with the slavery elimination movement, led to Amendment XIX being proposed and introduced into the Congress in the year 1878. The recommended constitutional amendment continued to be a controversial matter for more than four decades -- a period that witnessed increasing aggressiveness in the nature of the female rights movement. Advocates increasingly organized protests and campaigns to coerce the Congress into passing Amendment XIX and ensuring its enforcement by all states[footnoteRef:5]. The above political action, buttressed by American females' contribution to the industrial sector in the crucial WWI era, led to the Amendment's enforcement. [5: Supra, note 2.]
Thesis statement
Amendment XIX proved to be one among the greatest milestones in American… Continue Reading...
Issues before the Court
Does the Constitutional Amendment IV provide a safeguard for telephonic conversations carried out in a public telephone booth? Can secret recordings of such conversations be presented in the form of evidence in court trials (Katz v. United States)?
Facts of the Case/Case Summary
The petitioner in the case had been charged with infringing federal regulations by conveying wagering information via a public payphone (Katz v. United States). As evidence in the case trial, the government presented recordings of the petitioner’s conversation procured using a concealed listening device in the booth. The appellate… Continue Reading...
the constitutional Amendment IV could be admitted in state courts. Attorney Kearns lodged an appeal notice and forwarded the case to Ohio’s Supreme Court, to reconsider the ruling made by the Court of Appeals (Mapp v. Ohio - Supreme Court of Ohio (Case No. 36,091)). Amendments I and XIV established the unconstitutional nature of Ohio State’s anti-obscenity act, as (1) it was vague and failed to outline obscenity standards, and (2) other states’ anti-obscenity acts were meant for lewd materials’ exhibitors, sellers, and publishers, rather than possessors. Justice Taft was the… Continue Reading...
chief issue that surfaces in the Katz v United States case is with regard to whether the Constitutional Amendment IV provides protection for telephone conversations that are carried out in public phone booths and which are recorded in secret to serve as evidence in court, against an individual (Samaha, 2011).
Arguments/Objectives of the Parties
According to Katz, the phone booth that he used was supposed to be a constitutionally-safeguarded area. While he didn't attempt to go to the booth and back stealthily, he did wish for no uninvited ear to hear his conversations. He further argued that just because he chose to conduct his gambling-related conversations in… Continue Reading...
Wayne Lapierre, the fact that organizations can prohibit firearms in employee automobiles represents a serious blow to the Constitutional Amendment II (Shaw). However, senior attorney working for the 'Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence', Brian Siebel, disagrees. In his view, these regulations constitute a systematic endeavor to force arms across the whole of society and forbid anybody, right from school and college authorities to private sector firms, from banning guns on campus. Although I believe we are legally and morally entitled to gun ownership, the ethicality of this idea gets complicated if one takes into account the aspect of respecting others' wishes. For instance, carrying a firearm into… Continue Reading...
linked with women's suffrage campaigns. Both women's suffrage and prohibition became Constitutional Amendments, showing the power of the Progressive movement in influencing politics. The direct election of senators was also a Progressive era Constitutional Amendment that increased the participatory nature of American democracy.
Another cornerstone of progressivism was a real attempt to reform government through evidence-based practices. Relying on empiricism was a hallmark of the modern era, and the Progressives in America aimed to replace cronyism with science-based public policy. With rigorous scientific methodology still in its infancy, though, the effectiveness of progressive reforms would not be fully felt for another… Continue Reading...
whether or not weapon frisking without likely cause for detention may be classified as an unwarranted search, according to the Constitutional Amendment IV (Samaha, 2012).
Arguments
Prior to trial commencement, the accused men attempted to quash the official's evidence, dubbing it as "inadmissible" since it was uncovered through an unauthorized frisking (Samaha, 2012). They asserted that the official (i.e., Mcfadden) lacked both a probable cause for detention and a search warrant. However, their motion was denied.
Holdings
The Supreme Court held that, in spite of a lack of probable cause for apprehension, the complainant's frisking, which gleaned a concealed gun, satisfied Amendment IV conditions. Drawing from experience, Mcfadden had a… Continue Reading...
navy are capable of defending commercial shipping lanes in their region if put to the test by China, Russia or Iran. Furthermore, the potential for a constitutional amendment in Japan that expands the nation’s authority to include specifically offensive weaponry in its arsenal may be on the horizon given the need for Japan to exercise greater responsibilities in its areas of control.
It is also noteworthy that the recent 2018 Trust Barometer poll found that UAE placed near the top of the countries surveyed in terms of the trustworthiness of various national institutions while Japan was ranked near the bottom (O’Leary, 2018). These recent global trust ratings indicate that the efforts by the UAE’s leadership are… Continue Reading...
by a future U.S. Supreme Court decision or a constitutional amendment. Although similar to the Supreme Court in Norway, no further appeals can occur should a case reach the American Supreme Court. Although England has no Supreme Court, there is a Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. This court represents the ultimate court for any civil and criminal matters in Wales, England, and Northern Ireland. This change was made on October 1, 2009 and replaced the judicial functions of the judicial House of Lords. "the Supreme Court has been established to achieve a complete separation between the United Kingdom's… Continue Reading...
