The first document summarizes four Supreme Court cases on issues related to discrimination and constitutional rights:
1) Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the consideration of race in university admissions as part of a compelling interest in diversity.
2) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ruled that student-led prayers at school events violated the establishment clause.
3) Roper v. Simmons found the death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed under 18 due to evolving standards of decency.
4) The last case discusses arguments for and against voter ID laws and their potential disproportionate impact on minority voters.
The first document summarizes four Supreme Court cases on issues related to discrimination and constitutional rights:
1) Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the consideration of race in university admissions as part of a compelling interest in diversity.
2) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ruled that student-led prayers at school events violated the establishment clause.
3) Roper v. Simmons found the death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed under 18 due to evolving standards of decency.
4) The last case discusses arguments for and against voter ID laws and their potential disproportionate impact on minority voters.
The first document summarizes four Supreme Court cases on issues related to discrimination and constitutional rights:
1) Grutter v. Bollinger upheld the consideration of race in university admissions as part of a compelling interest in diversity.
2) Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe ruled that student-led prayers at school events violated the establishment clause.
3) Roper v. Simmons found the death penalty unconstitutional for crimes committed under 18 due to evolving standards of decency.
4) The last case discusses arguments for and against voter ID laws and their potential disproportionate impact on minority voters.
Name of the case What was the case How did the supreme Do you agree with the
about court rule? What was courts decision? Why
their reasoning ? or why not GRUTTER v. The case was about On June 23, 2003, in a Yes, I agree with the BOLLINGER discrimination by the 5-4 decision, the court court’s decision. respondent against held that the Equal the petitioner on the Protection Clause of basis of race which the Fourteenth was in violation of the Amendment does not Fourteenth prohibit the narrowly Amendment, Title VI tailored use of race in of the Civil Rights Act university admission of 1964 plans as part of a compelling interest in promoting student diversity. The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer. Santa Fe Independent In Santa Fe Yes, I agree with the School District v. Doe, Independent School supreme court 530 U.S. 290 (2000), District v. Doe (2000), decision, the Supreme Court ruled that a school policy of beginning football games with a prayer led by a nominated student body representative violated the First Amendment. The case limited the opportunities public schools have to endorse religious messages at school ceremonies. ROPER, Christopher Simmons In a 5-4 opinion Let me begin by SUPERINTENDENT, was sentenced to delivered by Justice making clear that I POTOSI death in 1993, when Anthony Kennedy, the agree with much of CORRECTIONAL he was only 17. A Court ruled that the Court’s CENTER v. SIMMONS series of appeals to standards of decency description of the state and federal have evolved so that general principles that courts lasted until executing minors is guide our Eighth 2002, but each appeal "cruel and unusual Amendment was rejected. The punishment" jurisprudence. The majority cited a prohibited by the Amendment bars not consensus against the Eighth Amendment. only punishments that juvenile death penalty The majority cited a are inherently “ among state consensus against the ‘barbaric,’ ” but also legislatures, and its juvenile death penalty those that are “ ‘ own determination among state excessive’ in relation that the death penalty legislatures, and its to the crime is a disproportionate own determination committed. ” Coker v. punishment for that the death penalty Georgia, A sanction is minors. Finally the is a disproportionate therefore beyond the Court pointed to punishment for state’s authority to "overwhelming" minors. Finally the inflict if it makes “no international opinion Court pointed to measurable against the juvenile "overwhelming" contribution” to death penalty. international opinion acceptable penal goals against the juvenile or is “grossly out of death penalty. Chief proportion to the Justice William severity of the crime.” Rehnquist and Justices Ibid. The basic Antonin Scalia, Sandra “precept of justice Day O'Connor, and that punishment for Clarence Thomas all crime should be … dissented. proportioned to [the] offense Reasonable minds can differ as to the minimum age at which commission of a serious crime should expose the defendant to the death penalty, if at all. Many jurisdictions have abolished capital punishment altogether, while many others have determined that even the most heinous crime, if committed before the age of 18, should not be punishable by death. Supporters say Opponents say 1. Minority voters disproportionately lack photo ID. Nationally, up to 13% of African- American citizens of voting age lack government-issued photo ID, compared to only 5% of whites
REDUCES RED TAPE HEAVEN OF VOTE SKEPTIC
This sort of voting reduces the POLITICIANS need to have too many polling Early voting paves the way for booths on elections day. vote skeptic politicians to create a popular uprising Administrations do not have to based on the sentiments of the arrange logistics for everyone, people. as the burden on the sites gets greatly reduced.
This also reduces the need for
voting machines on elections day, which ultimately increases the efficiency of the process. it would make it harder for black voters in the states affected by the voting act.
Capital Punishment Author(s) : Lewis F. Powell, Jr. Source: Harvard Law Review, Mar., 1989, Vol. 102, No. 5 (Mar., 1989), Pp. 1035-1046 Published By: The Harvard Law Review Association