The Background of Arizona v. Gant (2009)

Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested as a result of driving with a suspended license; he had parked his vehicle and was arrested while on the property of an acquaintance. Shortly after Gant was detained in a police vehicle, the Arizona Police enacted a search of his vehicle in which they discovered cocaine and a firearm; as a result of this search, Gant was not only charged with the operation of a motor vehicle without a license, but also with the possession of a firearm, the possession of cocaine, and the intent to distribute cocaine. Subsequent to his arrest, Gant cited the Arizona Police with undertaking an illegal search and seizure lacking probable cause – a violation of his 4th Amendment Rights.

New York v. Belton (1981) mandated an ideology with regard to the required protocol within an arrest process rooted within an ‘If Arrest, Then Search’ approach with regard to any or all compartments of the vehicle deemed to exist on the ‘passenger’s side’; in accordance to this ruling, the Arizona Police enacted their search of Gant’s vehicle

The Case Profile of Arizona v. Gant

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Arizona v. Gant’:

Date of the Trial: October 7th, 2008

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Arizona against Rodney Joseph Gant within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police performed an illegal search of his property resulting from the absence of a search warrant; a search warrant is the expressed, legal permission for applicable – and approved – law enforcement agents to enter the personal, private property belonging to an individual with the intention of placing that individual under arrest

Gant maintained that the Arizona Police had acted in lieu of probable cause, defined as the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

United States Reports Case Number: 556 U.S. __

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: April 21st, 2009

Legal Venue of Arizona v. Gant: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Arizona v. Gant case:

The State of Arizona; Plaintiff – Arizona v. Gant

Rodney Joseph Gant; Defendant – Arizona v. Gant

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gant stating that the police searches are only viewed as constitutional in the event that they result from sufficient probable cause with regard to evidence latent existing in conjunction with the reasoning for the search. Due to the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the police lacked sufficient evidence to suspect that Gant would be in violation of anything outside of the illegal operation of a motor vehicle, they overturned his conviction with regard to both the firearm and drug charges.

Associated Legislation with regard to Arizona v. Gant: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Arizona v. Gant trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

In the event that an individual is arrested, criminal law protocol within the United States maintains the innocence of that individual unless they are found guilty within a court of law or they have admitted guilt on their own accord

The Background of Gibbons v. Ogden (1824)

In 1824, the State Government of New York State allowed for 2 men – Robert Fulton and Robert Livingston – to maintain the authority to regulate the waterways existing between New York and New Jersey. Thomas Gibson, a facilitator of a commercial steamboat operation existing between New York and New Jersey, was permitted to operate his steamboats on an interstate basis. Aaron Ogden maintained that due to the fact that Gibbons’ actions occurred on an interstate level, the jurisdiction of regulation of Gibbons was under the jurisdiction of the Federal government in lieu of the State Government of New York State; Ogden insisted that Gibbons’ license be revoked. Gibbons’ attorney explained that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution expressed that the Federal government only be permitted to regulate commercial activity existing on an interstate basis that involves ‘Several’ states:

The Commerce Clause within the United States’ Constitution explains that the regulation and oversight of trade involving nations outside of the United States, Native American Tribes, and ‘Several’ States will be within the jurisdiction of the Federal Government

The Case Profile of Gibbons v. Ogden

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gibbons v. Ogden’:

Date of the Trial: February 5th, 1824

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Thomas Gibbons against Aaron Ogden within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Gibbons explained that Ogden’s claims were unconstitutional due to the fact that the participation of 2 States neither fell under the jurisdiction of the Federal Government, not the classification of ‘several’

United States Reports Case Number: 22 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 2nd, 1824

Legal Venue of Gibbons v. Ogden: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gibbons v. Ogden case:

Thomas Gibbons; Plaintiff – Gibbons v. Ogden

Aaron Ogden; Defendant – Gibbons v. Ogden

Verdict Delivered: the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ogden, explaining that the Federal Government was eligible for any nature of jurisdiction and regulation of interstate activity – regardless of the number of participatory States – as a result of the Supremacy Clause. This ruling also solidified the term ‘several’ to imply any nature of interstate commerce.

Associated Legislation with regard to Gibbons v. Ogden: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gibbons v. Ogden trial:

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

The Background of Baker v. Carr (1961)

Within the legislation expressed in the Tennessee State Constitution –enacted in 1901 – required that the districts of Tennessee be reformulated every 10 years in order to accommodate an accurate portrayal of the population with regard to each respective jurisdiction. Charles Baker explained that the State had refused to remap the districts in accordance to the precepts set forth within the applicable legislature. Although the State of Tennessee maintained that the adherence to the measures of districts was political in nature, Baker contended that the establishment of districts was a legislative matter:

The nature of legal issues rooted in politics in contrast with those rooted in legislature were called into question with regard to the analysis of Baker’s complaint; Baker brought forth the Supremacy Clause within the Constitution, which mandated the Federal government’s eligibility to maintain jurisdiction over State legislation

The Case Profile of Baker v. Carr

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Baker v. Carr’:

Date of the Trial: October 9th, 1961

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

The Nature of the Appeal: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Charles W. Baker against Joe C. Carr – the appointed representative of the State of Tennessee – within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Baker maintained that the legislation expressed in the State of Tennessee’s Constitution in 1901 with regard to the establishment of districts was in direct violation of 14th Amendment Rights entitled to citizens of the United States

United States Reports Case Number: 369 U.S. 186

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: March 26th, 1962

Legal Venue of Baker v. Carr: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Baker v. Carr case:

Charles W. Baker; Plaintiff – Baker v. Carr

Joe C. Carr; Defendant – Baker v. Carr

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court claimed that the State of Tennessee’s refusal to adhere to the expressed legislation of remapping districts was in direct violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which requires that every individual citizen of the United States be entitled to equal, uniform, and unbiased protection and preservation with regard to the pursuit of happiness.

Associated Legislation with regard to Baker v. Carr: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Baker v. Carr trial:

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

Article III of the Constitution of the United States – within Section 2 – illustrates a legislative clause untitled the Supremacy Clause, which allows the Federal Government to maintain authority over all legislation in the event that contrast and unfair advantage exists; this clause was imposed in order to ensure a uniform and equal legal process within the entirety of the United States

The Background of Gitlow v. New York (1925)

The case of Gitlow v. New York was a trial that took place in 1925 with regard to the application of the tenets and precepts expressed within the Constitution of the United States – as well as those expressed within the Amendments; this trial addressed both the Federal Government’s – as well as the individual States’ – responsibility to uphold civil liberties expressed within the Consitution. Benjamin Gitlow, who was considered to be both a Socialist – as well as a potential anarchist threat to the United States government, was charged with a violating ‘Anti-Anarchist’ legislature upheld by the State of New York; prior to his arrest, Gitlow had been charged with releasing publications presumed to be latent with Anti-American rhetoric. Subsequent to his initial conviction, Benjamin Gitlow appealed his conviction, stating that his conviction was in direct violation of both his 1st and 14th Amendment rights expressed in the Constitution; the appeal hearing became what is now considered ‘Gitlow v. New York’.

The Case Profile of Gitlow v. New York

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Gitlow v. New York’:

Date of the Trial: November 23rd, 1923

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by %%% against %%%%

Although Gitlow was convicted of violating applicable legislation enacted within the State of New York prohibiting expression considered to be ‘Anti American’, Gitlow appealed his conviction accusing the State of New York of violating his Constitutional rights

United States Reports Case Number: 268 U.S. 652

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 8th, 1925

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: William H. Taft

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Gitlow v. New York case:

Benjamin Gitlow – the plaintiff – was an social activist and author

The State of New York – the defendant – was cited for a violation of Gitlow’s Constitutional rights

Verdict Delivered: Benjamin Gitlow remained guilty of his crimes, but the Supreme Court mandated that individual State governments were unable to deny their residents the civil and human rights expressed within the Constitution of the United States

Associated Legislation with regard to Gitlow v. New York: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Gitlow v. New York trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution ensures that all citizens of the United States are afforded the freedom of speech; this statute also includes the freedom to express oneself in accordance to accepted and undertaken legislation and legality – this statute includes the freedom to join and participate in activities and engagements upon choosing to do so without threat or duress

The 14th Amendment illustrates legislation that disallows the government from infringing on the right(s) to pursue ‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness’ with regard to any and all citizens of the United States of America – this statute is applicable to all measures of gender, race, religion, and age

What were the Nuremberg Trials?

The Nuremberg trials were a series of international trials that were held in the German city of Nuremberg. The trials, which were of a criminal nature, took place in the wake of the Second World War. During the Nuremberg trials, the Allied Forces aimed to bring the architects of the Nazi regime to legal justice; the Allied forces, through the Nuremberg trials, tried numerous individuals who were aligned with the Nazi war machine. Although these efforts were applauded and deemed as noble, many of the premier participants in the Nazi regime were absent from the Nuremberg trials—many Nazis evaded capture by fleeing to other countries.

In the early months of 1943, the Allied forces agreed that some form of tribunal must be developed and held after the war to bring the Nazis to justice. The Allied forces developed and delivered this tribunal to hold the Nazis accountable for their atrocious war crimes—which were viewed as going far and beyond the norm expected in a war.

The Nuremberg trials were viewed as a benchmark and fundamental buttress for international law; the Nuremberg trials were a radical development of the International criminal justice system that ultimately played a principal role in the drafting of documents—such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Nuremberg Trials Explained:

The Nuremberg trials opened in 1945, as cases were brought against 22 prominent members of the Nazi regime. 12 of these 22 cases resulted in the delivery of death sentences for egregious violations of basic human rights. The Nuremberg trials, due to the precedent set and the overall viciousness of the Nazi regime, cited the Nuremberg laws, which were in essence the framework of the Nazi regime’s brutal actions.

In the first year of the Nuremberg trials, the stand was taken by individuals who played a fundamental part in creating and implementing the ideology of the Nazi regime. Through 1949, the Nuremeberg trials effectively brought lesser Nazi regime members to justice. The Nuremberg laws, when implemented in the Nuremberg trials, established volumes of case materials which would be ultimately used as precedents in future cases that involved blatant violations of human rights. The Nuremberg trials were implemented by Britain, the United States, Russia and France.

The Nuremberg Laws:

The Nuremberg laws were a series of anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany that were introduced during the Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi party. The Nuremberg laws classified individuals based on their lineage; those with four German grandparents were referred to as German or possessing “kindred blood”, while people were classified as Jews if they descended from three or four Jewsih grandparents. A person with one or two Jewish grandparents was referred to as a Mischling or a crossbreed of “mixed blood”. The Nuremberg laws deprived Jewish people of receiving German citizenship and prohibited marriage between Germans and those individuals who were of Jewish decent.

The Nuremberg laws also placed a ban on sexual intercourse between people defined as Jewish and non-Jewish Germans. In addition, the Nuremberg laws prevented Jewish people from participating in German civic life.

What is an Act of Terror?

An act of terrorism refers to a systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Granted, there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism; however, common characteristics of a terrorist act will incorporate the institution or delivery of violent acts, which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. A terrorist act is typically carried out for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently perpetuate violence without regard as to the safety of civilians in hopes of forcefully instilling an ideological principle.

A terrorist organization, to achieve their intended goals, will use violence to augment fear in a given society; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation fearful.  All terrorists–and their underlying terrorist organizations–will not align themselves with government organizations or formal government bodies.

Definitions of terrorism will always include acts of unlawful violence and war. That being said, any action that precipitates violence on a society and disrupts the harmony and general function of a sociological setting will be considered an act of terrorism.

The World Trade Center Bombing:

On February 26th, 1993 a truck bomb was detonated below the North Tower of the World Trade Center in Manhattan. The World Trade Center bombing was sparked through the detonation of a 1,500 lb. urea nitrate-hydrogen gas enhanced bomb. This device, as intended to topple the North Tower into the South Tower, effectively collapsing both buildings while killing thousands of people. Although this plan ultimately failed, the World Trade Center bombing of 1993 killed seven people and injured close to 1,100.

Who Planned the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993?

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was planned by an organization of extremists including, Ramzi Yousef, Mohammed Salameh, Mahmud Abouhalima, Nidal Ayyad, Ahma Ajaj and Abdul Rhman Yasin. This group received funding to enact the World Trade Center Bombing from Khaled Shaikh Mohammed—Ramzi Yousef’s Uncle.

The World Trade Center Bombing of 1993 was precipitated by three principle demands, laid out by the terrorists to local newspapers before the attack. Yousef, who mailed various letters to New York newspapers, stating that the United States must cut-off aid to Israel, put an end to the United States’ diplomatic relations Israel, and end all interference with any Middle Eastern affairs. Yousef, in these letters, stated that the World Trade Center bombing would merely be the first act of terrorism if his demands were not met. Furthermore, Yousef admitted that the World Trade Center bombing was a direct act of terrorism, but it was a justified action, because “the terrorism that Israel practices and America supports must be faced with a similar one.”

World Trade Center Bombing Investigation and Arrests:

Following the World Trade Center Bombing, numerous agents and technicians of the ATF, FBI and NYPD quickly responded on the scene. In the days following the World Trade Center Bombing, investigators combed through the rubble in the underground parking lot where they ultimately located a piece of the bomb’s transport vehicle. A vehicle identification number was eventually obtained, which led them to investigate where the rental truck came from. Investigators determined that the vehicle was rented by Mohammad Salameh—one of Yousef’s chief conspirators.

Salameh’s eventual arrest led police to the apartment of Abdul Rahman Yasin; Yasin was eventually taken to FBI headquarters; however, he was released and escaped the following day back to Iraq—Yasin remains on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorist list.

In March of 1994, four men (Abouhalima, Ajaj, Salameh and Ayyad) were convicted of carrying out the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993. The charges included: conspiracy, the explosive destruction of property and interstate transportation of explosives. In November 1997, Yousef and Eyad ismoil, were formally convicted for their role in the World Trade Center Bombing of 1993.

The Background of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

In 2001, the Defendant Yaser Hamdi was arrested in Afghanistan in the midst of the military operations undertaken by the United States in that region. Although Hamdi was a citizen of the United States, he was apprehended while fighting alongside the Taliban – a faction considered to be an enemy of the United States; upon his apprehension, Hamdi was extradited to the United States and detained at a military prison within the State of Virginia. Within his apprehension, Hamdi claimed that he was denied legal counsel; Hamdi also claimed that he was being unlawfully detained:

Article II of the United States’ Constitution implements the separation of administrative jurisdiction, specifically outline the prohibition from any branch of the Federal government from infringing upon the protection and preservation of national security

Military Law is a legal field classified as a subgenre of Federal Law, which typically addresses the activity and behavior of military personnel; this can include sedition, treason, war crimes, criminal offenses directed towards fellow military personnel, and – in the case of Hamdi – the protocol regarding American citizens classified as enemies of the United States

The Case Profile of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hamdi v. Rumsfeld’:

Date of the Trial: April 28th, 2004

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi against Donald H. Rumsfeld – acting as the Secretary of Defense of the United States – within the trial brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Hamdi accused the Federal Government of violating his 8th Amendment Rights, which entitle American Citizens to subjugation to due process; this not only requires a fair hearing to take place – in addition to the provision of legal counsel – but also provides protection against unlawful detainment

United States Reports Case Number: 542 U.S. 507

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 28th, 2004

Legal Venue of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld case:

Yaser Esam Hamdi and Esam Fouad Hamdi; Plaintiff(s) – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Donald H. Rumsfeld; Defendant – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Hamdi, stating that his arrest had violated the Due Process Clause outlined within the Constitution; this clause is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm. The ruling stated that Hamdi would be entitled to a fair trial in accordance with the 8th Amendment

Associated Legislation with regard to Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hamdi v. Rumsfeld trial:

Subsequent to an arrest, the notion of habeas corpus entitles all individuals to the right to a trial in a court of law; in addition, each individual is granted the right to legal representation – pertinent details regarding any allegation should be discussed with a defense attorney

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt. 1: Introduction

The landmark Supreme Court Case of Marbury v. Madison is considered to be amongst the most influential legal proceedings undertaken within the history of the Judicial System acting within the United States of America. This Marbury v. Madison Summary will not only explain the nature of the case and the pivotal parties involved, but also the events serving as catalysts for the legal undertaking of this trial.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt. 2: Legal Classification

The Marbury v. Madison case was amongst the first of its kind, which are court cases classified as Administrative Law; administrative law is classified as the legal realm in which any or all interactions involving the Federal Government – ranging from interactions with other bodies of the Federal Government to interactions undertaken with the citizens of the United States – are mandated, overseen, reviewed, and regulated with regard to their expressed legality and constitutionality.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.3: Origins of the Case

The following events led to the Marbury v. Madison case:

John Adams, who was responsible for the appointment of William Marbury as a Justice of the Peace, failed to complete the commission prior to the termination of his presidency; as a Federalist, John Adams is assumed to have attempted to appoint as many Federalists to the cabinet of the President of the United States

The appointment process applicable to commissioning Justices of the Peace – as well as a bulk of other governmental appointees – required that the commission process be completed within the term of the President responsible for the respective appointment; however, William Marbury’s appointment failed to be completed prior to President Elect Thomas Jefferson assuming the office of the Presidency

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt. 4: The Presidential Policy of Thomas Jefferson

William Marbury, expecting to be permitted to assume his role as the newly-appointed Justice of the Peace, was denied commission on the part of President Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison; in order to stifle Adams’ presumed attempt to place as many Federalists in the cabinet of the President, Thomas Jefferson had mandated that James Madison refuse to finalize the commission process – this resulted in a denial of William Marbury with regard to his newly-appointed position

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.5: Legal Action

William Marbury, who was both angered and frustrated by what he had maintained was an administrative oversight, brought the case before the Supreme Court; the case was to be reviewed by Chief Justice John Marshall. Subsequent to trial, John Marshall maintained that Article III of the Constitution prohibited one branch of the Federal government to force action requested on the part of another branch; although John Marshall maintained that William Marbury was entitled to the position granted to him, the final decision was presumed to belong to Presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

Marbury v. Madison Summary pt.6: Conclusion

As a result of the Marbury v. Madison trial, both historians and legislatures alike commend Marshall on his ruling in lieu of the fact that William Marbury was denied his position. The reasons for this sentiment include the following:

John Marshall avoided the risk of allowing the Supreme Court to appear weak and flawed in the eyes of the public; in the event that he had demanded that Marbury be commissioned, he was well aware that Thomas Jefferson could refuse this decree

John Marshall, as a result of the Marbury v. Madison finding, allowed for the determination of statutory legislation with regard to administrative interaction between the branches of the Federal government

Marbury v. Madison Brief Explained

The Marbury v. Madison Brief is a legal brief that depicts the events and circumstances surrounding the eponymous court case considered to be amongst the first of many landmark Supreme Court Cases. The Marbury v. Madison Brief involved a dispute that took place with regard to the appointment process of the Justice of Peace position taking place during the transition of presidential terms undertaken within the Executive Branch of the United States of America; the Marbury v. Madison Brief cited judicial review with regard to the appointments of office mandated by John Adams at the time of the termination of his presidency; these events existed in tandem with President Elect Thomas Jefferson’s refusal to recognize the former president’s mandates.

The Marbury v. Madison Brief

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Marbury v. Madison Brief’:

Date of the Trial: The Marbury v. Madison Brief began on February 11th, 1803

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

United States Reports Case Number: 5 U.S. 137

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: A verdict with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief was delivered on February 24th, 1803

Legal Venue: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice John Marshall

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Marbury v. Madison Brief case:

Plaintiff William Marshall was the appointee to the position of Justice of the Peace; subsequent to his appointment and the termination of Adam’s presidency, President Elect Thomas Jefferson and Secretary of State James Madison refused to finalize Marshall’s commission process – this resulted in the Marshall’s inability to assume his previously appointed position

Defendant James Madison was appointed as the Secretary of State in conjunction to the cabinet of President Elect Thomas Jefferson; in order to stifle Adams’ attempt to fill the cabinet with Federalists, James Madison was instructed to reject the commission of William Marshall as Justice of the Peace – commissions could only be approved while the appointing President remained in office

Verdict Delivered: The verdict delivered by John Marshall – the first Supreme Court Justice in the history of the United States – ruled in favor of James Madison, citing that although William Marshall was entitled to his appointed position, the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government was unable to force the actions of other branches of the Federal Government

Associated Legislation with regard to Marbury v. Madison Brief: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Marbury v. Madison Brief:

Article III of the United States Constitution prevented the Judicial Branch from forcing the action of another branch of the Federal Government; as a result, Jefferson was not only constitutionally permitted to deny William Marshall’s appointment, but in accordance to this ruling, William Marshall was never appointed as a Justice of the Peace

Who is John Wayne Gacy?

John Wayne Gacy was a convicted serial murderer who resided in the Chicago Suburb of Des Plaines, Illinois. He was convicted of both the rape and murder of his victims, who ranged in age; however, all of John Wayne Gacy’s victims were reported as males. The murderous rampage of John Wayne Gacy lasted for approximately 6 years within which resulted in the murder of 33 victims.

John Wayne Gacy Profile

The following outlines the crimes of John Wayne Gacy

Date of Birth: John Wayne Gacy was born on March 17th, 1942; he dies on May 10th, 1994 from lethal injection resulting from his sentencing

Residence: During the time of his murders, John Wayne Gacy resided in Des Plaines, Illinois

Year of First Killing: In 1972, John Wayne Gacy was reported to have committed his first murder, which involved a 15 year old boy named Timothy McCoy; John Wayne Gacy and his wife met McCoy at a bus terminal in Chicago

Year of Apprehension: On December 21st, 1978, law enforcement agents entered the home of John Wayne Gacy in order to investigate the possible possession of Marijuana; they discovered 26 corpses belonging to his victims that were stuffed within the heating ducts of his home

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by John Wayne Gacy; in addition, these case details were made mention within John Wayne Gacy’s criminal trial:

John Wayne Gacy was married throughout the bulk of his murders; in certain cases, he had coerced his wife into remaining silent with regard to his crimes, in addition to her acting as a forced accomplice to these crimes

John Wayne Gacy had developed a persona, which he had named ‘Pogo the Clown’; while engaged in this persona, John Wayne Gacy would oftentimes entertain individuals at fundraising and charity functions

John Wayne Gacy hid 26 of his 33 victims within the ductwork within his home; only 7 of his victims were disposed of in other locations

John Wayne Gacy was charged with a variety of sex crimes prior to his murder conviction; the most famous was a case involving Robert Donnelly, who claimed that John Wayne Gacy had kidnapped him and forced him to participate in sexual slavery

As a child, John Wayne Gacy was recorded as having an antisocial personality disorder possibly resulting from abuse sustained by his father

Locations of the Murders: Des Plaines, Illinois; many of his victims were met within the City of Chicago

Victims:  John Wayne Gacy was charged for the murder of 33 individuals

Status as a Serial Killer: John Wayne Gacy is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that John Wayne Gacy was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month

Nature of Victims: John Wayne Gacy’s victims were classified as teenage boys

Punishment and Conviction: On March 13th, 1978, John Wayne Gacy was convicted of 33 murders; subsequent to the passing of the a statute allowing capital punishment within the State of Illinois in 1977, he was sentenced to incarceration and death as the Stateville Correctional Facility in Crest Hill, Illinois