all territories were able to have slavery and northern lawmakers wouldn't be able to keep it out of the territories.

Plessy v. Ferguson The Plessy v. Ferguson case was one of the most important and pivotal cases in the United States supreme court history. Due to both the content of the case, and the time in American history at which the case was argued, this case is thought to be vital in describing American History. The case itself originated when Homer Adolph Plessy, a 1/8 African American sat on a white car in a train. Plessy did in fact look white, and the authorities wouldn’t have realised that this was happening if it hadn’t been for a reporting. Plessy was part of a group who wanted to try racial segregation in the court, and see how strong it really is, therefore this whole activity was planned in an effort to help stop and bring attention

I agree with the statement that the federal courts act in an undemocratic manner. The decision in Marbury v. Madison is not really the issue, it was the Supreme Court granting itself the power of judicial review. In declaring Article XIII of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional the Supreme Court acted in contradiction to the Constitution by usurping the rights of the states and individuals as granted by the Tenth Amendment. The only way to return judicial review would be for the states or individuals to file suit in federal court to petition the Supreme Court to stop exercising judicial review. Unfortunately this case would end up before the Supreme Court making the entire process moot.