The Yellow Fellow Wall by Aubrey Aguirre https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv follow ya girl on IG @aubyonce en-us 2018-02-13 19:19:19 UTC 2018-02-16 19:02:26 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Lovecoffee.png McCulloch v. Maryland aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/231271665 2018-02-13 20:09:18 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/231271665 State Government aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232078608 The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the Nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.]]> 2018-02-15 18:40:04 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232078608 National Government aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232078910 The United States government challenged the law in federal district court before the law went into effect, seeking to stop its enforcement. The government argued that Arizona's law usurped federal authority over the enforcement of immigration law. In its ruling, the district court blocked the four provisions listed above. Arizona appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of the district court, finding that the United States had demonstrated that federal immigration law likely preempted the four provisions of SB 1070 at issue. Arizona further appealed the case to the United States Supreme Court, which granted certification on December 9, 2011.

]]> 2018-02-15 18:40:31 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232078910 Supreme Court Decision aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232079157 Justice Antonin Scalia concurred in part and dissented in part, writing that all four provisions are constitutional. He argued that the Arizona statute does not conflict with federal law, but enforces federal immigration restrictions more effectively. Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with Justice Scalia that all four provisions are constitutional. He argued that there is no conflict between the ordinary meaning of the federal laws and the Arizona statute. Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing with the majority on provisions 1 and 3, but disagreeing on 2 and 4. Justice Elena Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision in the case.]]> 2018-02-15 18:40:55 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232079157 Picture aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232083448 2018-02-15 18:47:42 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232083448 Question #1 aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232085404 Should local and state government have more power of the federal government?]]> 2018-02-15 18:50:54 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232085404 Brown v The Board of Education aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232089871 Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka was a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement, and helped establish the precedent that “separate-but-equal” education and other services were not, in fact, equal at all.]]> 2018-02-15 18:57:49 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232089871 Browns Point aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232457086
The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to endorse social, as distinguished from political, equality. . . If one race be inferior to the other socially, the Constitution of the United States cannot put them upon the same plane."
The lone dissenter, Justice John Marshal Harlan, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment another way, stated, "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens." Justice Harlan's dissent would become a rallying cry for those in later generations that wished to declare segregation unconstitutional.


]]> 2018-02-16 18:29:59 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232457086 The Gov. aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232457845 Sadly, as a result of the Plessy decision, in the early twentieth century the Supreme Court continued to uphold the legality of Jim Crow laws and other forms of racial discrimination. In the case of Cumming v. Richmond (Ga.) County Board of Education (1899), for instance, the Court refused to issue an injunction preventing a school board from spending tax money on a white high school when the same school board voted to close down a black high school for financial reasons. Moreover, in Gong Lum v. Rice (1927), the Court upheld a school's decision to bar a person of Chinese descent from a "white" school.]]> 2018-02-16 18:31:44 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232457845 The Decision aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232458431 Meeting to decide the case, the Justices of the Supreme Court realized that they were deeply divided over the issues raised. While most wanted to reverse Plessy and declare segregation in public schools to be unconstitutional, they had various reasons for doing so. Unable to come to a solution by June 1953 (the end of the Court's 1952-1953 term), the Court decided to rehear the case in December 1953. During the intervening months, however, Chief Justice Fred Vinson died and was replaced by Gov. Earl Warren of California. After the case was reheard in 1953, Chief Justice Warren was able to do something that his predecessor had not—i.e. bring all of the Justices to agree to support a unanimous decision declaring segregation in public schools unconstitutional. On May 14, 1954, he delivered the opinion of the Court, stating that "We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. . ."]]> 2018-02-16 18:33:10 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232458431 Question #2 aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232459741 Do believe in "Separate but equal"?]]> 2018-02-16 18:36:04 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232459741 Miranda v Arizon aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232460127 On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.]]> 2018-02-16 18:36:57 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232460127 The Gov. aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232462250 Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the 5-4 majority. The Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment’s protection against self-incrimination is available in all settings. Therefore, prosecution may not use statements arising from a custodial interrogation of a suspect unless certain procedural safeguards were in place. Such safeguards include proof that the suspect was aware of his right to be silent, that any statement he makes may be used against him, that he has the right to have an attorney present, that he has the right to have an attorney appointed to him, that he may waive these rights if he does so voluntarily, and that if at any points he requests an attorney there will be no further questioning until the attorney arrives. The Court held that, in each of the cases, the interrogation techniques used did not technically fall into the category of coercive, but they failed to ensure that the defendant’s decision to speak with the police was entirely the product of his own free will.]]> 2018-02-16 18:41:36 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232462250 Miranda's Point aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232462609 Justice Tom C. Clark wrote a dissenting opinion in which he argued that the majority’s opinion created an unnecessarily strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment that curtails the ability of the police to effectively execute their duties. He wrote that the state should have the burden to prove that the suspect was aware of his rights during the interrogation, but that statements resulting from interrogation should not be automatically excluded if the suspect was not explicitly informed of his rights. In his separate dissenting opinion, Justice John M. Harlan wrote that the judicial precedent and legislative history surrounding the Fifth Amendment does not support the view that the Fifth Amendment prohibits all pressure on the suspect. He also argued that there was no legal precedent to support the requirement to specifically inform suspects of their rights. Justices Potter Stewart and Byron R. White joined in the dissent. Justice White wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that the Fifth Amendment only protects defendants from giving self-incriminating testimony if explicitly compelled to do so. He argued that custodial interrogation was not inherently coercive and did not require such a broad interpretation of the protections of the Fifth Amendment. Such an interpretation harms the criminal process by destroying the credibility of confessions. Justices Harlan and Stewart joined in the dissenting opinion.]]> 2018-02-16 18:42:28 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232462609 The Decision aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232464304 The Court further held that “without proper safeguards the process of in-custody interrogation of persons suspected or accused of crime contains inherently compelling pressures which work to undermine the individual’s will to resist and to compel him to speak where he would otherwise do so freely.” Therefore, a defendant “must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent, that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law, that he has the right to the presence of an attorney, and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires.”]]> 2018-02-16 18:46:10 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232464304 Mapp v Ohio aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232466734 The case originated in Cleveland, Ohio, when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp's house without a proper search warrant. Police believed that Mapp was harboring a suspected bomber, and demanded entry. No suspect was found, but police discovered a trunk of obscene pictures in Mapp's basement. Mapp was arrested for possessing the pictures, and was convicted in an Ohio court. Mapp argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search, and eventually took her appeal to United States Supreme Court. At the time of the case unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts.]]> 2018-02-16 18:51:25 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232466734 The Decision aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232467134 The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The high court said evidence seized unlawfully, without a search warrant, could not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts.]]> 2018-02-16 18:52:18 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232467134 The Gov aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232467617 "If letters and private documents can thus be seized and held and used in evidence against a citizen accused of an offense, the protection of the Fourth Amendment declaring his right to be secure against such searches and seizures is of no value, and, so far as those thus placed are concerned, might as well be stricken from the Constitution. The efforts of the courts and their officials to bring the guilty to punishment, praiseworthy as they are, are not to be aided by the sacrifice of those great principles established by years of endeavor and suffering which have resulted in their embodiment in the fundamental law of the land." At p. 393.


]]> 2018-02-16 18:53:25 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232467617 Mapp's point aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232468298 There are those who say, as did Justice (then Judge) Cardozo, that, under our constitutional exclusionary doctrine, "[t]he criminal is to go free because the constable has blundered." People v. Defore, 242 N.Y. at 21, 150 N.E. at 587. In some cases, this will undoubtedly be the result. [Footnote 9] But, as was said in Elkins, "there is another consideration--the imperative of judicial integrity." 364 U.S. at 222. The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free. Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws, or worse, its disregard of the charter of its own existence. As Mr. Justice Brandeis, dissenting, said in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 485 (1928): "Our Government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. . . . If the Government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy." Nor can it lightly be assumed that, as a practical matter, adoption of the exclusionary rule fetters law enforcement. Only last year, this Court expressly considered that contention and found that "pragmatic evidence of a sort" to the contrary was not wanting. Elkins v. United States, supra, at 218. The Court noted that]]> 2018-02-16 18:54:57 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232468298 Question #3 aubreyaguirre123 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232469582 Would you be effected if this court case went a different way?]]> 2018-02-16 18:57:39 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232469582 Answer carmel_rose_00 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232469707 I don"t think local and state government should have more power than the federal government.
-Carmel Salazar]]> 2018-02-16 18:57:54 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232469707 Answer carmel_rose_00 https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232470949 No, because how can we be separate but equal it doesn't make sense.]]> 2018-02-16 19:00:38 UTC https://padlet.com/aubreyaguirre123/j5i2m5t4v6qv/wish/232470949