United States Constitution

The United States Constitution By: Alena Bailey, Michele Mattera & Dan Arnold

Tinker vs. Des Moines ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Arguments in the Case ,[object Object],Therefore, since the administration of the school is an agent (works for) the government, at a low note, must respect the basic rights protected by the U.S. Constitution. ,[object Object],It was believed that in order for a school to function properly and for a school to complete its educational mission, the rules of that school must be enforced. ,[object Object],This also means that in a place for learning, there are possibilities that a controversial issue may come up in the process. This is a form of communication among the students which is important towards a students educational process.

How the Case Moved Supreme Court of the United States (1969) Ruled in favor of the students, declaring that the armband protest was protected by the First Amendment right of free speech

Outcome of the Case ,[object Object],What the courts had to consider: The First Amendment states "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." The Fourteenth Amendment extends this rule to state governments as well, of which school systems are a part. The First Amendment , however, does not identify which kinds of speech are protected. What was the outcome of the court case?: The Supreme Court of the United States has had to determine what types of symbolic speech are protected under the First Amendment. In 1968 the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Tinker's case and consider the constitutionality of the Des Moines principals' anti-armband policy. The Court's decision in Tinker v. Des Moines was handed down in 1969. How this court decision affects us today : The Court extended the First Amendment protection of symbolic speech to students in public schools in 1943 during the case of West Virginia v. Barnette

New Jersey vs T.L.O By Michele Mattera

New Jersey vs. T.L.O ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Amendment’s Involved in the Case The Fourth amendment – Search and Seizure T.L.O claimed that her fourth amendment rights were violated, but the court said that Choplick did not violate her fourth amendment rights because he was aware that a crime was being committed. The Fifth amendment – Rights of Persons T.L.O claimed that her Fifth Amendment rights were violated because an attorney was not present while she was making her confession. After further research the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that Choplick’s search did in fact violate T.L.O’s fourth amendment right.

How The Case Moved ,[object Object],Appellate Division of New Jersey (1982) Supreme Court of New Jersey (1983) Supreme Court of the United States (1985)

Outcome of the case ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],Vernonia School District 47J v. Acton (1995)

Griswold V Connecticut By Dan Arnold

Griswold V Connecticut Where did the Case happen? - New Haven, Connecticut in 1965. Who was involved? - Estelle Griswold( Director of Planned Parenthood in Connecticut) and Dr. C. Lee Buxton (Professor at Yale Medical School). What is the Case about? - Estelle Griswold and Dr. C. Lee Buxton opened a birth control clinic in New Haven. They were arrested and fined for breaking Connecticut's statute that banned the use of contraceptives.

Arguments used in the case ,[object Object],[object Object]

How the Case Moved ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]

Outcome of the Case ,[object Object],[object Object]

United States Constitution

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (19)

Ähnlich wie United States Constitution

Ähnlich wie United States Constitution (9)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

United States Constitution