<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Landmark Supreme Court Decisions by William Oehlenschlager</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme</link>
      <description>Civics and Economics 1st Period</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2018-12-03 02:32:39 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2018-12-04 13:34:05 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Plessy v Ferguson; 1896</title>
         <author>wmoehlen</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310486800</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>LA segregated street car laws, citizens challenge constitutionality<br><br>Plaintiff: segregation violates constitutional rights and 13th and 14th amendments <br>Defendant: "separate but equal" is fair and constitutional<br><br>What defines Constitutional "equality"? <br><br>Court decided to uphold "separate but equal" - perpetuates and validates segregation laws, Jim Crow laws, voting restrictions</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-03 16:08:58 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310486800</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Furman v Georgia; 1972</title>
         <author>kopalg53</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310848578</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>This decision put a halt to the death penalty under state laws.<br><br>Plaintiff: Furman stated that the death penalty amounted to cruel &amp; unusual punishment, which was outlawed in the constitution<br>Defendant: State of Georgia stated that the death penalty is fair and applicable<br><br>If the death penalty is a cruel and unusual punishment, why does it still exist in some states?<br><br>Court decided to halt all executions in 39 states that had the death penalty laws at that time.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 12:48:27 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310848578</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Worcester v Georgia; 1832</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310852545</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>The Cherokee people had been guaranteed their own land and were recognized as their own nation.<br><br>Plaintiff: Georgia has no legal authority on Cherokee land because they were a separate nation<br>Defendant: State officials wanted to remove Worcester because he had no license to live in a Cherokee nation<br><br>Which level of government has the authority, state or federal?<br><br>Supreme Court agreed with Worcester 5-1, only federal government had authority. President Jackson didn't enforce the court's decision which leads to Trail of Tears.<br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 13:00:05 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310852545</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Tinker v Des Moines School District; 1968</title>
         <author>bdbelayneh</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310854484</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Students wore black armbands in support a truce for the Vietnam War. If they wore them to school, students would be sent home and/or suspended. <br><br>Plaintiff: Tinker and other students thought they should be allowed to express their beliefs and wear the armbands at school.<br>Defendant: Des Moines School District wanted to uphold school discipline and thought the armbands were distracting. <br><br>Does restricting a student from wearing what they want violate their 1st amendment right?<br><br>Supreme court decided 7-2 in favor of the students. Believed students' free rights should be protected.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 13:04:55 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310854484</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>McCulloch V.S Maryland</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310861956</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>1819<br><br>The second Bank of America was established by Congress due to inflation and economic turmoil. Maryland opposed and began taxing the bank.<br><br>Refused to pay taxes on bank<br><br>Felt it was a business within their state borders and should be able to be taked.<br><br>Does Maryland have the right to tax a federal national bank? <br><br>Supreme Court decided Maryland tax was unconstitutional because of Necessary and Proper Clause. It created Congressional expressed authority , giving congress ability to enact any law to help constitutional duties</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 13:21:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310861956</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Marbury vs Madison; 1803</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310861980</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>End of John Adam's presidency, he commissioned judges including Judge Marbury. When Jefferson became president, he didn't go through with appointing these judges so Marbury sued.<br><br> Plantiff: wants his job<br> <br> Defendant: Madison (works for Jefferson's administration) is told not to appoint Marbury <br> <br> Constitutional question: does supreme court have have the authority to order the delivery of the commissions.<br> <br> <br> Supreme court ruled they were the law of the land to interpret the constitution. Establishes judicial review. <br> <br> <br> <br> </div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 13:22:00 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310861980</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)</title>
         <author></author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310865168</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div>Gibbons did not have a federal license, Ogden did , Gibbons sued for freedom to compete with Ogden.<br>Plaintiff: Federal license, no license in New York.<br>Defendant: Ogden had a New York license<br>Question: Can congress regulate interstate commerce among states?<br>Summary: Gibbons won the case, states can regulate purely internal commercial activity.</div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2018-12-04 13:28:24 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/wmoehlen/4oamfdn5grme/wish/310865168</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
