Send the link below via email or IMCopy
Present to your audienceStart remote presentation
- Invited audience members will follow you as you navigate and present
- People invited to a presentation do not need a Prezi account
- This link expires 10 minutes after you close the presentation
- A maximum of 30 users can follow your presentation
- Learn more about this feature in our knowledge base article
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
Neither you, nor the coeditors you shared it with will be able to recover it again.
Make your likes visible on Facebook?
You can change this under Settings & Account at any time.
Transcript of abstract
Decision of court:favor of Baltimore;the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction because 5th amendment only applies to Federal govt. actions & not state disputes.
Significance of decision : First 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, apply to and restrain the Federal governments powers but do not apply to state governments. Barron v. Baltimore(1833) constitutional question: "may the Alabama residents, who claim that the Jefferson County occupation tax violates the Federal and Alabama constitutions, proceed with their class action?"
Decision of court: neither notice nor sufficient representation may not bind them and thus cannot bar them from challenging an allegedly constitution.
significance: Federal Due Process;everyone should be heard in court Richards v Jefferson County(1995) constitutional question: "does the Due Process clause of the 14th amendment requires that any fact that increases the penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum be submitted to jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt?"
decision of Court: Supreme Court recognized that ‘at stake in this case are constitutional protections of surpassing importance; the proscription of any deprivation of liberty without ‘due process of law’, and that the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.
The Court required the application of the “reasonable doubt” standard to sentencing so as to limit error. Apprendi v New Jersey(1999) constitutional question: "Did the seizing of Berman’s property for the purpose of beautification and redevelopment of the community violate the takings clause of the fifth amendment?”
decision of the court: no, the Fifth Amendment does not limit congress power to seize private property without just compensation to any specific purpose.
significance: the power to determine what values to consider in seizing property for public welfare is congress alone. Berman v Parker(1984) constitutional question: "Does Chicago’s Gang congregation ordinance, which prohibits criminal street gang members from loitering in public places, violate the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Us Constitution?"
decision of court: yes, it was unconstitutionally vague and provided law enforcement officials too much discretion to decide what activities constitute loitering. Chicago v Morales(1998) 1:fundamental principles of justice: fundamental principles of justice as opposed to a specific rule of law
2: citizens right to justice:the entitlement of a citizen to proper legal procedures and natural justice Due Process The constitutional question :‘Does the police’s practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self- incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?’.
The decision of the court: The Fifth Amendment protection from self- incrimination requires that suspects be informed of their constitutional rights before questioning by the police when in custody.
The significance of the decision was that this event captured the nation’s attention and promoted a landmark US Supreme Court decision. Dixon v U.S.(2005) constitutional question:"can a criminal be later charged in contempt for committing the same crime of which he is already being prosecuted?"
decision:secondary indictment was dismissed because it was found that it was double jeopardy. however, Foster was still indicted on three of four counts because double jeopardy did not apply to subsequent greater offenses. Smith v Phillips(1982) constitutional question:"Was the due process of law denied either by the juror’s act of applying for a job at the District Attorney’s office?"
decision: denied, the judge finding “beyond a reasonable doubt”, that the events giving rise to the motion did not influence the verdict.
significance: Habeas corpus relief in Federal District Court, and that he had been denied Due Process of law under 14th amendment. Sacramento v. Lewis (1997) constitutional question:was “Are the fourteenth amendments substantive due process protection or the fourth amendment, guarantee against illegal seizure violated by a police officer who in the course of pursuing a subject causes their death through deliberate or reckless indifference?”.
decision: no, the police officer did not intend harm or worsen the plight of the Respondent.
significance: police officer didn’t intend to cause harm to the person and if he had done it on purpose, it would be ‘shocking’ to the US Constitution. Babbitt v. Youpee (1996) constitutional question:"Does amended Section 207 of the Indian Land Consolidation Act violate the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause?”.
decision: Yes, Justice Ginsburg ruled that the amended section 207 Indian Land Consolidation Act does not cure the constitutional deficiency.
significance: taking private property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment, ruled unconstitutional because it “severely restricts the right of an individual to direct the descent of his property”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwMPlzPiKn8