Abstract
This paper examines the issue of freedom of speech. It specifically focuses on the ruling by the Supreme Court in "Morse v. Frederick" and the implications of the ruling. The paper then discusses the political level of the decision and looks at the conservative nature of the current court. The paper discusses whether this court is likely to amend or wholly abolish the decision in "Roe v. Wade."

Table of Contents:
Introduction - Morse v. Frederick - Freedom of Speech
Thesis
Case Brief - Facts of the Case
Facts
Statute at issue
Legal question for Court
The outcome
Majority ruling written by Justice Roberts
Legal doctrine
Other opinions
Key Decisions in this area
Conclusion

From the Paper
"As was stated in this paper at the outset, there are two real issues in this Court case; one is the interpretation of the First Amendment that free speech through public posters or printed material is okay as long as it doesn't seem to be advocating the use of illegal drugs. The second issue is the fact that George W. Bush has placed two men on the Court who are more conservative than the justices they replaced. And for Court watchers, it will be very interesting to see how far this Court goes in terms of reversing or modifying existing laws such as Roe v. Wade."

Tags:drugs, conservative, Wade, Roe, amendment

Abstract
This paper examines and analyzes a case of suspected arson, further considering whether the behavior of not reporting a fire constituted wanton and reckless behavior. Various legal opinions and arguments are cited in the paper, including those of the two courts before which this case was heard. Additionally, the paper presents a legal definition of arson and discusses whether this case would fall under those criteria. The paper also explores the issue of a defendant's mental health when accused of arson, because it is vital to know whether the accused knows right from wrong, or if he or she is competent. Finally, the paper addresses whether starting a fire is an intentional act or an act of recklessness, which also impacts the outcome of an arson case. The paper concludes by stating that in the particular case examines here,the judge was correct in his statement that there is an intentional act involved in every act of recklessness.


Outline:

Factors the Court Relied On to Find a Duty to Report
Arson?
Mental State
An Intentional Act Involved in Every Act of Recklessness

From the Paper
"The defendants in this case were not charged with arson, which is defined as intentional and malicious. In Levesque, the man and woman were charged with accidently starting a fire and then fleeing the premises and not calling 911 to report an emergency. There was no indication that they intentionally and maliciously set the fire, as, at the time, it was their own "residence" that went up in flames.
"However, if they had not been charged with accidently starting the fire, it would change the outcome of the case, I believe. The reason they were found guilty was because they were found wanton and reckless in not reporting the fire which they accidently started. Absent that charge, there would be no cause to find them guilty even though they left the premises. Actually, absent being charged with accidently starting the fire, there would be no basis for a trial at all, even if the building had burned down and the firefighters had been killed by the fire."

Tags:firefighters, Supreme Judicial Court, Superior Court, People v. Kazmarick

Abstract
This paper chronicles and analyzes the career of Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun, stating that during Blackmun's 24-year career, his evolution from staunch conservative to bedrock liberal forever changed the US Supreme Court and the country. The paper explains that, while capital punishment was the clearest path in viewing the development of Justice Blackmun as a Supreme Court Associate Justice, there is no doubt his landmark opinion in Roe vs. Wade concerning abortion rights is the case that will always be linked to him. The paper goes on to discuss other landmark legislation, including Blackmun's majority decisions that overturned most state laws banning abortion, and essentially legalized abortion on demand as a basic right of a woman. The paper notes that Justice Blackmum was vilified and adored by many, but he always stayed true to what he believed was best for those that needed compassion. The paper concludes that Justice Blackmun's influence deeply changed the judicial landscape of the United States.

Outline:
Roe vs. Wade
The Opinion
The Most Liberal Justice
The Justice of the "Little People"
References

From the Paper
"Blackmun was targeted by untold death threats and became awash of a blizzard of letters for and against Roe. Blackmun, ever the stolid Midwesterner, diligently sat each week and read every letter sent to him, for and against. Perhaps it was part of his assimilation of these letters as well as the astonishingly emotional reaction to Roe that Blackmun solidified his position on abortion (Greenhouse, 2007). He became more firmly committed to legal abortion and expressed his position in more woman-centered terms as the years went by. He became convinced that abortion was an essential element to the effectual emancipation of women."

Tags:Roe, v, Wade, abortion, capital, punishment, legislation

From the Paper
"The purpose of this research is to examine the majority opinion in Bowers v. Hardwick. The plan of the research will be to set forth an opposing answer to the opinion by addressing the main points relevant to the issue of the right to privacy raised by the case, making reference not only to the Constitution and to other decisions by the Supreme Court, but to the various opinions written by all justices taking part in the decision.


In a 5 to 4 vote, the Supreme Court in 1986 decided that mutually consensual homosexual conduct, specifically the act of sodomy, committed in the privacy of a home, could Constitutionally be prohibited by the state of Georgia. The majority position was taken in opposition to a petition on the part of a man charged with sodomy to the effect that "the Federal Constitution confers a fundamental right upon homosexuals to..."

Abstract
The writer argues that one of the major reasons why African-Americans failed to achieve equality in the United States, following the Civil War, is due to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. The writer proposes that this makes it necessary to examine the records of this branch of the American government in order to determine how these decisions impacted African-Americans after the Civil War. The paper analyzes five important Supreme Court cases adjudicated following the war, which made equality in the United States impossible for African-Americans. The paper concludes that these decisions of the Supreme Court undermined the ability of African-Americans to obtain equality under the law and had a very detrimental effect on this brave and often dangerous quest to gain equality in America during the days of the post-Reconstruction Era.

From the Paper
"One of the first major Supreme Court cases considered after the Civil War was the Slaughterhouse cases, brought before the Court by the butchers of New Orleans in response to a law passed in 1869 by the legislature of the State of Louisiana which allowed the incorporation of the Live Stock and Slaughterhouse Company in New Orleans and granted them exclusive rights to slaughter livestock within the city, effectively granting them a monopoly. Thus, the butchers had no choice but to seek redress through the courts via a lawsuit which argued that the new law violated their fourteenth Amendment right to due process."

Tags:U.S., vs., Reese, Enforcement, Act, Judge, Waite, Civil, Rights, Act, 1875, Legislation

Abstract
In this article, the writer provides a written opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade. To this purpose, the writer uses the sources of Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, The U.S. Constitution; The Declaration of Independence; and Casey v. Planned Parenthood. The writer argues that if Roe v. Wade were to be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, then new and real problems will be presented in the complete rewriting of abortion laws. The writer concludes that it is perhaps a better thought that should Roe v. Wade be rendered no longer legal that it should be rendered so in a modified form instead of being completely overturned in order that the life of the many women seeking abortion be better protected under the rules of law.

Outline:
Objective
Introduction
Griswold V. Connecticut
Discussion
Conclusion
Bibliography

From the Paper
"In 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Roe v. Wade made abortion legal under some conditions. Since that time the number of abortions has exceeded 40 million. Prior to the ruling in Roe v. Wade many illegal abortions were being performed which led to the death of many women due to infection and other complicating factors. In the case of Roe v. Wade, Roe, a single pregnant woman brought a class action that challenged the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws. The law in Texas at that time proscribed procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice and for the purpose of saving the life of the mother."

Tags:supreme, court, baby, pregnancy, ruling

Abstract
This paper examines the facts of the Dred Scott vs. Sanford decision, including an in-depth review of the facts of the case and a legal analysis of the majority opinion. The paper also discusses the dissenting opinions in the case and takes the position that Chief Justice Taney, in writing the decision, was justified in ruling in the way he did.

From the Paper
"Certainly one of the most controversial and well-known Supreme Court decisions in the history of the United States is the case of Dred Scott v. Sanford. Historians and legal scholars have debated this decision for over a century and many have taken an increasingly negative view of Chief Justice Roger Taney. Some view the decision as one of the major causes of the War Between the States. This paper examines the history of Dred Scott's case and provides an analysis of both the majority and the minority opinions in the case. After an in-depth analysis of the case as well as its historical context, we are left with the conclusion that Chief Justice Taney's majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford is merely a reflection of the way in which he interprets the Constitution and is not the legal and moral outrage that historians and modern jurists claim it to be."

Tags:civil, compromise, court, lincoln, missouri, sanford, supreme, taney, war

Abstract
This paper discusses the role of race in capital cases in the U.S.A by briefly examining the historical background, and then analyzing the relevant Supreme Court decisions that have affected or that reflect the issue. It also breaks the race issue into basic components, using statistical evidence and scholarly opinions to examine the ways in which race has been unfairly applied in racially charged decisions in capital death cases.
Outline
Introduction
Background
Historical Precedents: Significant Supreme Court Decisions
The Race of the Victim
Poverty, Race, and Legal Representation
Poor Legal Representation: Two Examples
Margins of Error: "A Broken System"
Discussion of Findings
Conclusion

From the Paper
"The advent of globalization has brought a great many advances to contemporary society. In that light, the continued existence of capital punishment would seem to be an anachronism, especially in the United States. Although some would describe the U.S. as the wealthiest and most powerful country in the world, its persistence in clinging to an archaic system of punishment would seem to contradict this. A majority of countries have done away with the death penalty. However, the United States continues to practice it, making it one of the minority of countries that still do. According to Amnesty International, "in an increasingly abolitionist world, the USA's use of the death penalty does immense damage to its international image" (2003)."

Tags:african, american, batsun, black, discrimination, execution

Abstract
The paper explores the case of Gonzales v. Oregon. It brings two parties of opposing opinions together to determine the legality of the State of Oregon's law known as the Oregon Death with Dignity Act (3 Or Rev Stat 127 800 1994) which allows physician assisted suicide. It explains that this State Act was created through popular vote among registered voters in the state and then finally through legislative action.

From the Paper
"The case of Gonzales v Oregon brings two parties of opposing opinions together to determine the legality of the State of Oregon law, known as the Oregon Death with Dignity Act ([3]3 Or. Rev. Stat. ?127.800 (1994)), which allows physician assisted suicide. This State Act was created through popular vote among registered voters in the state, and then finally through legislative action. This law allows physicians to administer lethal doses of controlled substances to patients that have requested death with dignity, and who are suffering from terminal illness and have been medically determined to become deceased within six months ("Supreme Court"). The history that leads the court to the current case includes the 1971 Controlled Substance Act (CSA). The intention of Congress in creating this act is in question with reference to this case and the declarations made by the Attorney General of the United States that ..."

Tags:supreme, court, law

Abstract
This paper discusses the history of abortion legislation in the United States and the factors that influenced abortion policy. The paper addresses case law set forth by legal precedents, freedom and privacy rights, public opinion, religion and morality. The paper looks at the role of the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government and also examines the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and specific constitutional amendments within the Bill of Rights.

From the Paper
"Abortion is one of the most controversial issues the world has seen; it is a political, religious, legal, and moral issue. Yet despite its global reach, developed secular free societies such as the United States (US) may be the most divided on the issue of abortion. The US was founded on the premise that personal freedom is an essential human right. As a result, many believe the idea of allowing government to restrict a woman's right to choose what to do with her body contradicts this intrinsically American value. Abortion issues also involve elements of morality and religion, and thus force us to question the importance of morality versus our right to freedom. Furthermore, the US was founded on the belief that church and state should remain separate. Unlike the US, many countries do not distinguish between church and state; and arguably may not face the same dilemmas as the US in passing legislation on an issue that clearly includes aspects that are both secular and non-secular."

Tags:Roe, v., Wade, Constitution, privacy, pro-life, pro-choice, fetus, ethics, religion, pregnancy