what does the due process of law have to do with united states v. nixon and miranda v. wade?
361411
Good question, no answer, but good question.
460158
I think you mean United States v. Nixon (Richard Nixon)\n\nnot.\nNixon v. United States is a different case. (Walter Nixon)\n\nSearch for "United States v. Nixon" precedent turn up the following:\n\nCheney v. United States Dist. Court\nHohn v. Unites States. 524 US 236 (1998)\nTrammel v. United States 445 US40 (1980)
357955
The American Court System is an offshoot of Englands. However, we made some important changes. For example in England there were two differant sets of rules and law for those who were Aristocrates and those who were not. We saw this as inherently unfair. We changed it to make everybody equal under the law. Well we are trying to do this. \n\nWe also made laws which resulted in the Miranda Rights. To be free of arrest without basis or warrent, to be allowed an attorney, to be allowed to not incriminate ourselves, to be allowed an attorney, to be free from abusive and undully long interogation, etc. We are read these rights when arrested and if they are not read what we say can not be held against us and usually result in cases getting thrown out of court. The police are very carefull to read individuals these rights.\n\nI will not go into how these can be abused as well. Any Justice System will not be perfect. For example: While we are provided an attorney if we can not afford one, that attorney probably does not have the ability to give as good a defense as one we pay for ourselves. This is due to how overworked public defenders are, The fact they are paid from the same source as the prosocution, and have much more limited resources to defend us with.\n\nThere is a much higher rate of the poor going to jail than those who are more financial able to attain the best defense possibe.\n\nDid you know that an innocent person can be bankrupt durring a trail? That if found innocent or not guilty they do not receive a refund of their attorney costs? I find this wrong. I understand it would be difficult to refund every persons attorney fees if not found quilty. But if it was a requirment then less hasty arrests would occurr as police made double sure they had a good case. It would benifit our justice system if this were a requirement as less arrests without real probable cause would occurr and people who were innocent would not unfairly lose all their money just defending against wrongfully brought charges. We would also be much more inclined to get back to the belief of "innocent untill proven guilty" instead of the current trend of "guily untill proven innocent".\n\nWhile in theory we are considered innocent untill proven guilty, those who get arrested are really assummed to be guilty or they would not have been arrested in the first place. While this is simply untrue, basically this is what society and the press believes now.\n\nI kind of got off track here, sorry. I really do belive our justice system is better than most in the world. Like I said earlier, no justice system can be perfect.\n\nWe took much of our justice system from the "common law" of England. From there we "improved" upon it, untill we are where we are today. Hope this helps in some small way.
184574
Actually, is can be either pro se OR pro per.  Pro per is the more common usage and is short for the Latin phrase In Propria Persona.\n\nIn California, your ability to amend depends on a number of actors such as how far along the case is and what type of amendment you require.  If none of the defendants have appeared in the action, you have the right to file an amended complaint once without court permission.  If defendants have responded, then you need court permission and a motion may be necessary.\n\nYou might also be talkinga bout a "doe" amendment.  A "doe" defendant is like placeholder used when you do not the names of all of the potentially responsaible parties when the lawsuit is filed,  Doe amendments can be filed at almost anytime until they are dismissed by the court.  This is usually done at a case management conference when the trial date is set.  Adding defendants after their dismissal requires court permission.
461205
You can file a motion for dismissal on the grounds that the defendant's right to due process has been violated, but this is something that is really best left to an attorney.\n\nIt is extremely rare that a motion for dismissal filed by someone representing him/herself is successful.
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.
836582
If there is enough evidence, the jury can already made a decision declaring the accused as guilt.\n\nBarring illegals from  work and school is not violative of the constitution because the state has the right to regulate immigration as a valid exercise of police power.\n\nThe state has the right to abolish abortion if it deems that it is against morals, public policy and the laws.
7486
The Governor was elected through due process in accordance with the laws of the state.    \n\nThe citizen was convicted through the legal system.\n\nThe Governor did not make the decision to convict the citizen, a jury did.  There were many unsuccessful appeals that followed the original decision.  The Governor is basically the 'last' appeal in a very lengthy process.\n\nThe Governor did not feel he could intervene, for the reasons he stated in his decision.  The Governor is ultimately accountable to the people for his decisions.\n\nFor all of the faults of the system, it is at least open to scrutiny and challenge.  Not many in the world laugh at that.
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.
923306
FOURTH AMENDMENT [U.S. Constitution] - 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.'\nprobably not. it all depends on the skill of the prosecutor, and the strength of their evidence. if it's a constitutional issue (which 4th amendment is) you'll need to hire a separate constitutional lawyer (believe it or not, hillary clinton is one of the best!) to address the constitutionality of the point in case. any more ?'s, just ask. "i ain't passed the bar but i know a little bit.....enough that you won't illegally search my shit."  - jay z
660307
Dear Friend,\n\nThe principal of legality applies as a defense to criminal prosecution.  Legality requires as necessary preconditions to criminal prosecution:  (1) that the act in question have been specifically prohibited by published criminal law, (2) that such prohibition was in effect before the alleged actions of the defendant, and (3) that the punishment sought was specifically provided for in that published prohibition.  If any of these preconditions are not met, the defendant cannot be prosecuted.  Due process requires that you at least have a chnace to know the laws with which you're supposed to comply.\n\nYour Friend,\nFrancesois
547146
The decision in Miranda v. Arizona (1966) essentially is that any time a person is in custody and subject to interrogation, the police must apprise the person of his rights, or the statements are inadmissible in court.
42919
comes from Marbury v. Madison.  It gave the court the right to decide the constitutionality of a law
1040621
The due process of law must prevail. They can be let off if nothing comes out of the investigation. However in these troubled times no chances can be taken since lo is at stake.
1073901
The 4th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States;\n\nThe right of the people to be secure in thier persons, house, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.\n\nThats how it reads, however it has been left to interpretation by any number of authorities. In my interpretation probable cause was required to obtain a warrant in order to search , not cause for search.......\n\nHowever there have been so many other changes to our Constitution that the original bill of rights is mostly just a memory, and has been used and abused by the crooked, the greedy and the power hungry for too long\n\nVOTE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION....\nso that "We the People" can retake our country and reinstate our freedoms\n\nPeace to all...now more than ever...
907207
When is this due? How long does it have to be? And if you had help on it would it help you understand this any better? \n\nMarbury v. Madison, is a landmark case in United States law and the basis for the exercise of judicial review of Federal statutes by the United States Supreme Court under Article Three of the United States Constitution.\n\nThe case resulted from a petition to the Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia by President John Adams shortly before leaving office, but whose commission was not delivered as required by John Marshall, Adams's Secretary of State. When Thomas Jefferson assumed office, he ordered the new Secretary of State, James Madison to withhold Marbury's and several other mens' commissions. Marbury and three others petitioned the Court to force Madison to deliver the commission to Marbury. The case was ultimately unsuccessful for Marbury, who never became a Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia.\n\nThere is a lot more, but basically this states the whole premise of judicial review by the federal courts. \n\nCheck Wikipedia, and Compton's Encyclopedia, or any other good encyclopedia. Just don't plagarize, that is, don't use the article word for word. Change it enough so that you are telling it in your own words, that's what narrative means. You are telling the story, not using someone else's words to tell the story. \n\nDoes that help? I believe by the time you get through, you will understand what the prof is asking. I wish I could write this for you, but I can't.
764780
It effects the rights to due process and without it the government becomes to powerful as dissenters can be sent to jail and never be heard from again. If you think about it this way if they could have done it when we broke away from England then we still would be owing allegiance to the Queen.