The Significance Of West Virginia

First making Appalachia their home were the Native American people. The Paleo-Indians living around 10,000 B.C. were the first ever known people to make West Virginia their home. After them, West Virginia was lived in by native people until the 17th century. A little before European settlers found their way into the Appalachian Mountains, the Indian people dispersed. Reasons aren’t too clear but it’s reasoned to be due to European disease and tribal conflict.

In 1788, the ratification of the United States Constitution sought to establish the fundamental aspects of the nation’s government, laws, and protections of its citizens’ unalienable rights. Robert G. McCloskey’s The American Supreme Court (2016) explains that, during this period, the prospects of the Supreme Court were essentially unknown. As time progressed, however, the Court began strengthening its legitimacy with its decisions in major landmark court cases which, in turn, established its crucial role in shaping the judicial interests and values of the nation. As such, McCloskey (2016) traces the country’s judicial history by highlighting the Court’s great transitional periods regarding state rights, nation rights, property rights, and slavery. By the start of the 20th century, however, discrepancies began to emerge with the rise of

INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the

To start off this essay, I would like to state whether or not I support West Virginias decision on whether on becoming their own state or just staying part of Virginia. In my opinion I support the decision to become their own state. There are three reasons why. The first reason is that they were going to become part of the union. The second reason is slavery. The final reason why I support them is because of their right to vote.

The founders recognized the importance of these laws in the making of a free and just society and preventing the tyranny of government. The founders purposely amended these protections into the Bill of Rights and stripping these rights away from American citizens is not only unjust, it is unconstitutional. As a detriment to all American citizens, Lindh’s rights, fought so hard for by the framers of the Constitution, were assaulted in many ways.

Gender equality, freedom of speech, the right to vote. These three things are familiar concepts to the modern American society, but just decades ago, these “basic human rights” were still foreign concepts that remained implied in the American Constitution. One of the major contributors, who crystallized these implications, was a former associate justice of the Supreme Court, William Brennan. Being a “...leader on the supreme court during most of his 34 years of service”, Brennan was critical in the making of many of today’s policies(Patrick 50). Through his many ideals and accomplishments in the areas of individual rights and court processing, which continue to affect society even today, it is

Our founding fathers imagined a country full of freedom and opportunity. This divine objective, however, did not promise such to everyone. As our government today views the original documents made by our fathers, we come to realize that they did not specify all our questionable rights presently.

Essentially, the southern politicians reaffirm their dependence on the Constitution as the central tradition that must be adhered to, and they censure the Supreme Court’s infringements on rights held to the states and to the general population, in opposition to the new law and to the Constitution. For example, the southern politicians had a convincing argument and a valid point since they recognize the thought processes of those states which have pronounced the goal to oppose constrained mix by any legal means, yet they speak to the states and individuals who are not specifically influenced by these choices to consider the protected standards required against on issues key to them might be the casualties of legal

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

Today, the Constitution is still used as the highest form of validity for every law the United States has. The most important of the six basic principles have upheld American values: judicial review, checks and balances, and federalism. Judicial review was established in 1803 in the court case Marbury v. Madison. This court case came about after the election of Thomas Jefferson in 1800. The president before him, John Adams, had hastily appointed judges and justices of the Federalist party before Jefferson took office and had the chance to appoint Democratic-Republican judges. After appointments had been failed to be delivered, Marbury appealed to the Supreme Court and thus the case is now a precedent for hearings needing review of the justices. The Supreme Court had to get involved during the case of Plessy v. Ferguson after conflicting state laws over racial segregation. They ruled that it would be legal to have “separate but equal” public facilities. This completely shaped the course of American history especially during the 1950’s and the Civil Rights movement. This case was later reevaluated and overturned by the court case Brown v. Board of Education. Also, in 1966 the Miranda v. Arizona case used judicial review after Ernesto Miranda was not made

Around 82 representatives and 19 senators came together and signed off on the Southern Manifesto in protest. The author’s make an argument that the Brown ruling was an abuse of judicial power that trespassed the states' rights to decide and uphold their own laws. Furthermore, the opposition attempt to establish their ground by stating that the founding fathers themselves gave us the constitution for a reason. No one man or group of men can be entrusted with that much power, which is why they established a system of checks and balances to limit the federal government over the states and the judiciary system. If one or many people hold this much power, then this will lead to a continued defamation of power; in other words a Scare towards the democracy written by the founding

In New York Times’s article, “Justices Void Oversight Of States, Issue at Heart of Voting Rights Act,” the article title is the practice of news presentation. The choice of angle or presentation is apparent that New York Times is disappointed in the ruling. The phrase “Heart of Voting Rights Act” puts New York Times’ opinion to the readers that section that was ruled unconstitutional was the heart, the most important part, of the Voting Rights Act. The mention of Justice Ginsburg is important to note as well because of her bias towards the ruling. Her statement, “unusual move and a sign of deep disagreement,” and the New York Times’ choice to put this in the article shows the “marginalization” of the southern states’ freedom. This article compares Justice Ginsburg with Justice Roberts putting Roberts in a negative light. Robert’s statement of how Selma, Alabama (place of Bloody Sunday) and Philadelphia, Mississippi (murders of civil rights workers) now have African American mayors and that because of this the nation has made great strides and now does not need section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. The

It was not until after the Civil War that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments were enacted and began protecting individuals against the states. The Fourteenth Amendment has been the principal means by which this protection has been accomplished. It reads, in part, “No State shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.” The Supreme Court had interpreted this guarantee of liberty to embrace the fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights, meaning that the state governments must observe and protect them to the same extent as the federal government this is also known called incorporation. The amendments in the Bill of Rights are said to be incorporated against the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There has been an ongoing debate on the Supreme Court about the extent of incorporation, and whether the entire Bill of Rights, or only some of it’s guarantees, should be incorporated against the states.

Legal liberalism calls for equality before the law; it was a manner to ensure that there shall be equality before all citizens, protecting them from unjust statutes or acts the state may incorporate. However, despite the protections in our constitution, there are instances in American history where the Supreme Court has endorsed other branches to violate or limit its citizens’ economic freedom. In this essay I will cite court cases and documents that incited conflict, most notably “substantive due process” and “liberty of contract.” In light of these cases it prompted a massive transformation in constitutional jurisprudence such as Equal protections clause, right to privacy, and criminal defendants’ rights that moved the nation towards

Declared in the U.S. Constitution every American or should it be person, is guaranteed civil rights. Civil rights did not just consist of “freedom of speech and assembly,” but as well as “the right to vote, the right to equal protection under the law, and procedural guarantees in criminal and civil rights,” (Dawood). It was not until 1791, that the Bill of Rights was appended to the constitution, which helped clarify these rights to citizens. “Rights were eventually applied against actions of the state governments in a series of cases decide by the Supreme Court,” Dawood stated. In previous years (1790-1803), the Supreme Court had little say in decisions being made by government. As time went on the Supreme Court took on more