The Background of Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

The case of Griswold v. Connecticut addressed a Connecticut statute that prohibited the use of any drug, pharmaceutical, or instrument undertaken in order to serve as contraception for pregnancy.  Estelle Griswold, serving as the director of the Connecticut chapter of Planned Parenthood – an institution that advocates for the responsible undertaking of sexual activity in order to prevent disease and unwanted pregnancy – was cited for the violation of the aforementioned Connecticut statute upon distributing and advocating for the use of prophylactics:

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of circumstances of privacy and private domains; the government must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue infringement and violations

The Case Profile of Griswold v. Connecticut

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

Date of the Trial: March 29th, 1965

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 Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton against the State of Connecticut within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Griswold stated that her arrest was a direct violation of her 14th Amendment Rights, allowing her the right to privacy; she claimed that the Connecticut statute infringed upon personal freedoms belonging – and entitled – to American Citizens

United States Reports Case Number: 381 U.S. 479

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 7th, 1965

Legal Venue of Griswold v. Connecticut: 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 Griswold v. Connecticut case:

Estelle T. Griswold and C. Lee Buxton; Plaintiff(s) – Griswold v. Connecticut

The State of Connecticut; Defendant – Griswold v. Connecticut

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court overturned the Connecticut statute forbidding the use of prophylactics, stating that the statute was in direct violation of the expressed right to privacy within a private setting. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explained that the 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights, which included the 14th Amendment. As a result, the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power with regard to the 14th Amendment is unconstitutional

Associated Legislation with regard to Griswold v. Connecticut: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Griswold v. Connecticut 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

The Background of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003)

Barbara Grutter, Michigan resident and applicant to the Law School at the University of Michigan, filed an injunction against the university in 2007; subsequent to her rejection from admissions to the University, she had claimed that applicants classified as minorities – possessing inferior academic records than she – were accepted in lieu of her superior academic records. Almost 20 years prior to this case, Allan Bakke had filed an injunction against the University of California for similar reasons – and had his injunction upheld by the Supreme Court:

In the verdict delivered in the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), Bakke cited unfair acceptance policies undertaken by the University of California; Bakke mentioned that applicants deemed to be ‘at economical disadvantages’ possessed lower scores than Bakke – Bakke, who had been rejected from the school, mentioned that his 14th Amendment Rights had been violated

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 states that no racial or ethnic preference shall be given or granted to any particular group by any institution or program in receipt of federal funding or monetary restitution

The Case Profile of Grutter v. Bollinger

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

Date of the Trial: April 1st, 2003

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 Barbara Grutter against Lee Bollinger within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Grutter maintained that in accordance to Regents of the University of California v. Bakke  (1978), she was subject to similar violations of her 14th Amendment Rights; she added that the Equality Clause within the 14th Amendment ensured equal translation and expression of the law without regard to race, religion, creed, gender, or ethnicity

United States Reports Case Number: 539 U.S. 306

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 23rd, 2003

Legal Venue of Grutter v. Bollinger: 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 Grutter v. Bollinger case:

Barbara Grutter; Plaintiff – Grutter v. Bollinger

Lee Bollinger; Defendant – Grutter v. Bollinger

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the University of Michigan; in accordance to their ruling, they required the overturning of the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke verdict, as well. The reasons for the decision were explained as follows:

Due to the fact that the Law School admission process involved supplemental facets outside of academic records, there was no way to prove that the applicants had been accepted as a result of their respective race(s)

While a quota employed by the admissions committee is indeed a Constitutional violation, the acknowledgment of race with regard to acceptance is defined as the legal protocol innate within Affirmative Action

Associated Legislation with regard to Grutter v. Bollinger: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Grutter v. Bollinger 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

The Background of Atkins v. Virginia (2002)
Daryl Renard Atkins and another individual were convicted of robbing and murdering an individual after abducting him; shortly after the robbery, the two men killed the victim. Upon the investigation, the recounts given by the two suspects were in contrast of each other, however, due to the determination of Atkins as an individual with ‘mild retardation’, the presiding jury accepted the testimony of the other individual accomplice – Atkins was sentenced to death:

Within the Supreme Court case Penry v. Lynaugh (1989), Penry was convicted of a crime in the State of Texas and sentenced to be executed; although Penry was determined to be mentally incompetent and mentally retarded, the Supreme court ruled that Penry’s sentencing was not in violation of his 8th Amendment rights

However, with regard to sentencing the Supreme court required that the jury be privy to the analysis of specialized factors with regard to the sentencing of an individual deemed to be mentally retarded; these factors include an profile of the nature of the mental illness or deficiency, the relation of the mental illness to the crime committed, and the functionality and capability of the suspect in question

The Case Profile of Atkins v. Virginia

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

Date of the Trial: February 20th, 2002

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 Daryl Renard Atkins against the State of Virginia within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Atkins appealed his sentencing, his attorney stating that the execution of an individual determined to be mentally retarded was a violation of the 8th Amendment forbidding ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment

United States Reports Case Number: 536 U.S. 304

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 20th, 2002

Legal Venue of Atkins v. Virginia: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice

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

Daryl Renard Atkins; Plaintiff – Atkins v. Virginia

The State of Virginia; Defendant – Atkins v. Virginia

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that the execution of any individual considered to be mentally retarded or developmentally incompetent through capital punishment was a violation of the 8th Amendment; not only did the Supreme Court overturn the execution of Atkins, but also overturned that of Penry – in lieu of their respective executions, the two men were sentenced with life imprisonment.

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

The 8th Amendment addresses legal criminal procedure; this Amendment prohibits punitive recourse classified as ‘cruel and unusual’ with regard to prosecution, as well as the prohibition of an excessive bail process. Contact Virginia lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

What are the Atlanta Child Murders?

The Atlanta Child Murders were a series of murders that took place in Atlanta, Georgia between the spring of 1979 and the summer of 1981 upon the apprehension of suspected murderer Wayne Williams; the Atlanta Child Murders are estimated to have included the murder of 28 victims – 24 of the victims were of African-American descent, while 4 of the victims were reported as being of Caucasian descent. The victims ranged from children to adults. In addition to the estimation of the number of victims being 28, many individuals maintain that the actual victim count exceeded that number. Contact Atlanta lawyers for legal advice and assistance.

Profile of the Atlanta Child Murders

The following outlines the crimes involving the Atlanta Child Murders

Suspect of the Atlanta Child Murders: The suspect apprehended for the Atlanta Child Murders was Wayne Williams, who was 23 at the time of his apprehension; he was referred to as the ‘Atlanta Child Murderer’

Date of Birth: Wayne Williams was born on May 27th, 1958 in Atlanta, Georgia

Residence: At the time of his arrest for the Atlanta Child Murders, Williams lived in the Dixie Hills region of Atlanta, Georgia

Year of First Killing: Edward Smith, a 14 year old of African-American descent, was reported missing on July 21st, 1979; this is considered to be amongst the first of the 28 Atlanta Child Murders – however, Smith’s body was never recovered

Year of Apprehension: June 21st, 1981

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken in conjunction with regard to the Atlanta Child Murders; in addition, these case details were made mention within the criminal trial of the Atlanta Child Murders:

Wayne Williams was apprehended after a Statewide investigation, which employed the bulk of Atlanta law enforcement agents; criminal forensic experts estimated that the killer would begin to dispose of his victims in surrounding bodies of water in order to conceal the evidence of the crimes

Law enforcement agents heard a ‘Splash’ sound while watching the banks of the Chattahoochee River underneath the Cobb Drive Bridge; after identifying the nature of the splash coming from Wayne Williams, they apprehended him under the suspicion of murder

The body of Nathan Carter was found several days later in that area of the Chattahoochee River; Carter was 27 years old and the final victim in the Atlanta Child Murders

Locations of the Murders: Atlanta, Georgia

Victims: There were 28 total victims of the Atlanta Child Murders

Status as a Serial Killer: Wayne Williams is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that the Atlanta Child Murders involved the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month in conjunction with a ‘rest’ period – the Atlanta Child Murders resumed after William’s resting period between October 21st, 1979 and March 4th, 1980

Nature of Victims: African-American individuals ranging gender, age, and race

Punishment and Conviction: Wayne Williams was found guilty of only 2 of the Atlanta Child Murders; however, his involvement with the entirety of them was assumed – he was sentenced to 2 terms of life imprisonment in a State Penitentiary in Georgia

The Background of Gonzales v. Raich (2005)

In 2002, the Federal Government – through the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) – entered the property of Angel Raich and repossessed the medicinal Marijuana of which she was legally in possession with regard to the statutes enacted by the State government of California; she had claimed that the Federal government acted in lieu of statutes implemented by the State of California. Raich, as well as the physician responsible for her care, insisted that her not only her recovery, but her wellbeing was contingent on her usage of Marijuana as medical treatment; she has suffered injuries resulting from a car accident that she had reported to cause her excruciating pain, which was quelled by Marijuana:

Proposition 215 passed by the State of California states that unless granted the expressed permission by applicable California governmental departments, the act of growing, possessing, using, selling, transporting, or buying Marijuana is a punishable and illegal act

With regard to medicinal marijuana, the prescription to specific patients residing in the State of California upon being granted expressed permission from an approved and accredited health professional is considered to be legal; yet, any activity that takes place involving medicinal marijuana existing outside of its intended usage is a punishable offense

The Case Profile of Gonzales v. Raich

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

Date of the Trial: November 24th, 2004

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 Alberto Gonzales, who was the Attorney General of the State of California against Angel Raich within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Angel Raich cited that the Federal Government of the United States had violated the statute of ‘Medical Necessity’, which permits the administration of legitimate medical treatments and cures to those in need; she stated that her denial to use medicinal marijuana was a violation of her 5th, 9th, and 10th Amendment rights

United States Reports Case Number: 545 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 6th, 2004

Legal Venue of Gonzales v. Raich: 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 Gonzales v. Raich case:

Alberto Gonzales; Plaintiff – Gonzales v. Raich

Angel McClary Raich; Defendant – Gonzales v. Raich

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Gonzales, who was acting as the District Attorney of the State of California, stating that because the Federal Government did not recognize the usage of Marijuana for medicinal purposes within the tenets of the Controlled Substances Act, the Federal Government was permitted to place discretionary bans and repossession of Marijuana deemed legal by the State of California – these bans and prohibition are permitted to exist regardless of their respective prescriptions and State mandate

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

The 5th Amendment prevents the unlawful and unethical abuse of power undertaken by a governing body

The 9th Amendment serves as legislative protection with regard to corollary Amendments within the Bill of Rights; this Amendment disallows for the violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power

The 10th Amendment addresses the apportionment process latent within administrative responsibilities; this Amendment expressed that any or all administrative powers that have not been claimed by Federal or State governments become the responsibility of the general populace

Acts of Terrorism Explained:

An act of terrorism refers to the systematic and diabolical use of terror as a means of coercion. Although there is no universally criminal law definition of terrorism, common characteristics of the act refer to the delivery of violent acts which are intended to precipitate fear on a given society or nation. Acts of terror are typically perpetrated for a political, ideological or religious goal; terrorists deliberately target and subsequently disregard the safety of civilians to forcefully instill an ideological goal.

When a terrorist organization attempts to achieve such a goal through terrorism, they are using fear and terror as their primary mechanisms; violent acts, when delivered to a society at random, invariably make a community or nation acknowledge the underlying motive. 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 September 11th Attacks:

The September 11th attacks were a series of systematic suicide attacks coordinated by Al-Qaeda—a national terrorist organization comprised of Muslim extremists and led by Osama Bin Laden.

On the morning of September 11th, 19 al-Qaeda terrorists hijacked four commercial airplanes and intentionally crashed them into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and the fourth plane crashed into an open field near Shanksville Pennsylvania.

The attacks of September 11th killed every single passenger on board of the airliners; in total, nearly 3,000 victims died in the attacks of September 11th. Additionally, according to the New York State Health Department, 836 responders (firefighters and police personnel) perished from the aftereffects of the attack and the recovery attempts.

The attacks of September 11th on the World Trade Center killed 2,752 victims (343 firefighters and 60 police officers) and the attacks on the Pentagon caused 184 deaths; the majority of victims who died in the Pentagon were civilians and nationals from 70 different countries.

Attackers:

Within hours of the September 11th attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was able to determine the names and personal details of the suspected pilots and hijackers. Mohamed Atta, was pinpointed as the ringleader of the 19 hijackers and one of the pilots of the four hijacked aircrafts. Similar to the other hijackers, Atta died in the attack; however, his luggage, which never made the connection from his flight, contained detailed documents and papers that revealed the identities of all 19 hijackers.

By midday of September 11th, the National Security Agency intercepted a string of communications that labeled Osama bin Laden as the unwavering mastermind behind the attacks of September 11th. The FBI investigation of the September 11th attacks was the largest and most comprehensive investigation in the history of the agency. The United States government, following this investigation, determined that al-Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, was responsible for the attacks of September 11th.

The response to the September 11th Attacks:

The United States federal government responded to the September 11th attacks by launching the War on Terror. This counter-attack included the enacting of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion of Afghanistan to eventually dispose the Taliban—the agency who had harbored al-Qaeda terrorists.

The Background of Tinker v. Des Moines (1969)

Tinker v. Des Moines, which is an abridged title for the full name of the court case ‘Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District’, was an appellate hearing undertaken by the Supreme Court in which the judicial review of a case involving 3 minors – John F. Tinker, Mary Beth Tinker, and Christopher Eckhart – were suspended from their respective schools for brandishing black armbands in protest of the Vietnam War. Both the Circuit Court, as well as the Court of Appeals in the State of Iowa ruled that black armbands, which represented the protest of war, were inappropriate within school grounds. Due to the fact the 3 students were below the legal age to be heard in a court of law, the students fathers, Leonard Tinker and Christopher Eckhart – respectively, brought their childrens’ appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Case Profile of Tinker v. Des Moines

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Tinker v. Des Moines’:

Date of the Trial: November 12th, 1968

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 John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker – both classified as legal minors – and Leonard Tinker against the State of Iowa within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

The Tinkers stated that their arrest resulting from their respective expressions, which were admittedly a sign of protest – in lieu of a sign of violence, was a direct violation of both their 1st and 14th Amendment Rights, which preserved and protected the rights to free speech and free expression win accordance to applicable legislation and legality

United States Reports Case Number: 393 U.S. 503

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: February 24th, 1969

Legal Venue of Tinker v. Des Moines: 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 Tinker v. Des Moines case:

John F. Tinker and Mary Beth Tinker (minors), Leonard Tinker (adult); Plaintiff(s) – Tinker v. Des Moines

The State of Iowa; Defendant – Tinker v. Des Moines

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Tinkers, stating that within the nature of protest undertaken by John Tinker, there existed no implicit – or inherent – intent to orchestrate violence, harm, disruption, damage, or criminal activity. However, the Tinker Standard – or Tinker Test – is a legal instrument required as a result of the Supreme Court ruling, which allows individual school administration to prohibit the expression undertaken by its students that may presumed to be incendiary, disruptive to the enactment of education, or in retention of the potential to incite a unrest

Associated Legislation with regard to Tinker v. Des Moines: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Tinker v. Des Moines trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

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

The Background of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’. The review process with regard to the content of The Spectrum typically involved the Principal of the School undertaking the review of the content and subject matter expressed in the publication. After discovering news stories reflecting teen pregnancy and divorce – albeit attributed with pseudonyms in order to allow the subject of the piece to retain anonymity – the Principal mandated that those specific news stories were a violation of the privacy of the student about whom the story was written; he continued, by stating that the story neither sufficiently protected the identity of the student nor allowed for dissenting opinion due to the presumed anonymity within the news story – the editors of the paper cited that the Principal had violated their respective 1st Amendment rights.

The Case Profile of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier’:

Date of the Trial: October 13th, 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

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the Hazelwood School District against student Catherine Kuhlmeier within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Kuhlmeier argued that the news printed was in accordance to legality with regard to the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; as a result, the denial of the news story was a form of unconstitutional censorship

United States Reports Case Number: 484 U.S. 260

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 13th, 1988

Legal Venue of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: 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 Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case:

Hazelwood School District; Plaintiff – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Catherine Kuhlmeier; Defendant – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District, stating that public settings may differ by locale. With regard to a school, the nature of the public sector within publically-funded institutions – such as public schools – is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media, its adherence to legislation, and the discretion of school administration. As a result, schools are not entitled to the breadth of the 1st Amendment as is entitled to jurisdictions existing outside of publically-funded educational facilities.

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

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent