Was Brown v. Board case more binding or persuasive authority upon the states? why?
145726
Actually Brown vs. Board was THE case that the Supreme Court used to establish federal authority over state authority. If you would like more information read the first 3 chapters of "Law 101" by Jay M. Feinman. Excellent book.
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
236252
If a judge renders an opinion on an issue that does not directly relate to the issue before him or her, the opinion on that issue is called dicta. While that opinion is not binding, it could be pursuasive to other judges. Should judges be allowed to express their opinions? Sure.\n\nGenerally, judges can do whatever they want.
684118
(Job interviews?  Wow.)\n\nThe power to remove a state can be viewed in two ways: as the power to punish a state for betraying the ideals of our republic, or as the power to reward a state for being capable of existing as an economically viable, independent, democratic nation.  I believe a strong case for both can be made for California.\n\nThe state of California is symbolic of what many people feel are the worst aspects of America.  Hollywood's movies are violent and sexually permissive and have the effect of "dumbing down" the populace; homosexuality runs rampant in many California cities; immigrants of all shapes and shades inhabit the state.  Many Americans abhor all of these aspects of California and, I suspect, more than a few of them would jettison the state if given the opportunity to do so.\n\nGiven the negative opinion of California by much of the rest of the nation, perhaps we should do the state a favor and remove it from the Union.  If California were an independent country it would have one of the ten most productive economies in the world (measured by GDP).  It boasts ample farmland, and I feel its human diversity is a strength, not a weakness.  The U.S. needs California more than California needs the U.S.  My only reservation would be the state of California's government, which has been hijacked by money-to-burn ideologues on both sides of the aisle and which I would not trust to run an independent country.
579552
There are two things that are often referred to as the doctrine of nullification.  The first of these occurred before the civil war, where some states (not just in the South) claimed that they had the authority to make a federal law invalid within their own state.  In other words, they just "nullified" it as it applied within the state.  The "supremacy clause" of the Constitution is pretty clear that  federal law is the supreme law of the land, but nullification advocates claimed that the only protection agains unconstitutional actions by the Federal government was to nullify the laws they disagreed with.  The Civil War put an end to that argument.\n\nThe other kind of nullification is usually referred to as "jury nullification." It occurs when a jury refuses to convict an accused person, because they disagree with the law as written.  It has a long history, going back in the United States to before there was a United States.  Colonial juries often refused to convict fellow colonists who were accused by the British of smuggling. (Smuggling was a way of avoiding the heavy taxes the British imposed.)  This infuriated people back in London.  In response, the government there tried to crack down on the colonial governments.  And the more they did that, the more we moved toward revolution.\n\nMore recently, there have been highly publicized trials where the juries came out with acquittals that "everyone" knew were wrong.  During the early days of the civil rights movement, a lot of southern juries refused to confict Klansman and other white people who killed or intimidated blacks demanding their rights.  And more recently, a great many people believe that O. J. Simpson acquittal was based on the jury's outrage at police misconduct rather than because they believed he didn't do the crime.\n\nAlthough jury nullification has probably been around ever since there were juries, no state or federal jury is "allowed" to do it.  Lawyers may not argue to the jury that they have the right to nullify the law as written, and the judge always tells them that they *have* to follow the law regardless of their individual opinions of it.  But once those twelve people close the door on the deliberation room, they have all the power and they can do pretty much whatever they think is just.
465804
To illiminate controversy between the state(s) and federal gov't.
287055
It was a supreme court case, Brown v. Board of Education (I'm assuming you mean in schools), and basically the supreme court unanimously ruled that it's unconstitutional to segregate schools based on race. This also provided a strong precedent in overturning other segregation.
834221
Well, each state had to ratify the Constitution before it became effective. So, the debates in each state determined whether the state supported it or not.\n\nSurely, you're looking for something more specific than that.
727376
the founders didn't' trust the populace to make informed decisions about things, and they also did not want the Supreme Court to be a political position. As it is, the Supreme Court is immune to politics while in session so they can make a fair judgment.  If politics entered into the equation, the constitution would not be interpreted accurately, but according to political expediency.
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
493539
People want to simplify and categorize things... black and white, Republican and Democrat, right and wrong... but it's not always that simple... extenuating circumstances always exist, for every action there is a cause... I think the causes must be examined in every circumstance... \n\nPeople don't like gray, but that's what most of everything out there is... it's a world of gray inhabited by people who only want to see in black and white\n\nI think it's getting better, I mean this is why we have judges, to see the sides of the issue that are outside of the law and to take those into account... do all judges to a good job, probably not, but I would rather be in the justice system now, than 100 years ago... it seems we're getting better slowly, but better... and it's not always an easy thing to do...\n\nBut the court of public opinion often is a very dangerous one... and should be dealt with very cautiously... if the majority of people think one thing, that doesn't mean it's wrong, but it also doesn't mean it's right... and odds are it means it deserves more inspection...
41619
During the proceedings themselves? That is not possible.  Only a higher court can over rule a court, and that's only if they agree to hear the case in the first place.  Many superior courts will turn cases back claiming juristiction issues, and the Supreme Court rejects cases almost routinely, as few cases rise to the level of a true challenge to current interpretations of the Constitution.
1054416
Do you mean Brown v. Board of Education? That was a unianimous opinion: there is no dissenting opinion.
973772
Hell no. Remember that during the segregation era, southern states hindered the advancement of equality by declaring they were "sovereign states" and didn't had to obey federal law. I support states rights to some limit and I think when states conflict with federal government then we are in trouble.
180788
Absolutely. We already have two of the three branches elected (more or less) by the public, they provide an adequate check against the judiciary.\n\nThe problem with making the courts public is that the public is slow to change. Many important decisions would have been delayed by years, if not decades, if the courts had been elected.\n\nExamples : Roe v Wade (allowing abortion), Brown v. Board of education (end of segregation in schools), Lawrence v. Texas (decriminalizing sodomy).\n\nThe legislative and executive branches are elected by the public, and tend to represent the majority. Since the judiciary is often not, they tend to be more receptive to the needs of the minorities (non-Christians, women, children, African-Americans, gays, etc).\n\nRegarding Kelo : The SCOTUS merely ruled that local government can take private property for public use (with compensation, as mentioned in the Fifth Amendment). But the people still have the decision to vote for public officials who would choose not to do this.
216077
Federal laws overrides state law which overrides local law as long as the higher law does not touch areas that are exclusively regulated by the lower levels. \nA school board cannot override either "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964" or "New Jersey Law Against Discrimination", but depending on the situation these laws might not be applicable. If federal and state law do not agree on a specific case it might make sense to ask the courts which one is applicable and to challenge the other.
181146
The decision was based on the 14th amendment.  The case was Afroyim vs. Rusk and details can be found at:\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroyim_v._Rusk