The Background of Shelley v. Kraemer:

Shelley v. Kraemer was a landmark Supreme Court case which stated that courts could not enforce racial covenants on real estate properties.

In 1945, an African-American family (the Shelley family) purchased a home in St. Louis, Missouri. During the time of purchase, the Shelley family was unaware that a restrictive covenant had been placed on the property since 1911. This covenant barred African Americans and Mongolians from owning the property. Louis Kraemer, an individual who lived ten blocks from the purchased piece of real estate, sued the Shelley family for purchasing the property.

The Supreme Court of Missouri stated that the covenant was enforceable against the Shelly family because the covenant was a private agreement between the original owners and was enforceable on any party who purchased the land in the future.

Shelley v. Kraemer Trial:

When the Shelley v. Kraemer trial was appealed, the court considered two primary questions: are racially-based restrictive covenants legal in regards to the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and can they be enforced by the court of law?

The United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer ruled that racially-based restrictive covenants are invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court stated that private parties may voluntarily abide by the terms of the covenant, but they may not seek enforcement of such a covenant, because the courts would constitute state action. Since a state action would by nature be discriminatory, the enforcement of a racially-based covenant in a state court would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Case Profile of Shelley v. Kraemer:

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

Date of the Trial: Shelley v. Kraemer was argued on January 15, 1948

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: 334 U.S.

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: Shelley v. Kraemer was decided on May 3, 1948

Legal Venue of Shelley v. Kraemer: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Fred Vinson

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

Plaintiff: Shelley Family, Defendant: The state of Missouri and property owner Louis Kraemer

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in Shelley v. Kraemer ruled in favor of the plaintiff b stating that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from enforcing restricting covenants on the basis of race or color. 

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

The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The Background of South Dakota v. Dole:

South Dakota v. Dole was a landmark Supreme Court case that revolved around federalism and the power of the United States Congress under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

The United States Congress passed the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, which was designed to discourage individual states from lowering the drinking age in 1984. The Act effectively achieved their goals by withholding 5% of state taxes; in 1988 this amount was increased to 10%. South Dakota challenged this law; the state had allowed 19-year olds to purchase beer that contained up to 3.2% alcohol.

South Dakota v. Dole Trial:

The Supreme Court of the United States decided that Congress, when applying its taxing and spending clauses, was not violating the 21st Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress would only be in violation if the condition applied was ambiguous, did not promote the “general welfare”, and did not relate to the “federal interest in particular national projects or programs.

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution bars federal regulation of the individual states and it has often been suggested that the Twenty-First Amendment might prohibit the Federal Government from applying regulations to the drinking age. That being said, the Supreme Court of the United States did not find Congress to run afoul of the Tenth or Twenty-First Amendment when enacting the National Minimum Drinking Age Act. 

The Case Profile of South Dakota v. Dole:

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘South Dakota v. Dole’:

Date of the Trial: South Dakota v. Dole was argued on April 28, 1987.

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

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: South Dakota v. Dole was decided on June 23, 1987

Legal Venue of South Dakota v. Dole: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Verdict Delivered: The United States Supreme Court in South Dakota v. Dole found that Congress may attach reasonable conditions to funds and revenue that is disbursed to the individual states. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact South Dakota lawyers.

The Background of the slaughter-house cases

The Slaughter-House Cases was a landmark Supreme Court decision, which acted as the first interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Slaughter-House cases is viewed as a fundamental court decision in regards to early civil right law; the Supreme Court of the United States read the Fourteenth Amendment as protecting the “privileges or immunities” to all individuals of all states within the United States, but not those immunities or privileges incident to the citizenship of a state.

The Slaughter-house cases consolidated three Supreme Court cases that all dealt with the 14th Amendment: The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company; The Live-Stock Dealers’ and Butchers’ Association of New Orleans, and Charles Cavaroc v. The State of Louisiana; The Butchers’ Benevolent Association of New Orleans v. The Crescent City Live-Stock Landing and Slaughter-House Company

In the mid-19th century, the city of New Orleans was plagued by pollution as a result of animal byproducts that came from local slaughterhouses; the byproducts flooded the city whenever the tide from the Mississippi river was low. Numerous slaughterhouses would gut roughly 300,000 animals per year and the entrails would be dumped into the river, which ultimately affected the purity of the city’s drinking water.

In response to the polluting of the river, a New Orleans grand jury recommended that the slaughterhouses be moved to the southern portion of the city; however, since the majority of the slaughterhouses were outside city limits, the grand jury’s recommendations held little weight. The city later appealed to the state legislature and as a result, the Louisiana legislature passed a law that allowed the city to create a centralized corporation that consolidated all slaughterhouses in New Orleans. 

In response to this legislation, over four hundred members of the Butchers’ Benevolent Association joined together to sue the corporation’s takeover of the slaughterhouse industry.

Slaughter-house cases Trial:

The lower courts in New Orleans favored the states and found the creation of the corporation to be within the state’s powers. Following this decision, six cases were appealed to the Supreme Court: the butchers based these claims on the privileges or immunities, due process and equal protection clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.

In a 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel Miller, stated that the court held a narrow interpretation of the amendment and ruled that it ultimately did not restrict the police powers of the state.

The Case Profile of the slaughter-house cases

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘the slaughter-house cases’:

Date of the Trial: The Slaughter-house cases were argued on January 11, 1872 and re-argued on February 3-5 of 1873

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: 83 U.S. 36

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: The Slaughter-house cases were decided on April 14, 1873

Legal Venue of the slaughter-house cases: The United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Salmon Chase

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court of the United States found that the privileges and immunities of citizenship of the United States are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment while privileges and immunities of citizenship of a state are not protected.

Who is Tokyo Rose?

Tokyo Rose was the alias or generic name given by Allied forces that fought in the South Pacific during the Second World War to any English-speaking female broadcasters who transmitted or spread Japanese propaganda. The intent of the broadcasts was to infiltrate and ultimately disrupt the morale of Allied forces who were tuning in.

American soldiers, who were stationed in the Pacific, typically listened to the propaganda spread by Tokyo Rose to get a feel for the effect that their fighting had on the Japanese public and media outlets. In most instances, the stories and reports circulated by Tokyo Rose would be bizarrely accurate; often times, Tokyo Rose reporters would name units and even individual soldiers who were stationed throughout the Pacific. Although these reports are often linked to Tokyo Rose, they have never been substantiated through the delivery of formal documentation, such as written scripts or recorded broadcasts.

Where did the name “Tokyo Rose” come from?

The nickname “Tokyo Rose” was derived from Iva Toguri who was broadcasted under the name “Oprah Ann” during a 15-20 segment that was aired on the program The Zero Hour and broadcasted on Radio Tokyo. The program mainly consisted of propaganda-based skits and slanted news reports that were intended to discourage American servicemen from continuing their mission and strong efforts.

The real “Tokyo Rose”:

Although Tokyo Rose was used as a nickname for a group of women who broadcasted propaganda throughout the Second World War, one woman in particular was thought to be the original Tokyo Rose. This individual, Iva Ikuko Toguri, was eventually tried and sentenced to ten years in prison by the United States government for engaging in espionage against the military forces of the country.

Toguri was an American citizen, who was visiting relatives in Japan, when the savage fighting in the Pacific commenced. Despite daily harassment from military police, Toguri refused to give up her United States citizenship; under this intense pressure, Toguri ultimately landed a job working with Radio Tokyo where she was forced to spew propaganda.

Radio Tokyo eventually wanted a female voice to broadcast its “news”. Using the name, Orphan Ann, Toguri—who was one of many English speaking women forced to broadcast—was chosen as the predominant anchor for Radio Tokyo.

The Arrest of Tokyo Rose:

Following the end of the war, reporters travelled to Japan to interview Toguri in hopes of revealing her true identity. At some point during this interview process, Toguri signed an official statement saying that she was indeed Tokyo Rose. In 1945, Toguri was imprisoned in Japan by the United States government. In 1948, Toguri was extradited to the United States where she eventually stood trial for treason. In 1949, Toguri was convicted on eight counts of treason and sentenced to ten years in prison. Toguri was eventually released after six years of good behavior.

Who is Saddam Hussein?

Saddam Hussein was the President of Iraq from July 16th, 1979 until his death on April 9, 2003. Saddam Hussein was a leading member of the country’s revolutionary party, which practiced a mixture of Arab nationalism and Arab socialism. Through this ideology, Saddam Hussein when in power, created security forces to tightly control conflict in the country.

In the early 1970s, Saddam Hussein nationalized the oil industry (along with many other industries). In addition, Hussein also perpetuated an insolvent system through the creation of a government-run banking system. During the 1970s, Saddam Hussein affirmed his dictatorship and cemented his authority over democracy and various apparatuses of government. The monies accrued from a secure oil industry enabled Iraq’s economy to boom and Hussein to amass enormous amounts of wealth.

Saddam Hussein’s violent enterprise:

Saddam Hussein led a coalition to essentially enforce genocide on his people. Saddam Hussein, through the use of his military, killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis while crushing opposing forces who threatened his dictatorship. The killings were delivered in a variety of ways, including air attacks and chemical weapon attacks. These malicious acts were delivered on towns and villages throughout the country.

Saddam Hussein maintained power throughout the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s and in 1990 his army invaded and looted Kuwait.

The invasion of Kuwait prompted international involvement; the invasion sparked the Gulf War, which freed Kuwait but did not dethrone Saddam Hussein.

In March of 2003, a coalition of countries that was led by the United States and United Kingdom invaded Iraq to oust Saddam Hussein. The invasion was justified based on intelligence received by the United States and United Kingdom, that Saddam Hussein hoarded weapons of mass destruction.

Saddam Hussein’s capture and Trial:

After months of fleeing from the coalition, Saddam Hussein was captured on December 13th of 2003. During this time, Saddam’s Baath party was disbanded and the nation ultimately transitioned to a democratic state.

Saddam Hussein was brought to trial under the Iraq interim government, who on November 5, 2006, charged Saddam Hussein with numerous charges related to the 1982 slayings of 148 Iraqi Shi’ites. The interim government found Hussein guilty of all charges and sentenced the savage dictator to death by hanging. Saddam Hussein was executed on the 30th of December in 2006.

The specific charges stemmed from the murders that took place in 1982 and basic crimes against humanity; along with the killings, Hussein was also found guilty of torturing women and children and illegally arresting 399 Iraqi citizens. Although the Iraqi Special Tribunal ultimately found Hussein guilty of the atrocities, numerous difficulties arose during the trial.

The majority of the challenges that Saddam Hussein and his lawyers brought up revolved around contesting the court’s authority and maintaining that he was still the active President of Iraq.

What is the Scopes Trial?

Formally known as the State of Tennessee v. Scopes (and informally regarded as the Scopes Monkey Trial), the Scopes trial is a historic American legal case that was heard in 1925. The Scopes Trial revolves around a high school biology teacher, John Scopes, who was accused of violating the state’s legislation, particularly the Butler Act, which deemed it illegal to teach evolution in class.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was a highly controversial and infamous American legal case for it questioned the fundamentals of education as well as the core principles of religion. Scopes was initially found guilty, but the verdict was later overturned due to a technicality present during the Scopes Monkey Trial. Aside from the uniqueness and principles which the Scopes Monkey Trial tested, the trial drew intense publicity, due to the prestigious lawyers representing each side. William Jennings Bryan, a three time presidential candidate argued for the prosecuting side, while Clarence Darrow, a famous defense attorney, spoke on behalf of Scopes.

The Scopes Monkey Trial questioned the inner-working of religion; the Scopes trial saw modernized interpretations of evolution that were parallel to religious beliefs and more fundamentalist viewpoints that said God, as revealed in the Bible, trumped all human understanding regarding creation. The Scopes Monkey Trial was thus a theological argument that was intertwined with statutes and legislation.

Details of the Scopes Monkey Trial:

The Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925 was a challenge to Tennessee’s constitutional laws which dictated that evolutionary theories could not be taught in any educational environment. The stage for the Spokes Monkey Trial was set when the state’s legislature passed the Butler Act, which directly prohibited the teaching of all kinds of evolutionary theories in schools.

Following the passing of the Butler Act, the American Civil Liberties Union grew concerned that the act was unconstitutional.

John Scopes had assigned a section of a biology textbook that dealt with evolutionary theories to his class; noticing these teachings, several prominent local lawyers agreed to prosecute against Scopes.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was relatively brief and was highlighted by Darrow’s speeches, who claimed that the trial was a test of American civilization. Darrow, who was a evolutionary theorist, claimed that the Butler Act should have never been passed. At one prominent point during the Scopes Monkey Trial, Darrow called Jennings Bryan to the stand, where he interrogated him about the Bible and suggested that man was foolish for believing in the creation story.

In his closing argument, Darrow asked that the jury find John Scopes guilty; this request was made so the Scopes’ case could be appealed at a higher level. The jury agreed to this plea and the judge fined Scopes 100 dollars. When Darrow appealed the case, it was discarded, because the jury should have set the amount of the fine and not the judge.

The Scopes Monkey Trial was viewed as an elaborate and staged event; it simply raised public awareness concerning the evolutionary theory and the right to teach such thoughts in schools as a part of scientific curriculum.

The Background of Palko v. Connecticut:

Palko v. Connecticut, was a United States Supreme Court case that concerned the incorporation of the Fifth Amendment protection against instances of double jeopardy.

Frank Palko, in 1935, was a Connecticut resident who broke into a local music store and stole a phonograph. Palko, after stealing the phonograph, fled on foot, where he was eventually cornered by law enforcement agents. When confronted, Palko killed two police officers and escaped custody.

When Frank Palko was captured a month later, he was initially charged with first-degree murder; however, these chargers were later revised to the lesser offense of second-degree murder. This revised charge distributed a life sentence to Frank Palko.

Prosecutors appealed the revision per Connecticut law and won a new trial, where Palko was found guilty of committing first-degree murder and sentenced to death. Palko appealed the death sentence, claiming that the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides protection against double jeopardy applied to state governments through the Due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The courts previously held that the protections of the Bill of Rights are not applied to the states under the Privileges of Immunities clause; however, Frank Palko stated that since the infringed right fell under the process protection, the state of Connecticut acted in violation of his rights latent in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Palko v. Connecticut Trial:

Benjamin Cardozo, the justice presiding over the case, stated that the Due Process Clause only protected those rights that were “of the very essence of a scheme of ordered liberty” and that the court system should only gradually incorporate the Bill of Rights onto the States where justiciable violations arose. Using this subjective case by case approach, the court upheld Palko’s conviction on the basis that a Double Jeopardy appeal was never “essential to a fundamental scheme of ordered liberty.” Palko was later executed via the electric chair on April 12, 1938.

The Case Profile of Palko v. Connecticut:

Date of the Trial: November 12, 1937

Legal Classification: Constitutional Law

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: December 6, 1937

Legal Venue of Palko v. Connecticut: United States Supreme Court

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Charles Hughes

Verdict Delivered: The Fifth Amendment right to protection against issues of double jeopardy is not a fundamental right incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment to the individual states.