Dred Scott v. Sandford Case
- Briefly describe the background of Dred Scott v. Sandford. (1 point)
Dred Scott, a black slave who resided in the free state of Illinois and Wisconsin's free territories, appealed to the Supreme Court in an effort to grant his freedom before moving back to Missouri's slave state. The dispute surrounding the case was that the slaves were property, that they were not citizens, and that they had no right to sue. While the Constitution's wording ' all men were created equal ' was contested, Dred Scott's argument had a dishonest result. The case brought slavery to the nation's attention on the positive side.
- What decision did the Supreme Court reach in Dred Scott v. Sandford? (1 point)
The immediate effect of the Dred Scott decision was to persuade abolitionists that the South and the Supreme Court were planning to impose slavery across the EU. The U.S. with the start. Civil War of 1861, it became clear that the decision by Roger Taney had failed in its essential purpose.
- The decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford was overturned by the passage of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Describe how these amendments overturned the decision in this case. (2 points)
On 6 March 1857, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that a slave born in a free state and territory where slavery was prohibited was thus not entitled to his freedom. 4. Briefly describe the background of Stanford v. Kentucky . (1 point)
Kevin Stanford was 17 years old when he was arrested for murder, sodomy, and robbery with a 20-year-old co-defendant. The victim was Barbel Pore who had been employed at the gas station. Kentucky juvenile court made the decision that the judgment should be upheld for adults in general jurisdiction, based on offenses and his history criminality. Stanford was sentenced by the Kentucky Supreme Court to 45 years in prison and the death penalty.
- What decision did the Supreme Court reach in Stanford v. Kentucky? (1 point)
Stanford was sentenced to death and 45 years in prison.
- The decision in Stanford v. Kentucky was overturned by the Supreme Court's ruling in Roper v. Simmons . Describe how this later ruling overturned the earlier decision. (2 points)
With the case, Roper v. Simmons, the ruling of Stanford v. Kentucky was overruled, and it held that minors cannot receive the death penalty. In the ruling from Standford v. Kentucky, the court held that use of the death penalty on minors was not unconstitutional, because a majority of Americans did not find it cruel and unusual punishment but in Roper v. Simmons, they cited numerous laws passed since then which reflect a change in public opinion.
- Briefly describe the background of Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. (1 point)
Lilly Ledbetter started working at Goodyear tire in 1979, she paid as much at first as the male workers, but by the time she quit she earned $3,727 a month, male workers made $4,289 to $5,236 a month. Between 1979 and 1981 Ledbetter had a series of negative evaluations, which she later claimed were discriminatory.
- What decision did the Supreme Court reach in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.? (1 point)
The U.S. has ruled on Thi case On 23 August 2005, the Supreme Court, as an employment discrimination case. Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights specifies that workers can not be sued for discrimination with respect to race or gender compensation if cases are based on decisions taken by the employer 180 days or more.
- The decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. was overturned by the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009. Describe how this congressional statute overturned the earlier decision. (2 points)
Unhappy with the decision by the Supreme Court, Lily Ledbetter went on to work to defend fellow women from gender discrimination. The Lily Ledbetter went on to work to defend fellow women from discrimination based on gender. The 2009 Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act amended the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include discrimination based on gender, making businesses responsible for such discrimination on the grounds of gender, including the recovery of the back for pay for up to two years prior to filing the charges.
There have been several controversial Supreme Court decisions in the past 50 years that many people believe should be overturned. Select one of the three cases listed below, and write a one- or two-paragraph response explaining how the decision, in that case, could be overturned. In your response, be sure to briefly describe the background of the case and which of the three ways — congressional statute, constitutional amendment, or subsequent Supreme Court ruling — you believe would be the most probable way the decision could be reversed. This section is worth 18 points.
In the case of Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, Massachusettes
State, as well as several other states, asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to control carbon dioxide emissions and other toxic gasses that contribute to global warming from new motor vehicles. They argued that controlling these gases is an EPA responsibility under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act states that Congress must regulate pollutants and air pollutants that pose a threat to public health or war. The EPA rejected the petition by arguing that greenhouse gas emissions controls are not protected by the Clean Air Act. They then argued that the department was entitled to delay the decision until further research could be carried out on the effect of greenhouse gasses on climate change. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Massachusetts claiming they were entitled to sue for potential damage that could occur on their territory due to global warming. The court also ruled that greenhouse gas emissions are covered under the Clean Air Act and that the EPA could not postpone a policy-related decision. In this case, the decision could potentially be overturned if a case used the dissenting opinion of Justice Roberts arguing that potential harm to climate change is neither known nor imminent and therefore the EPA would not be liable or accountable for regulating greenhouse air emissions. We could also use the arguments in the dissent of Justice Scalia in which he notes that the Clean Air Act was designed to counter pollution
