You're about to create your best presentation ever

Court Decision Powerpoint Template

Create your presentation by reusing a template from our community or transition your PowerPoint deck into a visually compelling Prezi presentation.

Supreme court powerpoint

Transcript: The cases were combined because they all sought desegregation of schools as the remedy of grossly inadequate conditions in segregated black schools Amber Fiedler Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case in which the Court declared state laws establishing separate public schools for black and white students to be unconstitutional. impact the U.S The vote on Brown v. Board of Education was unanimous, meaning that all nine justices voted the same way. The ruling in the case was written by Earl Warren, who was Chief Justice.  The Court bears much of the blame for this. The justices of the mid-1950s came of age at a time when judges routinely struck down federal child labor laws and other progressive legislation, citing dubious theories of the Constitution. Judges Brown v. board of education 1954 Holding major argument Background on brown v board of education Chief Justice Warren delivered the court's opinion, stating that "segregated schools are not equal and cannot be made equal, and hence they are deprived of the equal protection of the laws." This ruling in favor of integration was one of the most significant strides America has taken in favor of civil liberties. Dissenting Harry Briggs was one of twenty plaintiffs who were charging that R.W. Elliott, as president of the Clarendon County School Board, violated their right to equal protection under the fourteenth amendment by upholding the county's segregated education law argument Supreme court powerpoint I think the brown v board of education is the most important case in the u.s because it helped people realize that even if the kids are not white or not black they can still go to school together. Pictures brown v board of education

Food Court Decision

Transcript: Our Issue Pasta Place -Locally owned restaurant -Low prices -High demand -Cheap Prices -Good tasting food -Profits go towards the Consumer Sciences class where students learn about economics and restaurant management Consumer Science Kitchen PRICE: $1.00 DEMAND: 10 Units DAILY PROFIT: $21.88 ADVANTAGES: Consumer Science Kitchen Bennie's Hunan Wok Total Profit -Teaches students about economics -Cheap and efficient, good for low-income students PRICE - $3.00 DEMAND - 15 units PROFIT - $4.50 STUDENT REVENUE- $0.90 ADVANTAGES: -Reasonably high profits -Adds variety and diversity -High demand Pasta Place: Food Court Proposal -Vegetarian & healthy options -Environmentally sustainable Andrew, Addie, Sadie, Oscar, Jenny Selected Price -Fairly cheap -Good profit -Popular restaurant -Good tastes -High demand -Good daily profit -Tasty food -Low, affordable prices. -Bennie's sells great hamburgers at great prices -Popular high school hangout CONCLUSION TOTAL - $83768 per year Student council - $16753.68 per year TOTAL - $465.38 per day Student council profit - $93.08 per day PRICE: $2.50 DEMAND: 100 Units DAILY PROFIT: $100 STUDENT REVENUE: $20 ADVANTAGES: Selected Price Selected Price Hunan Wok Veggie Vittles - A vegetarian option - More variety - Healthy choice - Reasonable profit Bennie's PRICE: $1.50 DEMAND: 250 units DAILY PROFIT: $245 STUDENT REVENUE: $49 ADVANTAGES: Veggie Vittles Selected Price -Longtime fast food service -Low prices & flavorful food PRICE: $2.50 DEMAND: 80 students per day DAILY PROFIT: $94 STUDENT REVENUE: $18.80 ADVANTAGES Selected Price

Supreme Court Decision

Transcript: June 9th 2017 By: Priyali Patel Supreme Court's Decisions on Abortion Cases Date: Argued: December 13, 1971 Decided: January 22, 1973 Background: In the early 1970s multiple states banned or restricted women from getting abortion. Norma McCorvey commonly known as "Jane Roe" to secure her identity at the time of this case seeked to get an abortion. She wasn't able to get abortion because Henry Wade, at the time District Attorney of Dallas County enforced a law that prohibited women to receive abortion unless it was to save the life of the mother. At this time in history, pro-life advocates believed that abortion can harm pregnant women. Date/Background Roe v. Wade Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your first topic or just put some placeholder text here. Circumstances/Controversy Should women be allowed to receive abortion, or should they not be allowed to make a big decision for themselves, if they wished to not have the baby? Prior to Roe v. Wade women weren't either allowed to have abortion unless it was to save mothers life. A majority of laws didn't allow the women to make this choice, and after feminist movements challegned womens's right to make such decisions. Circumstances/Controversy At the end of the hearing, the Supreme court decided with a 7-2 decision, which allowed the women legal right to have an abortion because it violated women's constitutional right to privacy. This was heavily debated under the Fourteenth amendment, to protect an individual's privacy. Court's Decision Court's Decision Personal Judgement I think the pregnant woman has full rights over to decide weather or not she chooses to have the baby. This is because the woman suffers through a lot during pregnancy and she should be given complete control over the decision if she would want to suffer the pain. Therefore I agree with Supreme Court's decsion, which states that it is woman's constitutional right to privacy. The court's decision did split the nation in half but gave woman control to their body, and a chance for them to have an abortion if wished. Personal Judgement After the Supreme Court invalidated the Texas law by a 7-2 vote, opposition emerged. The Roman Catholic Church criticized abortion as a form of infanticide. Many fundamentalist Protestant minsters joined the outcry. The National Right to Life Committee formed with the good of reversing Roe v. Wade. Social Impact Social Impact Date Argued: April 22, 1992 Decided: June 29, 1992 Background A Pennsylvania legislature amended its abortion control law in 1988 and 1989. Among the new provisions, the law required informed consent and a 24 hour waiting period prior to the procedure. A minor seeking an abortion required the consent of one parent (the law allows for a judicial bypass procedure). A married woman seeking an abortion had to indicate that she notified her husband of her intention to abort. These provisions were challenged by several abortion clinics and physicians. A federal appeals court upheld all the provisions except for the husband notification requirement. Background Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania v. Casey Insert your own text here. Talk about something related to your second topic or just put some placeholder text here. Circumstances/Controversy Can a state require women who want an abortion to obtain informed consent, wait 24 hours, and if minors, obtain parental consent, without violating their right to abortions as guaranteed by Roe v. Wade? Many states such as Pennsylvania openly defied Roe by passing new laws that prohibited abortions, which triggered Planned Parenthood and caused an upheaval. The restrictions prevented Planned Parenthood from helping women get an abortion. The requirements the state posed were far to difficult to pass and appeared unnecessary. Circumstances/Controversy In 1992, Supreme Court released a decision ruling that said Roe v. Wade was affirmed but part of Pennsylvania law was also constitutional. Based off of Roe v. Wade, court ruled that a woman’s decision to get an abortion implicates “liberty interests” and “privacy interests” that the Constitution's Due Process Clause protects. Court also ruled that state could not ban abortions before the “viability” point and that states can not ban abortions that help save a life of the mother. Finally the court also proclaimed that any regulation that imposes an obstacle for a woman from obtaining a legal abortion, is an “undue burden” that violates the woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. The decision was a 5-4 majority Court's Decision Court's Decision I think that it is the woman's right more than the man's becuase it is the woman that has to go through the pregnancy and they should have the right to decide what they want to do with their body. Requiring a consent from husband puts a limit on the woman's right, especially since some women might be scared of their spouses. Therefore I agree with the Supreme Court's

Court Decision

Transcript: Court Decision Martin vs Hunter's Lessee Make-Up of the Court "The Great Cases, No. 3: Martin v. Hunter's Lessee." Not A Potted Plant RSS. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. "Martin v. Hunter'S Lessee." - Court, Supreme, Government, and Power. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. "Martin v. Hunter's Lessee." Case Brief Summary. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. "MARTIN v. HUNTER'S LESSEE." Martin v. Hunter's Lessee. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. PBS. PBS, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2014. Bibliography Chief Justice - John Marshall recused himself from the court decision Six Justices: Bushrod Washington William Johnson Jr. Henry B. Livingston Thomas Todd Gabriel Duvall Joseph Story Facts of the Case The land that belonged to Lord Fairfax After the Treaty of Paris in 1783, David Hunter was given a state grant to the land already owned by Denny Martin Martin sued for recovery of the land at Virginia State Court, which ruled Martin as the rightful owner Hunter appealed to the Virginia Court of Appeals (highest state court), which ruled Hunter as the proper owner Martin appealed to the U.S Supreme Court, which ruled Martin as the lawful owner. The Virginia Court of Appeals refused to accept the Supreme Court's ruling Kelly Abraham Acsah Mathews Megan Mo 1775-1783 Revolutionary War Lord Fairfax, a loyalist who had fled to England, died leaving his property to Denny Martin 1782 - Virginia confiscated Loyalist properties Fairfax's land granted to David Hunter 1783 - Treaty of Paris return confiscated land. Denny Martin became the rightful owner of his inherited land, while David Hunter owned the land as a grant from the state. The Supreme Court unanimously voted in favor of Denny Martin The Supreme Court held that it was unconstitutional for Virginia to apply the state statute authorizing confiscation of property due to the Treaty of 1794 between England and the United States The Supreme Court established the constitutional grounds for the right to review state-court decisions and affirmed federal judicial supremacy Historical Context

Now you can make any subject more engaging and memorable