1. Roe Vs Wade
This case has always stood out to me as the most backwards court decision, the most unconstitutional decision I have ever read about. In the preamble of the Constitution it calls for the Right to Life period. I don't know how that is mispercieved I know nothing is simple but that is directly stated how can it be mistaken. This is just another decision made to protect Americans who already have rights to protect those rights from troubling themself and living up to their responsibility.
2. Ten Commandment Case
This case was interesting because the supreme court ruled that it was okay for the ten commandments to be put up in Texas Court Houses. However the Ten Commandments may not be allowed in Kentucky court houses under seperation of church and state. Why is Texas allowed to if Kentucky may not? Should this be a federal ruling or state by state?
3.Gonzalves VS Raich
This case interested me because it criminilizes the use of homegrown marijuana, even in states where it is legal for medical purpose. Marijuana is more affective, has no physical side effects unless it is smoked, over all better than perscription pain killers. It is also non addictive unlike pain killers, over all better for patients in need. I don't know why states legalize it if feral law will come in and wipe it out.
"In the preamble of the Constitution it calls for the Right to Life period."
ReplyDeleteI don't know the case. And I imagine there is more than one case. The Supreme Court has ruled that the preamble has no basis for a ruling. I can appreciate the strong feelings you hold on this topic. Many Americans feel similarly.
Do you believe that the preamble should have some sort of influence on rulings the supreme court makes? Personally I feel as if it's like the opener to an essay, almost like the phrase or quote you use to grab attention.
ReplyDeleteIn response to the case on Marijuana although it is allowed in certain states it can still be brought into federal courts. Do you think the Supreme Court will finally rule on it this term? If they do what do you believe the result would be; take into consideration that the court is considered conservative.
The legalization of Marijuana is definitely an interesting subject. It has both positive and negative effects on people-- not the drug itself, but the idea of it being legalized. There's always going to be those who agree and those who disagree. However, I agree with you, that it does have a number of positive effects for those who need it, but people will abuse the drug because there are many already doing so. So how can that be eliminated without eliminating it as a prescribed drug also? If it's positive effects greatly overpowered the negative ones, than I'm sure it would've been legalized a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with what Bridgett says about the preamble being an attention grabber. It certainly does feel like that, doesn't it.
I found the court case about marijuana interesteing Matt. I think they got rid of the homegrown marijuana because they were not using it for medical purposes, unless they were the ones supplying the hospital. I feel like if it were legalized and everyone was allowed to home grow it, there would be no control over the people. I think it is because there are people who abuse the drug, not because it is just a drug. I believe it should be used efficiently like for medical purposes not just to be used for fun.
ReplyDelete