ramifications supreme court case rostker v. goldberg?
105362
oh yeah that has a huge impact on everyday life
30333
The facts are set forth within the body of the Supreme Court's opinion here:\nhttp://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=403&invol=528
1113609
Yes,\nthat is their jobs.\nAs appeals go higher and higher the last word is the Supreme Court.\n\nImagine the Thousands of Constitutional case that get heard compared to the handful heard by the Supreme Court.\n\nSo yes.
168235
U.S. Supreme Court\nHAMMER v. DAGENHART\n 247 U.S. 251 (1918)\nDecided June 3, 1918.\n\nMr. Justice DAY delivered the opinion of the Court. \nA bill was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina by a father in his own behalf and as next friend of his two minor sons, one under the age of fourteen years and the other between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years, employes in a cotton mill at Charlotte, North Carolina, to enjoin the enforcement of the act of Congress intended to prevent interstate commerce in the products of child labor. Act Sept. 1, 1916, 39 Stat. 675.... \nThe attack upon the act rests upon three propositions: First: It is not a regulation of interstate and foreign commerce; second: It contravenes the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution; third: It conflicts with the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. \nThe controlling question for decision is: Is it within the authority of Congress in regulating commerce among the states to prohibit the transportation in interstate commerce of manufactured goods, the product of a factory in which, within thirty days prior to their removal therefrom, children under the age of fourteen have been employed or permitted to work, or children between the ages of fourteen and sixteen years have been employed or permitted to work more than eight hours in any day, or more than six days in any week, or after the hour of 7 o'clock p. m., or before the hour of 6 o'clock a. m.? \nThe power essential to the passage of this act, the government contends, is found in the commerce clause of the Constitution which authorizes Congress to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the states. \nIn Gibbons v. Ogdon, Chief Justice Marshall, speaking for this court, and defining the extent and nature of the commerce power, said, 'It is the power to regulate; that is, to prescribe the rule by which commerce is to be governed.' In other words, the power is one to control the means by which commerce is carried on, which is directly the contrary of the assumed right to forbid commerce from moving and thus destroying it as to particular commodities. But it is insisted that adjudged cases in this court establish the doctrine that the power to regulate given to Congress incidentally includes the authority to prohibit the movement of ordinary commodities and therefore that the subject is not open for discussion. The cases demonstrate the contrary. They rest upon the character of the particular subjects dealt with and the fact that the scope of governmental authority, state or national, possessed over them is such that the authority to prohibit is as to them but the exertion of the power to regulate.... \nIn each of these instances the use of interstate transportation was necessary to the accomplishment of harmful results. In other words, although the power over interstate transportation was to regulate, that could only be accomplished by prohibiting the use of the facilities of interstate commerce to effect the evil intended. \nThis element is wanting in the present case. The thing intended to be accomplished by this statute is the denial of the facilities of interstate commerce to those manufacturers in the states who employ children within the prohibited ages. The act in its effect does not regulate transportation among the states, but aims to standardize the ages at which children may be employed in mining and manufacturing within the states. The goods shipped are of themselves harmless. The act permits them to be freely shipped after thirty days from the time of their removal from the factory. When offered for shipment, and before transportation begins, the labor of their production is over, and the mere fact that they were intended for interstate commerce transportation does not make their production subject to federal control under the commerce power. \nCommerce 'consists of intercourse and traffic ... and includes the transportation
296890
a good source is the "find law" website http://www.findlaw.com/casecode/supreme.html
559494
"The case of Fare v. Michael C. the U.S. Supreme Court held that whether a juvenile's waiver of rights was voluntary and knowing depends on the totality of circumstances"\n\nYou can find information about FARE V. MICHAEL C. in the links below.
152268
Probably neither. Obviously the law would be in violation of the first amendment, and thus the court would have to analyize the law using strict scrutiny.
246185
The mass media will argue freedom of the press and 1st amendment towards any legislation that is designed to curb/controll the mass media.  Based on case law, they would win.
280232
Yes, but it doesn't happen terribly often.  \n\nStil, there are examples.  Gideon v. Wainwright, for instance, overturned Betts v. Brady in ruling that persons accused of felonies were entitled to the assistance of counsel in state courts.  That led directly to a whole line of cases characterized by Miranda v. Arizona about the rights of criminal defendants.\n\nBut the Supreme Court overturning itself is still by far the exception, rather than the rule.  It usually takes a significant change in the nature of the issue and facts presented, or a significant change in the court, or even the nation, before it happens.
98420
This was neither Conservative nor Liberal, it was Constitutional based relative to the VI Article of the Bill of Rights\n\nFacts of the Case \nGideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.\nQuestion Presented \nDid the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?\nConclusion \nIn a unanimous opinion, the Court held that Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney and, in doing so, overruled its 1942 decision of Betts v. Brady. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Black called it an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel. Those familiar with the American system of justice, commented Black, recognized that "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."\n\n************  \n\nTo the individual suggesting to boycott this question because it seems to be a homework question.  \n\nThat may or may not be true, but it is immaterial to the function of the Yahoo Question and Answer system.  People ask questions and others answer.  The motivation of asking (or answering) the questions aren’t important.  If someone is trying to do their homework through this system, they are the ultimate loser because they don’t do their own research.  It is their problem, not ours.
701403
What is the jurisdiction for this scenario?
756351
If the acts were unconstitutional they would be overturned by the Supreme Court.  The Court has already ruled that certain rights of prisoners of war must be considered.
16594
The moral issues you cited, by category, should be deemed lifestyle preferences. As a non-lawyer, but as someone who has studied law, my point of view of this issue is that the state should only intervene if there is demonstrable harm present. Some say it should be merely harm, or potential harm, but that will never wash in front of our Supreme Court.
267210
The Supreme Court reviews all acts,laws,and statutes,and case opinions both with the federal and state in the American legal system.If the Court feels that the situation is unconstitutional it has the power to void it out.The Courts decision is final and stands supreme.Read the Bill of Rights (the Constitution). There are only a few to read.If you don't have access to a book do a search on the internet.Good luck and happy hunting.You can download e-books to help you with other similar projects in this field.I use to hate learning about government but, now that I am older it is more interesting to learn.Especially now that I know that I can have a positive say in this world as to how it is run since ,government effects everybody sooner or later.We have to think about our future and making it better.I too am studying government except mine is with criminal justice and wanting to help teens.
585561
Yep. If someone files a public welfare petiotion on supreme court, supreme court can pass the ruling on it.
566003
check out this website for way more info, but the key point, very simply, is that this case set the precendent for the supreme court to have the power to decide if the ruling of another court (like a state supreme court) is in line with the u.s. constitution - this is the basic idea of judicial review.  so, for example, if a state court created a law saying that there was an oficial religion for that state, the supreme court could make that hear the case and rule that law null and void because it goes against the constitution.\n\nlike i said, you'll get way more info at this site, so don't just base your knowledge of what i've said, it's more in depth
82649
Is this the scary attempt to overturn our Supreme Court rulings?