You are on page 1of 3

Constitution of the United States of America Supreme Court has Deep Docket in 2013 2014 term

Abrahan Matehus Arhuata

1. National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning, No. 12-1281 The issue for Supreme Court is to determine if the President (Executive) has the faculty to decide presidential appointments to federal offices without Senate approval when the Senate is in recess. Apparently, it is dangerous for the United States because President could nominate people of its party or whoever without the approval of Senate, which means tyranny. In a systematic interpretation of Constitution, we can observe, that faculty is contemplated in Article II, Section 2, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, so we have to understand to that faculty is an exception because the general rule is that Senate has to advice and consent nominations. In this way, recess is understood as the period of time where Senate doesnt have sessions, normally for a long period of time, and for that reason is that President can fill up all vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, to guarantee an effective work of Public Administration. It could happen in intersessions recesses, recesses between sessions of the Senate and when vacancies occur in these periods, but this faculty given constitutionally to the President couldnt do in a recess of a single session. 2. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, No. 12-536 Is unconstitutional to restrict contributions from individuals to political parties and candidates, because it violates freedom of speech as it is contemplated in XIV Ammendment: Section 1. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Effectively, people can express its ideas and opinions and if they want to support political ideas they are in their right.

Apparently if the candidate wins elections, contributors will be favored with laws, but it is quite difficult because laws are given in favor of all population, if it is in favor of an specific person or business, it could result unconstitutional. 3. McCullen v. Coakley, No. 12-1168 Restricting protests near reproductive health care facilities means a violation to Amendment I [Ratified 1791] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. AMENDMENT XIV Section 1. nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. This Massachusetts law is opposed to Amendment I and XIV, which result unconstitutional, and it cant continue violating freedom of speech of protestors prolife. Supreme Court should overrule decision of Hill v. Colorado. 4. Cline v. Oklahoma Coalition for Reproductive Justice, No. 12-1094 From my perspective, first of all we have to protect right of life, which is contemplated in Amendment XIV. No other person (even pregnant) can decide about life, because abortion means homicide (it doesnt matter in which period of life a person is) AMENDMENT XIV Section 1 nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The State has a legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life, in this way, embryo, morula or fetus are protected, but in cases of maternal health is compromised is better to protect the mothers life or health. If is necessary, abortion-inducing drugs have to be supplied because in these cases the right of life or health could be violated.

5. Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, No. 12-682

If the position of Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action is agreed by Supreme Court, it would mean a violation to Fourteenth Am endment: Equal Protection Clause Cases:

nor shall any State . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. All people have the same conditions to access to public universities, and to have race criteria for access for possible students could mean discrimination for white people, because colored and Latin American people would have preferences in the access.

6. Town of Greece v. Galloway, No. 12-696 It violates the First Amendment: Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. State and Church cant be together in the government, so to invite to other people who are not Christians means to put pressure on them to participate in the prayers. Inviting to something that some people dont want to do represent incommodity, because suggests that one religion is the right and in some way it coerces to adopt this religion.