Implications of Legal Cases on Law & Politics: Boumediene v. Bush, Roe v. Wade & More - Pr, Study notes of Political Science

Download Implications of Legal Cases on Law & Politics: Boumediene v. Bush, Roe v. Wade & More - Pr and more Study notes Political Science in PDF only on Docsity! Exam Question Bank – Final Exam What is the primary legal questions and answers in the following cases and what do they reveal about law and politics? Boumediene v. Bush  Should the Military Commissions Act of 2006 be interpreted to strip courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions filed by foreign citizens detained at the Guantanamo Bay?  If so, is the MCA of 2006 a violations of the Suspension Clause of the Constitution?  Are the detainees at Gitmo entitled to the protection of the 5th Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law and the Geneva Conventions?  Can the detainees challenge the adequacy of judicial review provisions of the MCA before they have sought to invoke that review? ◦ A five justice majority answered yes to each of these questions. This case goes along with the 2nd principle of law and politics. Rights are not self enforcing and sometimes contradicting pieces of legislature can establish an unconstitutional precedent by consequently depriving individuals of certain rights. Roe v. Wade  Does the constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion? ◦ In a 7 to 2 decision in favor of Roe, the court ruled that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy established in Griswold v. Connecticut and protected by the 14th Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling. Griswold v. Connecticut  Does the constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives? ◦ Although the Constitution does not explicitly state a right to privacy, together the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 9th Amendments create a new Constitutional right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void. This is another example of how conflicting pieces of legislature and ambiguous interpretations of the Constitution can cross paths and end up depriving citizens of their rights. Texas v. Johnson  Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the 1st Amendment? ◦ In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that Johnson's burning of the flag was a protected form of expression under the 1st Amendment. The Court found that Johnson's actions fell into the category of expressive content and had a distinctly political nature. This is an example of the idea that law must be applied universally. The fact that it was such a close decision illustrates the 4th principle of law and politics in that our perspective on law is all about whose ox is getting gored. Just because someone is offended by the nature of the expression does not constitute a ban on that expression. U.S. v. Eichman  Does the Flag Protection Act of 1989 violate the freedom of expression protected by the 1st Amendment? ◦ In a 5-4 decision, the FPA of 1989 was struck down. Illustrating the 2nd and 4th principles of law and politics, this case goes to show that the judicial branch is highly constrained by way of stare decisis, and the split decision further illustrates (as in Texas v. Johnson) that the perspective depends of who's ox is being gored. Allowing officials to burn a flag, but not protestors makes it clear that the FPA was a suppression of expression. Minersville v. Gobitis  Did the compulsory flag salute for public schoolchildren violate the 1st Amendment? ◦ In an 8-1 decision, the court held that the state's interest in 'national cohesion' was “inferior to none in the hierarchy of legal values” and that national unity was crucial to national security. This case illustrates the 3rd principle of law and politics. Courts are highly constrained and left with an individualistic and reactive nature in their decisions. Also going along with the 1st principle, court decisions are part of the political process and are often subject to the general public consensus. West Virginia v. Barnette  Did the compulsory flag salute for public schoolchildren violate the 1st Amendment? ◦ In a 6-3 decision in favor of Barnette, the Court decided that compelling public school children to salute the flag was unconstitutional. The salute constitutes a form of utterance and therefore was a means of communicating ideas. 'Compulsory unification of opinion was antithetical to the 1st Amendment values. Again, this case points to the fact that just because someone's opinion is different than that of the majority, does not mean that their opinion is wrong or that they should be forced to alter it. 4th principle. Bond v. U.S.  Does a criminal defendant, who has been convicted under a federal statute, have standing to challenge the conviction on grounds that the statute is beyond the federal government's enumerated powers and inconsistent with the 10th Amendment? ◦ Since this case has not yet been decided, there is no legally definitive answer to this question. However, the use of chemical weapons has been outlawed by the UN. Citizens of the countries that make up the UN should be held to the laws that pertain to them. I do not know whether or not the 1993 CWC was intended to stop the use of chemical weapons by governmental bodies, or at an individual level, but since the rights and laws of the federal government also apply to the states, it is logical to assume that it works both ways. Snyder v. Phelps  Does the 1st Amendment protect protesters at a funeral from liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on the family of the deceased? ◦ The Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Phelps. The 1st Amendment shields those who stage protests at funerals. 4th principle applies here, the message may be offensive, but that doesn’t mean that they aren't allowed to say it. 1st Amendment rights apply to all forms of expression, whether they are nice or not. Skinner v. Switzer  Can a convicted prisoner seeking access to biological evidence for DNA testing assert that claim in a Civil Rights Action under 42 U.S.C. 1983?