In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Otis McDonald, argued that the second amendment -the right to bear arms- is a right that no state can infringe. In the other hand, Chicago and Oaks park prohibits the use of handguns. This case has many similarities to Heller v. District of Colombia in 2008 which argues that gun control rights violate an individuals right to bear arms right. The Rutherford Institution stated that the high crime rate in Chicago gives us a reason in why the state can not prevent individuals from possessing a handgun, because it helps individuals defend themselves. Especially, in urban areas where a lot more crime is being committed. If the Supreme court decides to side with McDonald the slaughterhouse line cases will be reversed and incorporate the second amendment with possibly the whole entire Bill of rights against the states. However, if the court decides with Chicago, the slaughterhouse cases will be upheld and restrict the scope of the fourteenth amendment. The decision that was made for McDonald v. Chicago was that any bans against the second amendment is unconstitutional. The court also stated that the second amendment just protects to posses a firearm for self defense and it doesn't guarantee that you can posses any type of firearms for any type of reason anywhere you go.
Roe v. Wade (1973) was a case that prohibited abortion on a Texas Resident, Jane Roe. The only way they accepted abortion was unless to save the pregnant women's life. Roe filed a suit against Wade, because it violated the guarantee of personal liberty, and the right to privacy guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and the fourteenth amendment. No state could restrict an abortion during the first three months, or the trimester of the pregnancy. Later on, the Roman catholic church criticized the idea of an abortion, because they believed that the unborn child should have the same rights as an adult has, otherwise, it would be considered as a murder. Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) was involved as an important precedent in this case. This was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled on a Connecticut law that criminalized the use of birth control. Ever since women started using birth control it has drastically impacted their lives by allowing them to invest in their future and giving them time to plan for a family. The Supreme Court's decision over Roe v. Wade stated that most state laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy causing 46 states to overturn their laws.
New York Times v. United States (1971) is a case in which the United States tried to prevent New York Times and Washington Post from publishing classified information of the history the U.S. is involved in the Vietnam War. Daniel Ellsberg created more than 700 copies that revealed the history the government has with the Vietnam War. He believed people needed to know what was really happening from the false facts the United States stated. For example, saying that the war is almost to it's end when its no where near finished and saying the number of deaths are less than the actual deaths. These papers were later know as the "Pentagon Papers". The United States stated that by publishing these papers it will be against the First Amendment which is freedom of speech, religion, and press. An earlier event that faced the same issues was in Near v. Minnesota (1931). This event also involved the prior restraint as unconstitutional leading up to the Supreme Court applying the first amendment's protection to the government by the doctoring of incorporation.
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) was a case in which Clarence Earl Gideon filed a habeas corpus for unjust imprisonment. Gideon who was found guilty for breaking into Panama City, Florida, pool hall and stealing money from the vending machines could not afford a lawyer. Since Gideon couldn't afford a lawyer he requested one, but was refused and was subjected for 5 years in prison. The Supreme court states that this case is unconstitutional, because it is a violation of the 6th amendment. The sixth amendment states that criminal descendants have the right to a lawyer, impartial jury, and a public trial. This case precedent is Betts v. Brady (1942). Betts v. Brady was a very similar case as Gideon v. Wainwright they both were refused an attorney during their case. Betts was found guilty of robbery in Circuit Court of Carrol County in Maryland. He was sentenced for 8 years in prison and once he got out he also filed a habeas corpus petition saying that he was incarcerated. Betts agedly argued that this was a violation of the 14th amendment - equal protection and rights to slaves-. Betts and Gideon not having a lawyer by their side during their court case was unconstitutional, because it violated the 14th and 6th amendment of the United States.
Lopez v. United States (1995) was a serious case that occurred. In this case, Alfonso Lopez, a senior in high school was arrested for having a weapon on school premises. He was arrested for this action but he argued that he shouldn't be arrested because he wasn't doing any harm. Although he wasn't causing any harm, I believe that he should pay the consequences because he shouldn't have had a weapon on school premises in the first place. He violated the "Gun-Free School Zones Act" of 1990. The act forbids "any individual knowingly to posses a firearm at place [he] knows... is a school zone". He was found guilty and sentenced to 6 months ' imprisonment and 2 years' supervised release. The decision that the Supreme Court made was that regardless if you weren't threatening anyone, having a weapon still violated the law and you should have a permit in order to own any type of firearm. This set a good precedent because it allows people to be more careful with their weapons and keep them somewhere safe. This decision also prevents a firearm from landing in the wrong hands.
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) was disagreement on a Wisconsin law that required all children to attend public schools until they turn 16. It is stated that this law was unconstitutional when it was applied to the Amish (A group of people who migrated from Europe to North America and seek to maintain a lifestyle based on the bible). It violated the First Amendment which states that we have the right to exercise our religious beliefs. Since they wanted to live a really religious lifestyle this disagreed with this law and only wanted their kids to go to school up until the 8th grade. They believed that high school attendance did not apply to them because of their religion. The Supreme Court then made the decision that this law did not apply to the Amish because it is their religion and the First Amendment states that it "prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion and prohibiting the free exercise of religion...". This decision as well made it better for us because we are allowed to choose the religion that we want and believe what we want to be believe.
Tinker v. Des Moines (1989) was a a case that had a lot of disagreements. At a public school in Iowa, students wore black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The principle of the school wasn't too happy with what the students were doing. The principle had told them that is they continued with this action they would get suspended. The students didn't listen and got suspended. On behalf of the students, their parents sued the school for not violating their children's rights. This violated the First Amendment. They took this case to a U.S district court and they lost the case so they took a serious turn and took it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then made a decision in favor of the students. The decision was that "students ' free rights should be protected". This set a good model because it shows that kids our age have the right to express ourselves and the way we feel about situations going on in the world.
Engel v. Vitale (1962) was a case in which there was a law that had students start off the day at school with a prayer. The United States Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for state officials to compose and official an official school prayer and support its recitation in public schools. This violated the First and 14th Amendment. What had happened was that students would recite a prayer at the beginning of each school day. Some parents weren't happy with this because they realized that it was violating their kids rights such as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Us as people, have the freedom to follow any religion that we want. The decision the Supreme Court made was that they eliminated religious activities of all sorts. This way there won't be so much commotion over religion. The Supreme Court's decision made it so that we have the right to choose the religion that we want to follow and not someone else's.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954) was a controversy in separating children in public schools due to their race. The Supreme Court ruled that by separating children was unconstitutional, because it violated the 14th amendment. The 14th Amendment states that no state can create laws that denies a persons citizenship, no state can deny any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, and it cannot prevent any person its equal protection of the laws. African American families would go to the nearest school to enroll their children but would often be rejected and be sent to an all African American school. These families such as the Brown family would struggle to find transportation to get to their designated school while having an all white school close to them. This case caused a precedent decision 60 years earlier in Plessy v. Ferguson. In Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) the U.S Supreme Court issued that by uphelding the racial segregation laws of public facilities the segregated facilities must be equal in quality, also known as "separate but equal". The Supreme Court stating that this case is unconstitutional helped in ending segregation in public schools, because denying someone just by their color of their skin is against the "all men are created equal'' in the Declaration of Independence.
Gitlow v. New York (1925) was a case in which stated that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech". In this case Benjamin Gitlow had printed a document called "The Left Wing Manifesto" and he was then arrested because it basically provoked people to express themselves but not in the right way. For example, it provoked people to express themselves in more threatening and violent ways such as, strikes. We all have freedom of speech but we cannot take advantage of it. The Supreme Court later on made a decision. They decided that anyone who supports the belief of violent revolution violated the law. They made this decision because they saw this action as dangerous. This decision set a precedent that will allow people to understand that we shall not take advantage of the fact that we are able to say what we want, state our own opinions, and share certain things with the public as long as it does not have a negative result.