Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg believes copyright laws are violated by a company if its software is primarily used for illegal file sharing and legal use is unlikely in the future. Justice Stephen Breyer does not want copyright laws to hinder technological innovation and is more willing to consider the possible use of the software for legal file sharing. Judge Anthony Kennedy argues that a recent state law criminalizing being an undocumented immigrant in Arizona undermines the U.S. federal government`s power to regulate immigration. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that it is not unconstitutional for a state to supplement U.S. federal immigration law with its own tougher penalties for illegal immigration. The Taking Sides on McGraw-Hill Create® collection includes controversial current topics in the form of debate designed to engage students and develop critical thinking skills. This collection contains a variety of current and classic editions to enhance and customize your course. You can browse the entire Taking Sides collection under Create or search by topic, author, or keywords.
Each issue of Taking Pages is reflected with learning outcomes, a summary of the problem, an introduction and an “Exploring the Question” section with critical thinking and reflection, Are There Similarities?, additional resources and Internet references. Access the Taking Sides collection on McGraw-Hill Create® in www.mcgrawhillcreate.com/takingsides and click “Explore this collection” to browse the entire collection. Select individual Taking Sides topics to enhance your course, or access the entire Katsh, Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Legal Issues, 18/e-book here create.mheducation.com/createonline/index.html#qlink=search%2Ftext%3Disbn:125988368X for a simple, out-of-the-box educational resource. Visit create.mheducation.com for more information on McGraw Hill`s other titles and special collections. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O`Connor notes that congressional authorization to use military force does not permit the indefinite detention of a person considered an “enemy combatant.” Justice Clarence Thomas ruled that the detention of an “enemy combatant” was permissible under the federal government`s war powers. Problem: Does the Fourth Amendment prohibit police from taking a DNA sample from a person who has been arrested but has not yet been convicted of a felony? The Justice Department argues that the Constitution gives the president the right to conduct electronic surveillance, with or without congressional approval or judicial oversight. He further asserts that President Bush`s National Security Agency (NSA) wiretapping program does not violate federal law, particularly the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), since this surveillance is part of the military response to the 9/11 attacks, which was authorized by Congress. Several lawyers with constitutional law expertise or experience in the federal government argue that the NSA`s wiretap program violates FISA and the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
They further argue that the president does not have the inherent power to conduct warrantless wiretapping or violate federal laws limiting such surveillance. Judge Anthony Kennedy ruled that using a cheek swab to take a person`s DNA during post-arrest treatment was a reasonable Fourth Amendment search because it was primarily used to confirm the inmate`s identity. Justice Antonin Scalia argues that collecting DNA at the time of arrest is inappropriate research because the DNA profile of the arrested person is primarily used to investigate unrelated crimes. Problem: Is a high school student search patrol looking for drugs prohibited by the Fourth Amendment? Yes: Anthony Kennedy, of “Majority Opinion, Donald P. Roper, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center, Petitioner v. Christopher Simmons”, U.S. Supreme Court (2005) Question: Is it unconstitutional for states to detain undocumented immigrants?. Yes: U.S. Department of Justice, from “Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President,” U.S.
Department of Justice (2006) Former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, William H. Rehnquist, wrote one of six unanimous court opinions in Washington v. Glucksberg ruled that while patients have the right to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment, “physician-assisted suicide” is not constitutionally protected, and states can prohibit the practice. Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who wrote the majority opinion in the Ninth District case, Washington v. Glucksberg argued, when he reached the U.S. Supreme Court, that criminalizing medical assistance to expedite the deaths of competent, terminally ill patients seeking life orders violated the due process clause of the Constitution. From Survey to Academic Writing: A Text and Reader Problem: Does the Constitution`s Commerce Clause Allow Congress to require uninsured people to purchase health insurance? Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Constitution prohibits the execution of a person under the age of 18 at the time of the crime.
Sed non elit aliquam, tempor nisl vitae, euismod quam. Nulla et lacus lectus. Nunc sed tincidunt arcu. Nam maximus luctus nunc, in ullamcorper turpis luctus ac. Morbi a leo ut metus mollis facilisis. Integer feugiat dictum dolor id egestas. Interdum et malesuada fames ac ante ipsum primis in faucibus.