Several public high school students (including D

Johnson’s conviction was overturned by theSupreme Court of Texas, which ruled that this mode of self-expression was protected under the First Amendment to theConstitution. The Supreme Court upheld this ruling, stating the flag burning was “expressive conduct” because it was an attemptto “convey a particularized message.”

By creating this precedent abortion became legal in all 50 states

Lopez) were suspended from school for misconduct but were not given a hearing immediately before or after their suspension. School authorities in Columbus, Ohio, claimed that a state law allowed them to suspend students for up to ten days without a hearing. The students brought a legal action, claiming that the statute was unconstitutional because it allowed school authorities to deprive students of their right to a hearing, violating the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The issue was whether the suspension of a student for a period of up to ten days without a hearing constitutes a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

If he denies the charges, the student must be given a hearing

The Supreme Court of the United States said that education is a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause and any suspension requires prior notice and a hearing. Permitting suspension without a hearing is, therefore, unconstitutional. The Court said that oral or written notice of the charges brought against a student must be given to the student who is being suspended for more than a trivial period. The hearing may be an informal one where the student is simply given an explanation of the evidence against him and an opportunity to tell his side of the story. (Source – PATCH – See link below)

Norma McCorvey, a citizen of Texas, was pregnant and wanted to have an abortion. Texas state laws (and most other states) made abortion illegal in that state. Suing under the name Jane Roe she claimed that the state of Texas violated her right to privacy by prohibiting the abortion and telling her what to do with her own body. The state argued that abortion was murder and that there was a compelling state interest in protecting the life of the unborn child.

In this landmark decision the Court declared that laws prohibiting abortion represented a violation of a women’s right to privacy. While the right to privacy does to exist as such in the Constitution it has long been interpreted to exist as an umbrella created by the first 5 amendments in the Bill of Rights.

In the late 1970’s, the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Office Building in Washington, D.C., was broken into. The investigation that followed centered on staff members of then Republican President Richard M. Nixon. The Special Prosecutor subpoenaed certain tapes and documents of specific meetings held in the White House. The President’s lawyer sought to deny the subpoena. The Special Prosecutor asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the http://clickcashadvance.com/installment-loans-ar/jacksonville/ case before the lower appeals court ruled on the President’s appeal to deny the subpoena.

By an 80 vote, the Court decided that President Nixon must hand over the specific tapes and documents to the Special Prosecutor. Presidential power is not above the law. It cannot protect evidence that may be used in a criminal trial.

During the Civil War, with civil liberties in the North being constricted, officials of the United States arrested several antiwar Democrats in Indiana. The president feared the weak support for the war in Indiana would lead to an acquittal by an Indiana jury. Therefore, the politicians were not given a trial by jury, but rather were held as military prisoners and convicted. One of the defendents, Milligan, appealed. The Supreme Court, in a 9 – 0 vote, found in favor of the defendants, stating “the Constitution. is a law for the rulers and people, equally in war and peace, and covers. all. men, at all times, and under all circumstances.” The Court went on to hold that the president’s power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus in a time of war did not extend to creating another court system run by the military. (Source – PATCH – See link below)