1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
madam [21]
4 years ago
13

In this activity, you'll be writing an essay evaluating the reasoning of the Supreme Court majority opinion and dissent in the c

ase of Tinker v. Des Moines. On what grounds did each group of justices support their opinions
Law
1 answer:
algol134 years ago
7 0

Answer:

The 1969 Supreme Court instance of Tinker v. Des Moines found that the right to speak freely of discourse must be ensured in government funded schools, gave the demonstration of articulation or conclusion—regardless of whether verbal or emblematic—isn't problematic to learning. The Court decided for Tinker, a 13-year-old young lady who wore dark armbands to class to fight America's inclusion in the Vietnam War.

Majority Opinion  

In Tinker v. Des Moines, a vote of 7–2 decided for Tinker, maintaining the option to free discourse inside a state funded school. Equity Fortas, composing for the majority feeling, expressed that "It can scarcely be contended that either understudies or educators shed their sacred rights to the right to speak freely of discourse or articulation at the school building door." Because the school couldn't show proof of critical unsettling influence or interruption made by the understudies' wearing of the armbands, the Court saw no motivation to confine their appearance of conclusion while the understudies were going to class. The majority likewise noticed that the school denied hostile to war images while it permitted images communicating different feelings, a training the Court thought about unlawful.

Dissenting Opinion  

Equity Hugo L. Dark contended in a dissenting conclusion that the First Amendment doesn't give the privilege to anybody to communicate any sentiment whenever. The school area was inside its privileges to train the understudies, and Black felt that the presence of the armbands occupied understudies from their work and thus brought down the capacity of the school authorities to play out their obligations. In his different difference, Justice John M. Harlan contended that school authorities ought to be managed wide power to keep up request except if their activities can be demonstrated to come from an inspiration other than a real school intrigue.

You might be interested in
Do you think citizens with a criminal history should be entitled to the same constitutional rights as others like the right to o
Basile [38]

Answer:

this question is kind of hard to answer because it depends on the circumstances but my main answer is no.

Explanation:

1) if they've committed a crime, then they really shouldn't have the ability to have access to a fire arm, especially if their crime(s) involves a firearm.

2) they gave away their absolute freedom the moment they committed a crime, so they shouldn't get the exact same "freedoms" as the citizens who are completely clean.

3)criminals are seen to have people be more careful around them, so they shouldn't get "free rein"

4)they could commit the crime or a different maybe larger crime if they know there wont be "after jail" consequences.

5) because some criminals cant be fully 100% trusted with certain things.

(i understand they seem repetitive, i had the right idea but i just cant get it to come out the way im thinking it.

4 0
3 years ago
Source: State v. Ham, 744 P.2d 133 (ld. Ct. App. 1987)
Levart [38]

Answer:

if he didn't pay rent to either himself or his mother that is really not good on his part

Explanation:

if he doesn't pay it can take it too court and if i do so i can make a difference and then he can pay the rent too his mom

6 0
3 years ago
Gideon faced many obstacles in getting his case to be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court. Were those difficulties (process and arg
Anni [7]

Answer: eu sou um paii

Explanation:

8 0
3 years ago
Appellate courts Group of answer choices are made up of judges only. will, on occasion, seat juries, but only when dealing with
abruzzese [7]

Answer:

often seat juries to listen to new evidence being presented in criminal cases on appeal to their courts.

Explanation:

A court refers to an enclosed space such as a hall or chamber where legal practitioners (judges, lawyers or attorneys and a jury) converge to hold judicial proceedings.

There are different types of courts and these includes;

I. Trial court.

II. Circuit court.

III. Appeal court.

IV. Supreme court.

An appellate court is also known as court of appeals and can be defined as a court of law of the judicial system that is empowered by law (jurisdiction) and saddled with the responsibility of hearing and reviewing an appeal of a trial-court or other lower court (tribunal).

This ultimately implies that, all appellate courts are empowered by law to review both questions of fact and questions of law. The appellate court can review questions of law as "De novo" or plenary review (legal error standard).

A criminal case can be defined as a lawsuit brought before a court of competent jurisdiction against someone who has been accused of committing a crime.

Typically, appellate courts (court of appeals) often seat juries to listen to new evidence being presented in criminal cases on appeal to their courts.

A grand jury can be defined as a group of citizens that are legally saddled with the responsibility of reviewing the evidence in a criminal case. Thus, grand jury are legally empowered by law to carry out an investigation with respect to a potential criminal case, engage in legal proceedings and determine whether or not an evidence is quite sufficient to warrant trial in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Hence, if the grand jury serves an indictment in a criminal case, the suspect is formally accused of committing the crime. This simply means that, the grand jury has ascertained that there are enough evidence to indict an accused.

However, if in a criminal case, the grand jury offers no indictment, the case wouldn't go to trial at the time.

8 0
3 years ago
What does it mean when a judge dismisses your petition for revocation?
Paha777 [63]
You r free from jail or whatever
5 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • 1. How many days was Kalief held in solitary confinement?
    15·1 answer
  • What are the characteristics of the “Gold Standard” of behavioral science, the experimental model
    12·1 answer
  • How were nixon and clintons situations similar and different
    12·2 answers
  • Are you able to buy a city Country or a state or can you buy any
    12·1 answer
  • PLEASE I ONLY HAVE 7 MINUTES LEFT
    14·1 answer
  • 10. According to Peel the mission of the police is to:
    7·1 answer
  • If you apply the legal rules and decide that peter cannot use the excuse of no knowledge to avoid repaying the loan of RM 10000
    13·1 answer
  • Which phrase best completes the diagram of the credit approval process?
    11·2 answers
  • What body of law governs mixed contracts dealing with the sale of both goods and services. Does the UCC Article 2 apply to such
    6·1 answer
  • Imagine you lost a case in a trial court and you believe a mistake was made. What can you do?
    14·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!