Replies Help
Bluebook1010
Replies.docxQuestion 1
Ronald Quintero
Discussion 1 - Happiness Meaning
Top of Form
Quite interesting an eye opening the video is, it is surprising to find out that the Declaration of Independence is actually a declaration to dissolve from the “State of Great Britain”, as independent and sovereign “States”, not as a whole Republic, also mentioned on Chapter one, that the Constitution established the U.S Government as such, a Republic, in fact the word “Democracy” is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution. It is almost unavoidable not to mention that the Declaration of Independence contains more than 1000 words that outlines over 25 abuses of King George III over a 10-year period, and that only 400 key words are located at the opening and closing of the document. “Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”; as the video explains, our founding fathers, by the beliefs of that time, would refer to happiness as the free will of an individual to use their time, means, disposition to achieve fulfillment that would bring personal satisfaction, a sense of being, or feel happy with oneself. The video compares the happiness with Hedonism in our new era, I honestly find that a little too far-fetched, that definition would never cross my mind by reading the Declaration of Independence, “that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”, how can that be compared with Hedonism? My personal opinion, I respect everybody else’s. When it comes to happiness, I agree with our founding fathers, as we go in our lives, we try to find happiness, for some might be money, for others a family, a hobby, a trip, health or perhaps knowledge, I truly believe we can achieve happiness, and we have to pursue it, it is not given. We live in a society that is based in Capitalism, unfortunately it is not well balanced sometimes, to have a better life, we might need a good monetary income ( money doesn’t necessarily bring happiness), and to do that, we could attend College or a University, better income, better life, we can acquire or do the things that makes us happy, where is the Government to support us? Only the rich can have the best education, as for the “Financial Aid", that only get us in a debt that can haunt us for the rest of our lives, will that make us happy? The Government needs to do much more for its citizens, being a student is not monetary accessible to everyone, health care the same situation, happiness can be a lifelong path that can be only achieved when we accept it, as it is.
Bottom of Form
Question 2
Jenesis Acosta
DQ:2
Top of Form
Our judicial system is a hierarchy of court systems, the Supreme Court sitting at the top followed by appellate court and trial court, each holds a different level of jurisdiction which determine the type of cases are presented. A system was set in place to determine what cases should be heard in a court of law these are standing, mootness, and ripeness. Firstly, a case must hold standing meaning that a legal misdeed or someone accused of a misdeed to concern the legal court. A case in where this is highlighted was in Minnesota v. Carter the defendant Mr. Carter was at the home of someone else where he went to pack cocaine. An officer responded to a tip at this location, through the window covers held a gap where the officer saw Mr. Carter performing this act. A warrant was issued to this location where Mr. Carter was then arrested, his lawyers filed for dismissal of the evidence on the basis that his Fourth Amendment rights were violated. The trial court found that his rights were not violated, it was appealed to states court where they also found in agreement with the previous charge. It went on to the states supreme court where they found he held standing in his rights being violated. Lastly it arrived in the Supreme Court where the ruling was held to the original ruling, he had no standing to claim his right to privacy when the location he was at was not his own. Mootness speaks on where issues of the case may have already been cleared up or has dissipated not needing the involvement of the court. There was a case where students and family members filed a suit against the high school for the use of religious practices at the graduation to be unconstitutional. Federal district court rejected the claim while the court of appeals found it to be unconstitutional due to a passage in the First Amendment, although the case was presented in the Supreme Court, they found the case moot due to the fact that the students no longer attended the school. Lastly, ripeness doctrine shows when the case is premature and stops the courts from becoming involved in an underdeveloped case. A case of this is National Park Hospitality Association v. Department of the Interior they were a questioning a rule before the issue had appeared. The Supreme Court stated the case was not ripe yet. These hold as safeguards to prevent any overwhelming number of cases flooding the courts.
Bottom of Form
Reference(s)
Harr, J. S., & Hess Kären M. (2005). Constitutional law and the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Question 3
Mira Baker
Discussion Question 3
Top of Form
I would provide my response to the discussion question concerning the life tenure of Supreme Court Justices as such. I do not agree with any proposed government democracy instituting a life tenure on any politically based position. This position of Supreme Court Justice begins with the appointment and then the confirming of such by congress, and that in itself is basically a political process. The Supreme Court Justice is then afterwards expected to somehow alienate themselves from their political party and become more bipartisan than before. Well I don't find that as feasible as some might want the voters and tax payers to believe, and it should not be as expected as proposed. The last time that the Supreme Court was majority liberal was back in the fifties and has in more recent times exercised a more conservative standing in the courts. The pro's to such a life tenure would obviously be in favor of whoever is more liberal or more conservative at the time of the Supreme Court majority. The con's to the life tenure would likely be similar and that is, such rulings would not be in favor of whoever is more liberal or conservative at that time of the Supreme Court majority. In other words if you're more liberal and the Supreme Court majority is more conservative, then you're likely not going to find the rulings favorable. The same is for the conservatives, who would likely not find the ruling's of a liberal court favorable as well. I would offer a pro for the life tenure regarding Supreme Court appointment as, the ability to gather years of experience and not have the concern of being voted out of office, because of a not so favorable ruling that was made. My concern with such tenure is that it patterns more of a dictatorship or monarchy system of rule, and I feel as though a twelve year term limit would allow other Supreme Court Justices to impart their wisdom in law upon senate confirmation to the nation.
Word Count 338
Reference(s)
Harr, J. S., & Hess Kären M. (2005). Constitutional law and the Criminal Justice System. Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
Bottom of Form
Question 4
Ana Paz
DQ4
Top of Form
A prejudice is a prejudgment based on inadequate knowledge, many times prejudice relies on stereotypes. I think people prejudiced because prejudices are based on the human tendency to categorize objects and people based on prior experiences. However, I do believe prejudice can be conscious or unconscious. I recognized my own prejudices towards a group of people, but, I have tried to reduce them since I know they are incorrect, disrespectful, and stereotyped. The first group of people I have had prejudices is Chinese people. I had an experience a couple of year ago when I used to work at some fast-food restaurant, next to our local there was a Chinese restaurant and we had connected door and sometimes they would have their vegetables or meat on the floor, and, in general, their place was a mess and very dirty. All of staff was Asian and nobody seem to care about the hygiene of the products and the place. Also, I watched documentaries about some the things they can eat, and that disgusted me. So, now every time I encounter an Asian, specially a Chinese, I cannot stop thinking that they have poor hygiene and that, if they can, they could eat my dog. I know this prejudice is wrong and disrespectful to even mentioned it but that is how my prior experiences had made me think. I have been trying to reduce this prejudice because I know not all Chinese people are the same, and I also know it is wrong to stereotype a whole society just by a bad experience I had in the past. On the other hand, I do not remember being victim of prejudice myself, but I had witnessed my friends being prejudice to one our friend. She is Colombian and some of our friends used to ask her if she was ever involved in drugs or if she was ever involved with narcos since it is very known that Colombia is one of the main drug dealer country. However, she never took it the wrong way because she knew they had those stereotypes of Colombian people by the things they watch in movies or TV shows.
Word Count: 361
Bottom of Form
Question 5
Ronald Quintero
Discussion 5
Top of Form
Considering the facts, that is a “private” not a “public” establishment, I would side with the business owner, even though no rights are absolute and the government can regulate them when social interest outweigh those of the individual (Harr, J and Karen M. Hess), in the case Barnes v Glen Theater, Inc (1991), the first amendment was put to the test, it made it all the way to the Supreme Court which upheld an Indiana anti-nudity law. Nudity, in my opinion, it depends on where is being done, Daniel Radcliffe performed on Broadway for the London production of playwright Peter’s Shaffer “Equus” (Reuters article), which gave him nothing but good reviews, it was an artistic expression. We live in a state where nudist beaches are everywhere, where entire nudist communities exist, where citizens freedom of speech is under the first amendment. But, if I am a nudist that lives in a nudist community, that doesn’t give me the right to drop off my kids at a public school completely naked, there are County and State laws that prohibits such behavior in public spaces, at this point, morality and values “outweigh those of the individual”. A private establishment that wants to open a nude strip, has all the rights to do so, it might be for monetary gain, but in the end, it remains private, where it would have to comply with local and/or state laws, for example the minimum of 21 years old of age are allowed to come to a nudist strip. The first amendment can be very difficult to interpret, our freedom of speech, religion, of expression can sometimes be interpreted with prejudice or it can interfere with existing laws, it can be a matter of public concern. In the case of nudism, there is a very thin line that falls into the first amendment of protection, at the same time breaking laws regarding order and morality.
Works Cited
Harr, J and Karen M. Hess, Constitutional Law and the Criminal Justice System, sixth edition, Cengage, pp 123.
Reuters.com/article/us-stage-radcliffe-broadway/daniel-radcliffe-wins-raves-for-nude-broadway-debut-idUSTRE48P79B20080926
Bottom of Form
Question 6
2 months ago
Moises Salazar
Gun Control Discussion
Top of Form
The government should control gun ownership it because it is enshrined in the second amendment of the US constitution. The right to life is among the reasons why the government should control gun ownership. However, the mass shootings experienced in the US indicate that guns offer criminals an opportunity quickly to kill, thus contradicting the legal requirement that provides all citizens the right to life.
Controlling guns also reduces the number of cases such as murder, assault, and suicides. These are among the top gun-related crimes that controlling guns can mitigate. In addition, the resources used to deal with these crimes, right from the police interventions and incarceration, can be applied to other areas in an environment free from guns.
The freedoms that people enjoy under a society that is free from guns are equally critical. For example, there are certain street corners where freedom of movement is a luxury that people cannot afford because of their association with gun-related attacks.
The Gun Control Act of 1968 is among the legislations that outlines the age limit for owning a gun. According to this law, the minimum age for holding a gun is eighteen years (Harr et al.,2014). I find this age limit too low since 18-year-old persons can is immature to manage a gun. Moreover, these individuals are equally still under the supervision of parents; hence offering them an opportunity to own guns exposes their families to unprecedented danger. Thus, the Gun Control Act of 1968 needs to be reviewed to eliminate gun-related crimes involving younger people, such as school shootings.
The government should also control guns because the population has proved that it cannot act responsibly and per the second amendment, which offers the people a right to gun ownership. For example, carrying guns in public is among the legally prohibited actions that most gun owners ignore, further proving that the government should intervene by taking away the right to carry guns.
Bottom of Form
Question 7
Natalie Rivero
Discussion Question 7
Top of Form
One exception of the exclusionary rule is known as “The Inevitable Discovery Doctrine” that stemmed from Nix v. Williams (1984). The inevitable discovery doctrine basically states that evidence is admissible even if it was seized in violation of the 4th Amendment when it can be shown that the evidence would have been “inevitably” discovered through lawful means. The Nix v. Williams case began in 1968 when 10-year-old Pamela Powers disappeared while at an event at YMCA with her family in Des Moines, Iowa. After she was reported missing, a 14-year-old boy reported holding doors open for a YMCA resident to load a bundle from the building into his car after being asked to. The 14-year-old boy states he saw two skinny white legs within the bundle. Shortly after, an arrest warrant was issued for Robert Williams and an escapee from a psychiatric hospital. When police picked up Williams, he made an array of statements which later were deemed a violation of his constitutional right to counsel. The Court then allowed any other evidence such as the body, to be admissible evidence not because it was found as improper questioning by Police but because an independent search party would eventually discover it. The second exception to the exclusionary rule is the “Valid Independent Source” which entails that evidence that might otherwise fall victim to the exclusionary rule is obtained from an independent valid source, that evidence can be admitted. Here we take a look at Segura v. United States that although the initial evidence that was discovered during an illegal entry into an apartment was inadmissible, the later evidence that was found with a search warrant was admissible because it was “unconnected” to the illegal entry”. The third exception to the exclusionary rule is “Harmless error” which involves the admissibility of involuntary confessions and refers to the instances of preponderance of evidence suggests the defendant’s guilt and the “tainted” evidence is not critical to proving the case against the defendant. In Harrington v. California (1969) the Court ruled that evidence shall be examined as a whole and if the “error” involved a well-established element of the crime, then the error could be considered harmless. My opinion on Inevitable Discovery Doctrine is I believe this doctrine would assist more victims and families than it would to the defendant, and I believe that is how our justice system should be.
Bottom of Form
Question 8
Maidany Perez
disscussion
Top of Form
Everyone in the United States accused of a crime that is looking at incarceration is entitled to a defense attorney. Those that cannot afford an attorney are appointed an attorney. These attorneys are either public defenders or court-appointed counsel. Some defendants choose to represent themselves in their criminal trial, they choose to do because having pro se representation means that the defendant solely calls the shots in their defense. This eliminates strategy disagreements between an attorney and client and the defendant feeling pressured to proceed with their case in a certain way. I believe this option is really good if you know what you are doing and have the capacity to defend yourself if not this could result in them harming their own case by not having the appropriate defense, they could end up in jail. Most lawyers and judges would agree that pro se representation is not always the best decision for a defendant facing criminal charges. This is because most people lack the skill and experience to put up the best defense. Many times when a defendant has self-representation, they will be convicted when a lawyer could help them get a not guilty verdict or a better deal. A case in the history of the United States where the individual represented himself was the case of Clarence Earl Gideon. At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney. In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted the appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses. At trial, Gideon represented himself – he made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the prosecution’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made arguments emphasizing his innocence. Despite his efforts, the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law.
Facts and Case Summary - Gideon v. Wainwright. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright
Folk, A. (2019, September 30). Advantages and Disadvantages of Pro Se Criminal Representation. LegalMatch Law Library. https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/advantages-and-disadvantages-of-pro-se-criminal-representation.html
Bottom of Form
