Search

Presents information on the U.S. Constitution and various decisions given by the Courts in the country. View of the author that a constitution, written or unwritten, must develop, must adapt itself insufficient measure to changed times; Discussion of the working of the U.S. Courts which has been a revolutionary rather than a constitutional tribunal; Decision of the Court regarding the racial integration in the schools in the country; Declaration made by the First Amendment that the U.S. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion and the substance of that injunction has never been at issue in this nation; Reference to the law suit Gitlow v. New York; Details of the lawsuit in which the defendant was accused of writing revolutionary pamphlets.

Focuses on the impact of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution on human rights. Provision in the Bill of Rights that no person shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself; Implications of the Amendment on several criminal cases in the nation; View that this amendment sacrifices human rights to "civil liberties"; Information that the Fifth Amendment has been expanded by judicial decision to cover the case of any witness who testifies under oath in any kind of formal governmental proceeding; Immunity statutes resorted by the citizenry, which promise a witness immunity from prosecution for his part in any crime he might expose by his testimony.

The article addresses issues concerning the stand of the U.S. Supreme Court with regards to abortion in July 2000. In Stenberg v. Carhart, the Court reaffirmed abortion as a U.S. constitutional right and has put partial-birth abortion beyond the reach of the law. The reason behind the Court's decision to strike down the ban on partial-birth abortion in Nebraska is that the law is too vague, and putting a ban on partial-birth abortion might place an undue burden on the alleged right to abortion. But the real concern of the Court is that all of its decisions will be put into question if it accepts any restriction on abortion.

Considers the role of the courts in enforcing school desegregation since "Brown v. Board of Education," and "Brown II," decided a year later in 1955. In Brown v. Board of Education the Supreme Court decided that racial discrimination by the government in student school assignments was unconstitutional. Instead, the Court generated a decade-long effort by federal courts to develop convoluted school-desegregation`` plans'' and to assess the`` good faith'' of communities in preparing such plans. Inevitably, in later Court decisions, the confused direction of Brown II metamorphosed into requirements of racial integration and "balance'' achieved through such devices as forced school busing and prohibition of neighborhood school assignments. Lower federal courts have now been directed by the Supreme Court to end their supervision if school districts can demonstrate that they have complied in`` good faith'' with previous judicial orders and eliminated the`` vestiges of past discrimination. What the decision means is that some number of the five hundred or so school districts subject to federal supervision will now proceed to federal court and embark upon five more years of litigation with civil-rights groups in an effort to persuade a federal judge that they have met the vague new standards set forth by the current 5 to 3 Court majority.

Presents an analysis of the recent decisions of the United States Supreme Court. Determination that the burden of proof in employment-discrimination suits rests with the plaintiff; Determination that an affirmative action agreement entered into by a city and a spokesman for racial minorities could be challenged by white employees; Ruling on private discrimination in alleged sexual harassment suits; State of civil rights activism in the United States; Suggestions for conservative reactions to the rulings.

Discusses the United States constitutional right to privacy, with reference to Supreme Court cases Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade. Ruling in which the Supreme Court found unconstitutional a Connecticut statute that forbade dispensing birth-control information or contraceptives to married couples; Use of this case in the 1973 decision that the right to privacy encompassed a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy.

Comments on the line of questioning taken by the U.S. Supreme Court justices during the hearing of two cases filed under the public accommodation section of the Civil Rights Act in October 1964. Decisions in the cases rendered by lower federal courts; Conflict on the constitutionality of the Act; Dispute over a man's right to do or decline to do business.

Focuses on the report issued by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Observation from the report that the vast majority of African American children in the South still are being denied the rights declared to be theirs by the Supreme Court's decision in the school segregation cases and the Civil Rights Act; Conclusion from the report that there must be redoubled effort, manpower, money and legal action to compel desegregation throughout the system.

Describes a controversy about the rationale of latter-day U.S. Supreme Court decision which reflects the radical of contemporary thought about man and society. Sardonicism in the confusion of doctrine in the Court; Overview of the pragmatic denial of immutable moral principle as the basis of jurisprudence; Importance of the approach to the civil rights of minorities.

Offers a look at three United States Supreme Court decisions related to terrorism, and discusses how they are defeats for the President George W. Bush administration. Decision that the president's war powers include the ability to detain enemy combatants, but that they have the right to challenge their detention; Case of the detention of Yaser Hamdi; Ability of foreign enemy combatants to go to federal courts to challenge their detention.

The article discusses the homosexual laws before the United States Supreme Court. The debate before the house was the Court ruling in 1986 Bowers v. Haniwick, which upheld the right of a state to declare as criminal, homosexual conduct between consenting adults. The article presents the pending case similar to Bowers in almost every respect. Two men in Houston, Texas were arrested for engaging in such activity. The conviction was appealed and carried upstairs by the Lambda Defense and Education Fund, whose agenda is to abrogate all legislation banning, or frowning upon, homosexual contact, never mind just by consenting adults. The Texas law says that gays cannot do what non-gays can do and the facts of the matter weigh against Texas.

The article argues against the ruling issued by U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson blocking the enforcement of the civil rights initiative called Proposition 209. It correlates the initiative with that of the proposal by former President James Madison during the early Republic. It also criticizes the lack of reaction from Republican Senators Trent Lott and New Gingrich to the issue. It calls for the passage of a federal version of the initiative. It supports the impeachment of Henderson based on his position on the issue.

The article refutes the ruling of Judge Barbara Rothstein of the U.S. District Court in Seattle striking down Washington's state law prohibiting a doctor from assisting a patient to commit suicide. Judge Rothstein's ruling have shown a wrong interpretation of the constitutional right to privacy when she selected the argument used in the Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade. She erroneously prescribe death to someone suffering from a terminal illness, while prohibiting the same to a young person. Judge Rothstein, in essence, created another right, a right to help other people kill themselves.

This article considers the sentencing of two white former officers of the Los Angeles Police Department in the Rodney King case of conduct unbecoming and racial disruption. The officers were sentenced to two and a half years in prison for allegedly provoking plaintiff Rodney King, whom the officers chased in traffic and apprehended after refusing to submit. This case involved an exoneration of the defendants that caused riots in the town of Los Angeles, California, forcing U.S. President George Bush to allow police officers to use force. This then led to charges filed against the officers with violating the civil rights of King.

The article states that the more civil rights a group allegedly has, the less freedom Americans have. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Grove City College in Pennsylvania, which has refused to comply with federal standards on sex discrimination. Nobody had even accused Grove City of discrimination. It had declined the role of presumptive defendant that private citizens and institutions are nowadays expected to assume in comparison with the state. The Court limited the government's means of retaliation to the specific programs affected under Title IX of the 1972 Education Amendments to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The article comments on the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to prohibit a law requiring teachers to allow prayer in public schools in the state. It criticizes civil libertarians for hailing the ruling as victories for religious freedom. It describes how liberals treat organized religion.

The article reports on racial discrimination and the Supreme Court's decision which is a confrontation between sociological engineering and law. It also cites the Civil Rights Act of 1964 regarding the prohibition of private employer from racial discrimination in handling out job. It also reports on the strains arising from the double standards by the courts in interpreting the law against racial discrimination.

The article discusses the ruling of the Ohio Supreme Court on the case State of Ohio v. Whisner et al. concerning constitutional right to religious freedom. On July 28, 1976, the Supreme Court of Ohio ruled that the Ohio State Board of Education acted unconstitutionally in bringing a criminal prosecution against the head of Tabernacle Christian School and against parents of children enrolled in the said school. The decision protected only church-related schools. It did not cover independent schools that have no religious affiliation.

Commends the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court to decline to review the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit on a case dealing with racial issues in public schools. Implications of the decision of the Supreme Court; Reaction of the civil rights groups to the decision of the Supreme Court.

Focuses on the unanimous decision handed down on June 18 by the U.S. Court of Appeals at Washington related to eight lower-court convictions for contempt of the Congress. Defense of the Court with scrupulous distinctions both the rights of citizens and the power of the legislature; Refusal of the defendants to answer questions concerning Communist associations that had been put to them by congressional committees; Refusal based on explicit or implied appeal to the First Amendment's free speech guarantee.

Focuses on the implication of the Supreme Court's ruling on the right of a property owner, to sell to whomever he wishes is, on the legislative function in the U.S. Provision for selling and renting a property in the Civil Rights Act of I968 drafted by the U.S. Congress; Effect of the decision of the Supreme Court on the drafted legislation; Comments of the Supreme Court about the intentions of the U.S. Congress that the 1866 law to be a forced housing law; Opinion that the Supreme Court will manage to squeeze some blood from the lifeless housing statute.

Suggests that the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) should investigate its own position, and the consequences thereof, in stead of just denouncing the U.S. House Committee on Un-American Activities. Judicial relevance of the ruling handed down by Federal Judge Howard Corcoran forbidding the House Committee from holding hearings relevant to the question whether to endorse an amendment to the Internal Security Act of 1950; Background on how an argument between a lawyer and the Committee's chairman in the chamber room led to a political impasse; Code of conduct for lawyers laid down in the Committee's Rule VII B; Response of the New York Civil Liberties Union to the ejection of lawyer from the chamber room.

Informs that the U.S. Congress is backing a civil rights bill which would prohibit discrimination by race, color or creed in the sale or rent of any building. Invalidation of the Proposition 14 by the State Court on the grounds that the Proposition is in effect the denial, without due process, of rights of those minorities; Support by the Congress to protect Mrs. Murphy, which is the code name for a retired lady living anywhere who has five rooms to rent in her little boarding house, wants internal harmony, and therefore seeks homogeneous clients; Opinion of judges of the Supreme Court that no man has the right to determine the conditions under which another man can sell or dispose of his own property.

Reports on the decision given by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, on the validity of Title III of the Civil Rights Act in the case Jones v. Novak. Definition of an acceptable neighborhood given in the Title III, section 1983 of the Act; Restrictions about sale and purchase of dwellings laid down in the title; Effect of Title III on the real estate market in predominantly Afro-American residential areas; Explanations given by the court in justifying the constitutional validity of Title III; Reaction of Civil Rights leaders to the court's decision in the case.

Presents information on a law suit regarding the plea for the constitutional protection by former U.S. Senate Majority Secretary Robert Gene Baker, who was interrogated by the Senate Rules Committee concerning his extraordinary career. Details of the law suit of the Senate Majority Secretary Baker; Reference to another law suit The People v. William Rickenbacker; Discussion of the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the second law suit; Report that the U.S. Constitution has openings for individuals willing to be free.