<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
   <channel>
      <title>Landmark Supreme Court Cases  by Silvia Garcia</title>
      <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak</link>
      <description>Silvia Garcia Period 1</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <pubDate>2020-12-16 01:13:36 UTC</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>2020-12-16 03:14:35 UTC</lastBuildDate>
      <webMaster>hello@padlet.com</webMaster>
      
      <item>
         <title>Guideon v. Wainwright (1963)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022472921</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. </strong><br>Gideon was charged with a felony in Florida. At the trial, the court refused to appoint counsel for Guideon. This resulted in Guideon having to act as his own counsel and presenting his own verdict because he could not afford one. He was found guilty by the court and was sentenced to five years in prison. Guideon filed a petition at the Florida Supreme Court suggesting that the judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated his constitutional right. The Florida Supreme Court denied his petition. Then, he filed the petition for the Supreme Court of the United States. </div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case.</strong><br> The Supreme Court agreed to hear Guideon’s case and review the decision of the lower court. The Supreme Court reasoned that it was within the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee that counsel was a fundamental right for a fair trial. </div><div><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark. </strong><br> As a result, it is now a legal requirement to appoint counsel as an essential right. This decision is considered a landmark because it created the need for public defenders. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 01:16:22 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022472921</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Engel v. Vitale (1962)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022481408</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. <br></strong> A New York State Law required public schools to engage in a prayer after the Pledge of Allegiance every morning. A parent sued on behalf of his child arguing that school-sponsored prayer violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment. </div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case.<br></strong>The Supreme court ruled in favor of the parent, declaring that government should not involve itself in religious affairs since Americans engage in a broad variety of beliefs. </div><div><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark.<br></strong> This case is a landmark as it ruled school-sponsored prayer in public schools unconstitutional. It reaffirmed the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibition of a state establishment of religion. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 01:20:16 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022481408</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Miranda V. Arizona (1966)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022485732</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. <br></strong>Miranda was arrested and interrogated by police officers for two hours. During the interrogation he gave a written confession of his crimes. Miranda was charged with kidnapping, rape, and robbery. He was sentenced 20-30 years of imprisonment for each of his crimes. However, during his interrogation, Miranda was not read his rights to remain silent and to have an attorney. This was issued unconstitutional. </div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case.<br></strong>The Court ruled that prior to police interrogation, apprehended criminal suspects must be briefed of their constitutional rights addressed in the Sixth Amendment, right to an attorney and Fifth Amendment, right to self-incrimination.</div><div><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark.<br></strong> This case was deemed a landmark since today, law enforcement cannot make claims that could incriminate suspects during interrogations without acknowledging them their 5<sup>th</sup> and 6<sup>th</sup> amendments. Therefore, if a subject indicates at any time that he wishes to remain silent or to discuss with a lawyer, all questioning must cease. <br><br></div><div> <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 01:22:21 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022485732</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Texas v. Johnson (1989)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022627458</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. <br></strong> Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag to protest policies. He was arrested and convicted by a Texas Court. He appealed, claiming that his actions were symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment. </div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case<br></strong>The Supreme Court agreed to hear Johnson’s case. The Supreme Court ruled that flag burning is symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.  </div><div><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark.<br></strong>Landmark that issued that freedom of speech protects and includes actions that some people in society might find offensive. However, society’s outrage does not undermine individual’s opinions. Although people might find it insulting, flag burning is legal. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 02:31:57 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022627458</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>New York Times v. U.S. (1971)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022647990</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. <br></strong> The New York Times published a series of articles in the 70s about documents found from the government and their participation in World War II. President Nixon proceeded to ban further publications about confidential government files.</div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case.<br></strong> The Supreme Court ruled in favor of The New York Times defending the publisher’s right to freedom of press announced in the First Amendment. </div><div><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark.<br></strong>This case made it evident that the right to freedom of press was not something the government could interfere in.  Due to this case, evidence of the U.S. involvement in WWII was revealed. <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 02:42:47 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022647990</guid>
      </item>
      <item>
         <title>Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)</title>
         <author>0725412</author>
         <link>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022686222</link>
         <description><![CDATA[<div><strong>1.  Explain the case, what was it about. </strong>This Supreme Court Case questioned the legality of holiday decorations on public city property. </div><div><strong>2. What did the Supreme Court say in their decision about this case.<br></strong> The Supreme Court ruled the display of holiday decorations in public to be constitutional since it does not violate the Establishment Clause. <br><strong>3. What were the social implications after this court case was decided and why is it considered a landmark.<br></strong>This case is a landmark since it demonstrated the point of view that the Supreme Court has towards the separation between church and state. The First Amendment protects people from expressing their beliefs as long as they are not directly harming others.   <br><br></div>]]></description>
         <enclosure url="" />
         <pubDate>2020-12-16 03:03:52 UTC</pubDate>
         <guid>https://padlet.com/0725412/pv8jfbizh0zw1tak/wish/1022686222</guid>
      </item>
   </channel>
</rss>
