My informative wall by Serenity

My informative wall by Serenity https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0 Made with an open mind. en-us 2018-02-13 19:21:59 UTC 2025-10-20 05:34:46 UTC hello@padlet.com https://padlet-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/icons/Brightnessdown.png Arizona vs. US serenityg20 https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231249556 On April 23, 2010, the Arizona State Legislature passed S.B. 1070; Governor Jan Brewer signed the bill into law. On July 6, 2010, the United States sought to stop the enforcement of S.B. 1070 in federal district court before the law could take effect. The district court did not enjoin the entire act, but it did enjoin four provisions. The court enjoined provisions that (1) created a state-law crime for being unlawfully present in the United States, (2) created a state-law crime for working or seeking work while not authorized to do so, (3) required state and local officers to verify the citizenship or alien status of anyone who was lawfully arrested or detained, and (4) authorized warrantless arrests of aliens believed to be removable from the United States.

Arizona appealed the district court's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The appellate court affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the United States had shown that federal law likely preempted: (a) the creation of a state-crime for violation of federal registration laws, (b) the creation of a state-crime for work by unauthorized aliens, (c) the requirement to verify citizenship of all detained persons, and (d) the authorization for police officers to effect warrantless arrests based on probable cause of removability from the United States. Arizona appealed the court's decision.

QUESTION

Do the federal immigration laws preclude Arizona's efforts at cooperative law enforcement and preempt the four provisions of S.B. 1070 on their face?

]]> 2018-02-13 19:29:52 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231249556 New York vs. US serenityg20 https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231252501 The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Act Amendments of 1985 required states alone or in compacts with other states to dispose of such radioactive waste within their borders. New York State and Allegany and Cortland counties were frustrated in their compliance efforts by resistance from residents to proposed radioactive waste sites and a lack of cooperation from neighboring states. New York filed suit against the federal government, questioning the authority of Congress to regulate state waste management.

QUESTION

Does the Low-Level Waste Act violate the Tenth Amendment and the "guarantee clause" of Article Four?]]> 2018-02-13 19:34:42 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231252501 Morrison vs US serenityg20 https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231253933 In 1994, while enrolled at Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), Christy Brzonkala alleged that Antonio Morrison and James Crawford, both students and varsity football players at Virginia Tech, raped her. In 1995, Brzonkala filed a complaint against Morrison and Crawford under Virginia Tech's Sexual Assault Policy. After a hearing, Morrison was found guilty of sexual assault and sentenced to immediate suspension for two semesters. Crawford was not punished. A second hearing again found Morrison guilty. After an appeal through the university's administrative system, Morrison's punishment was set aside, as it was found to be "excessive." Ultimately, Brzonkala dropped out of the university. Brzonkala then sued Morrison, Crawford, and Virginia Tech in Federal District Court, alleging that Morrison's and Crawford's attack violated 42 USC section 13981, part of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA), which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence. Morrison and Crawford moved to dismiss Brzonkala's suit on the ground that section 13981's civil remedy was unconstitutional. In dismissing the complaint, the District Court found that that Congress lacked authority to enact section 13981 under either the Commerce Clause or the Fourteenth Amendment, which Congress had explicitly identified as the sources of federal authority for it. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals affirmed.

QUESTION

Does Congress have the authority to enact the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 under either the Commerce Clause or Fourteenth Amendment?

]]> 2018-02-13 19:37:12 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231253933 Lopez vs. US serenityg20 https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231255107 Alfonzo Lopez, a 12th grade high school student, carried a concealed weapon into his San Antonio, Texas high school. He was charged under Texas law with firearm possession on school premises. The next day, the state charges were dismissed after federal agents charged Lopez with violating a federal criminal statute, the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to possess a firearm at a place that [he] knows...is a school zone." Lopez was found guilty following a bench trial and sentenced to six months' imprisonment and two years' supervised release.

QUESTION

Is the 1990 Gun-Free School Zones Act, forbidding individuals from knowingly carrying a gun in a school zone, unconstitutional because it exceeds the power of Congress to legislate under the Commerce Clause?

]]> 2018-02-13 19:39:16 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231255107 Federalism Cartoon serenityg20 https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231257735 2018-02-13 19:44:04 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/231257735 Jarina Benally https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/232084715 Arizona V U.S
Yes for provisions 1, 2, and 4; No for provision 3. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for a 5-3 majority, reversed in part and affirmed in part.]]> 2018-02-15 18:49:39 UTC https://padlet.com/serenityg20/n8m9hr3rcrh0/wish/232084715