The American Experiment to "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" fleshing out through 14th Amendment, historical context, privileges and immunities clause, citizenship clause, equal protection clause, and due process clause. Illustrated through Gore v. Bush.
In March 2, 1917, the Jones Act was approved granting U.S. citizenship to people born in P.R. and providing the residents of P.R. with a “Charter of Rights.” That Bill of Rights included inter alia the “due process” of law when a citizen's life, liberty or property are violated; the right to “Habeas Corpus”; prohibition of ex post facto laws; the just compensation for expropriated property; the right to bail; the right to be innocent until proven guilty; the right to freedom of speech and press; and numerous other provisions under the Constitution of the United Together. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed in Foley Brothers Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, that it was a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears. It was later established that P.R. was to be subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the “territorial clause” of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution and that due to the establishment of the Federal Relations Act of 1950 all federal laws that are “not locally inapplicable” were to be automatically the law of the land in P.R.
In 1951, the U.S. Congress approved Public Law 600, authorizing P.R. to draft its own constitution. In July 25, 1952, the Puerto Rican Constitution was approved by a popular referendum and ratified by the U.S. Congress, with a “few amendments.” U.S. maintained an ultimate sovereignty over P.R. while at the same time it gave Puerto Ricans certain degree of autonomy over the island. Under the Territorial Clause, the autonomy recognized to the island has being interpreted by the U.S. Congress as recognition of the sovereignty over the island. In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that the purpose of Congress in the legislations of 1950 and 1952 was to accord to P.R. the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. In that same year the Puerto Rican Supreme Court, posed with the question of what should be the relationship between the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and section 10 of article II of the Puerto Rican Constitution, concluded that P.R. remains subject to the will of Congress as to what rights are applicable and which not and that 4th Amendment describes the minimum level of security to be recognize by states, borders that can be expanded but not reduced. In short, because more than 150 years of constitutional development and civil rights struggles around the world as well as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,” both from 1948, were taken into account, P.R. was be able to draft a Bill of Rights more extensive and progressive than the one written by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution in the 18th century. In response to that struggle the P.R. Constitution recognizes the constitutional rights of the U.S. Constitutio
In March 2, 1917, the Jones Act was approved granting U.S. citizenship to people born in P.R. and providing the residents of P.R. with a “Charter of Rights.” That Bill of Rights included inter alia the “due process” of law when a citizen's life, liberty or property are violated; the right to “Habeas Corpus”; prohibition of ex post facto laws; the just compensation for expropriated property; the right to bail; the right to be innocent until proven guilty; the right to freedom of speech and press; and numerous other provisions under the Constitution of the United Together. In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court expressed in Foley Brothers Inc. v. Filardo, 336 U.S. 281, that it was a well-established principle of law that all federal legislation applies only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States unless a contrary intent appears. It was later established that P.R. was to be subject to the Congress’ plenary powers under the “territorial clause” of Article IV, sec. 3, of the U.S. Constitution and that due to the establishment of the Federal Relations Act of 1950 all federal laws that are “not locally inapplicable” were to be automatically the law of the land in P.R.
In 1951, the U.S. Congress approved Public Law 600, authorizing P.R. to draft its own constitution. In July 25, 1952, the Puerto Rican Constitution was approved by a popular referendum and ratified by the U.S. Congress, with a “few amendments.” U.S. maintained an ultimate sovereignty over P.R. while at the same time it gave Puerto Ricans certain degree of autonomy over the island. Under the Territorial Clause, the autonomy recognized to the island has being interpreted by the U.S. Congress as recognition of the sovereignty over the island. In 1976 the U.S. Supreme Court indicated that the purpose of Congress in the legislations of 1950 and 1952 was to accord to P.R. the degree of autonomy and independence normally associated with a State of the Union. In that same year the Puerto Rican Supreme Court, posed with the question of what should be the relationship between the 4th Amendment of the Federal Constitution, and section 10 of article II of the Puerto Rican Constitution, concluded that P.R. remains subject to the will of Congress as to what rights are applicable and which not and that 4th Amendment describes the minimum level of security to be recognize by states, borders that can be expanded but not reduced. In short, because more than 150 years of constitutional development and civil rights struggles around the world as well as the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” and the “American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man,” both from 1948, were taken into account, P.R. was be able to draft a Bill of Rights more extensive and progressive than the one written by the drafters of the U.S. Constitution in the 18th century. In response to that struggle the P.R. Constitution recognizes the constitutional rights of the U.S. Constitutio
United States Federal Government Structure for International StudentsMolly Nichelson
I'm currently a graduate student in USC's Price School of Public Affairs, International Public Policy and Management program (IPPAM). The majority of my classmates are foreign nationals and they asked me to give a presentation on the US Federal Government structure. It's a basic overview but they were keenly interested in lobbying and PACs.
This is the vital assignment for IPE239 Comparative Political Systems, IPED Prpgram, Rangsit University. The course part aims at providing an introduction to the field of comparative politics. Various theoretical perspectives and basic concepts within the field are taken up. The political systems of a number of countries - in relation to formal political institutions and informal aspects of the political order - are presented, discussed and compared. Issues of identity as well as the position of nation states in a global context are also dealt with. The course part includes an introduction to comparative method and sources of knowledge about political systems.
United States Federal Government Structure for International StudentsMolly Nichelson
I'm currently a graduate student in USC's Price School of Public Affairs, International Public Policy and Management program (IPPAM). The majority of my classmates are foreign nationals and they asked me to give a presentation on the US Federal Government structure. It's a basic overview but they were keenly interested in lobbying and PACs.
This is the vital assignment for IPE239 Comparative Political Systems, IPED Prpgram, Rangsit University. The course part aims at providing an introduction to the field of comparative politics. Various theoretical perspectives and basic concepts within the field are taken up. The political systems of a number of countries - in relation to formal political institutions and informal aspects of the political order - are presented, discussed and compared. Issues of identity as well as the position of nation states in a global context are also dealt with. The course part includes an introduction to comparative method and sources of knowledge about political systems.
Article assignment ndaa 2012 indefinate detention and loss of due process of lawWayne Williams
Students will examine the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012; specifically, Clauses 1021 and 1022 and the loss of citizens rights to due process of law.
Ethics and the impact of unconscious bias on investigations brandon l-blanken...Brandon L. Blankenship
Presented at the MCJEA 5th Annual Criminal Justice Investigator Seminar :Terrorism, Implicit Bias and De-escellation in Investigations
Brandon L. Blankenship serves as an assistant professor in the Department of Criminal Justice at the University of Alabama at Birmingham where he teaches law and ethics. He also is an instructor for continuing professional education including courses he designed such as Enemy in the Camp for attorneys and Forging Future Leaders: Restoring Classrooms and Communities for secondary educators. Brandon regularly writes on the legal services industry and multi-plaintiff litigation. He received his law degree from Thomas Goode Jones School of Law where he was a member of the Jones Law Review.
The second section on 14th Amendment looking at equal protection clause through Brown v. Board of Education (1). Discriminatory impact resulting from racial impact. Due process as expressed through right to privacy (body integrity) through Roe v. Wade. Right to live vs. right to die. Expansion of right to privacy through Obergefell.
Illustrating the expansion of civil liberties from de jure to de facto protections. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Case summaries illustrating facially neutral and constitutionally invalid holdings: Yick Wo v. Hopkins, Washington v. Davis, Bradley v. Pizzaco of Nebraska, Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta, and Gratz v. Bollinger.
Definition of Interpretivism in context of natural law (ius naturale, lex naturalis), legal positivism, the intersection of law, morality and ethics. The hermeneutic challenges caused by history, language and culture.
Considers the idea of personhood through the lens of Planned Parenthood vs. Casey. Quotes Supreme Court's mystery of life phrase. Family, parenthood and bodily integrity are fundamental rights under American Jurisprudence.
Expanding fundamental constitutional rights through the Fourteenth Amendment. The distinction between Dejure and De facto. The distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Yick Wo v. Hopkins illustration of disparate impact of licensing laundries. Washington v. Davis illustration of disparate impact based on culturally biased employment application test. Bradley v. Pizzaco of Neb. illustration of disparate impact based on neutral requirement to be clean shaven. Gratz v. Bollinger illustration of disparate impact in college admission practices.
Protecting Defendants
UAB PSC 381 Bill of Rights
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952)
Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 (1966)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)
Bowers v. Hardick
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Rights of the Accused
UAB PSC 381 Bill of Rights
Fifth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Eighth Amendment
Right to counsel failure for Scottsboro Boys,
Right to counsel guaranteed where liberty is at stake.
How to Obtain Permanent Residency in the NetherlandsBridgeWest.eu
You can rely on our assistance if you are ready to apply for permanent residency. Find out more at: https://immigration-netherlands.com/obtain-a-permanent-residence-permit-in-the-netherlands/.
NATURE, ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.pptxanvithaav
These slides helps the student of international law to understand what is the nature of international law? and how international law was originated and developed?.
The slides was well structured along with the highlighted points for better understanding .
Responsibilities of the office bearers while registering multi-state cooperat...Finlaw Consultancy Pvt Ltd
Introduction-
The process of register multi-state cooperative society in India is governed by the Multi-State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002. This process requires the office bearers to undertake several crucial responsibilities to ensure compliance with legal and regulatory frameworks. The key office bearers typically include the President, Secretary, and Treasurer, along with other elected members of the managing committee. Their responsibilities encompass administrative, legal, and financial duties essential for the successful registration and operation of the society.
A "File Trademark" is a legal term referring to the registration of a unique symbol, logo, or name used to identify and distinguish products or services. This process provides legal protection, granting exclusive rights to the trademark owner, and helps prevent unauthorized use by competitors.
Visit Now: https://www.tumblr.com/trademark-quick/751620857551634432/ensure-legal-protection-file-your-trademark-with?source=share
2. When will the American experiment
stop being an experiment?
3. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and
our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for
the United States of America.
-Preamble of the United States Constitution
4. Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned
among the several States which may be included within this
Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be
determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons,
including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and
excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
-Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 of the United States Constitution
5. ● Civil War Ends May 9, 1865.
● Civil Rights Act of 1866.
● Confederate states were forced to ratify the 14th Amendment to
regain representation in the United States Congress.
○ Alabama originally rejects Amendment, then ratified July 13,
1868.
● Fourteenth Amendment (1868).
○ One of the three Reconstruction Amendments: 13th, 14th &
15th.
● Civil Rights Act of 1870.
History
6. prohibits states from interfering only with privileges and immunities
possessed by virtue of national citizenship.
Privileges and Immunities Clause
7. overruled Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), which held that people
descended from African slaves could not be citizens of the United
States.
The Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship,
Citizenship Clause
8. requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all
people within its jurisdiction.
Equal Protection Clause
9. prohibits state and local government officials from depriving persons
of life, liberty, or property without legislative authorization.
This clause has also been used by the federal judiciary to make most
of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize
substantive and procedural requirements that state laws must
satisfy.
Due Process Clause
10. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state
wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Amendment XIV - Section 1
11. Facts: The Florida Supreme Court ordered that the Circuit Court in
Leon County tabulate by hand 9,000 contested ballots from Miami-
Dade County. It also ordered that every county in Florida must
immediately begin manually recounting all "under-votes" (ballots
which did not indicate a vote for president) because there were
enough contested ballots to place the outcome of the election in
doubt. Governor George Bush and his running mate, Richard Cheney,
filed a request for review in the U.S. Supreme Court and sought an
emergency petition for a stay of the Florida Supreme Court's decision.
The U.S. Supreme Court granted review and issued the stay on
December 9. It heard oral argument two days later.
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
12. Issue: Did the Florida Supreme Court violate Article II Section 1
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution by making new election law? Do
standardless manual recounts violate the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses of the Constitution?
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
13. Holding: Noting that the Equal Protection clause guarantees
individuals that their ballots cannot be devalued by "later arbitrary and
disparate treatment," the per curiam opinion held 7-2 that the Florida
Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional.
Even if the recount was fair in theory, it was unfair in practice. The
record suggested that different standards were applied from ballot to
ballot, precinct to precinct, and county to county. Because of those
and other procedural difficulties, the court held, 5 to 4, that no
constitutional recount could be fashioned in the time remaining
(which was short because the Florida legislature wanted to take
advantage of the "safe harbor" provided by 3 USC Section 5).
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
14. Holding (Cont’d): Rehnquist (in a concurring opinion joined by Scalia
and Thomas) argued that the recount scheme was also
unconstitutional because the Florida Supreme Court's decision made
new election law, which only the state legislature may do. Breyer and
Souter (writing separately) agreed with the per curiam holding, but
dissented with respect to the remedy, believing that a constitutional
recount could be fashioned. Time is insubstantial when constitutional
rights are at stake. Ginsburg and Stevens (writing separately) argued
that for reasons of federalism, the Florida Supreme Court's decision
ought to be respected - the Florida decision was fundamentally right;
the Constitution requires that every vote be counted.
Gore v. Bush, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)
15. ● Drafters of the U.S. Constitution recognized the inconsistencies in
the document itself.
● Drafters also recognized that in the document itself they had cast
a vision for a more perfect Union.
● Due process has evolved into the vehicle to attempt to achieve
that more perfect Union by way of imposing federal rights and
protections on state and local government.
● The American Experiment is still underway.
Recap
16. Attributions:
"Bush v. Gore." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/2000/00-949. Accessed 3 Apr. 2017.
For additional information:
Brandon L. Blankenship
UAB | Department of Government
(205)912-8248 | blbjd@uab.edu
Attributions and Additional Information:
Editor's Notes
13th Amendment - Ends Slavery
15th Amendment - Ensures right to vote regardless of race or former servitude.
13th Amendment - Ends Slavery
15th Amendment - Ensures right to vote regardless of race or former servitude.
13th Amendment - Ends Slavery
15th Amendment - Ensures right to vote regardless of race or former servitude.
13th Amendment - Ends Slavery
15th Amendment - Ensures right to vote regardless of race or former servitude.
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
"Dred Scott v. Sandford." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.
Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in an area of the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott sued unsuccessfully in the Missouri courts for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. Scott then brought a new suit in federal court. Scott's master maintained that no pure-blooded Negro of African descent and the descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.
Dred Scott was a slave. Under Articles III and IV, argued Taney, no one but a citizen of the United States could be a citizen of a state, and that only Congress could confer national citizenship. Taney reached the conclusion that no person descended from an American slave had ever been a citizen for Article III purposes. The Court then held the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, hoping to end the slavery question once and for all.
"Dred Scott v. Sandford." Oyez, https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393. Accessed 2 Apr. 2017.
Brandon L. Blankenship
UAB | Department of Government
(205)912-8248 | blbjd@uab.edu
