scheme of things because even though he is only one person who possesses only one firearm‚ this could lead to other people possessing machine-guns locally with the intent to use the gun to harm others or themselves. The decisions in Wickard v. Filburn and Gonzales v. Raich make the possession of the gun by Mr. Roberts very significant in the grand scheme of things. Regardless of the morality of allowing an individual to build guns locally‚ it is still illegal to build such a gun for personal use because
Premium Law Firearm United States Congress
Student Professor English 102.211 August 13‚ 2008 Medical Marijuana‚ Individual Autonomy‚ and State Authority: The Reclamation of Rights In recent years‚ the debate over medical marijuana has become increasingly contentious and highly polarized. Patients‚ medical practitioners‚ citizens‚ lawyers‚ politicians‚ and lobbyists‚ to name a few‚ have joined the processes of deliberation and legislative activism; some advocate for the primacy of patient rights‚ while others stress points of medical
Premium United States Constitution Supreme Court of the United States Medicine
Pike v. Aurora The issue at hand in this case is whether or not the town ordinance is constitutional. To determine this‚ there are a number of questions that must be asked and laws that must be examined. The first step in determining the constitutionality is knowing and understanding the enumerated powers given to congress under the constitution. Enumerated powers are specific powers listed in the constitution that congress can exercise. If a power is not specifically listed in the constitution
Premium United States Congress United States Constitution Commerce Clause
Gonzales v. Raich Citation: 545 U.S. 1 Facts: California passed the “Compassionate Use Act‚” which allowed for the use of medical marijuana. Respondents Raich and Monson are California residents who both use doctor-recommended marijuana for serious medical conditions. After federal Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents seized and destroyed all six of Monson’s cannabis plants‚ respondents brought this action seeking injunctive and declaratory relief prohibiting the enforcement of the federal
Premium United States Constitution United States Congress Commerce Clause
DOCTRINE: Press freedom may be identified with the liberty to discuss publicly and truthfully any matter of public concern without censorship or punishment. The general principle is that freedom of expression is the rule and restrictions the exemption. The power to exercise prior restraint is not to be presumed‚ rather the presumption is against its validity. FACTS: * The principal petitioner is Jose Antonio U. Gonzalez‚ President of the Malaya Films. * The respondent is the Board
Premium Freedom of speech Censorship
Legal Studies: R V Campbell [2010] NSWSC 995. The elements of the offence are that Des Campbell was charged with murder under Section 18 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Under Subsection (1)(a) Des Campbell was found guilty after trial on the 18th May 2010 of the murder of his wife Janet Campbell of 6 months on the 24th March 2005. After an 11-1 verdict all the elements of the charge were proved beyond reasonable doubt. The offence carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Description
Premium Crime Guilt
Statement of the Case This is a formal request for an appeal against the ruling in the case of R . v. Vaillancourt. . Mr. Vaillancourt seeks to appeal the court’s decision based on the inconsistency with s.230(d) of the Criminal Code‚ and s. 7 and 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is present in this case‚ evident when Vaillancourt’s accomplice does not inform him of his plan to bring weapons to the crime scene‚ leading Vaillancourt to believe that his lack of knowledge of the presence
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States Constitution
To: Executive Management From: Team A Re: United States v. Morrison 529 U.S. 598 (U.S. Sup. Ct. 2002) I. Facts: Petitioner Christy Brzonkala‚ a student at Virginia Polytechnic Institute files a suit against two students of the same school‚ Respondents Antonio Morrison and James Crawford‚ for rape and emotional distress. Petitioner claims the sexual assault violates 42 U.S.C. §13981‚ “which provides a federal civil remedy for the victims of gender-motivated violence” (FindLaw
Premium United States Constitution Commerce Clause United States Congress
may destroy the life of a person‚ therefore while fighting with drug dealers and buyers cooperatives no other interest rather than removing this “elements” from the society should be taken into account. The case‚ which is known as “United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative” did more than just catch the attention of people. Million of people followed the case from its very beginning and did have certain expectations concerning the outcome of the case. The specifics of the case made
Premium United States Drug addiction Crime
A. Traditional theories of the judicial review hold that neutral or principled grounds are the only legitimate bases for judicial decisions and reject political moves in judicial decisions-making. Do you believe this is true? Do you see principled vs. political motives in important U.S. Supreme court constitutional decisions in which overturn laws passed by legislatures(such as restrictions on gun ownership or marijuana use? I do believe this is true. Judicial decisions reject political motives
Premium Supreme Court of the United States Law United States