This passage resulted from which Supreme Court decision?

Explain 3 court cases that passed through the Supreme Court in the 1960’s and their implications.
Photo provided by Flickr

Hardwick United States Supreme Court Opinion This case, Bowers v.

The issue, however, is not whether court rules are mutable; they assuredly are. It is not whether, in the light of various circumstances, they can be modified; they assuredly can. The issue is whether, as mutated and modified, they must make sense. The requirement that they do so is the only thing that prevents this court from being some sort of nine-headed Caesar, giving thumbs-up or thumbs-down to whatever outcome, case by case, suits or offends its collective fancy. And if confessions procured in violation of Miranda are confessions compelled in violation of the Constitution, the post-Miranda decisions I have discussed do not make sense. The only reasoned basis for their outcome was that a violation of Miranda is not a violation of the Constitution. If, for example, as the court acknowledges was the holding of Elstad, the traditional fruits doctrine developed in Fourth Amendment cases (that the fruits of evidence obtained unconstitutionally must be excluded from trial) does not apply to the fruits of Miranda violations; and if the reason for the difference is not that Miranda violations are not constitutional violations (which is plainly and flatly what Elstad said); then the court must come up with some other explanation for the difference. (That will take quite a bit of doing, by the way, since it is not clear on the face of the Fourth Amendment that evidence obtained in violation of that guarantee must be excluded from trial, whereas it is clear on the face of the Fifth Amendment that unconstitutionally compelled confessions cannot be used.) . . .

Wade In 1973 the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Roe V.
Photo provided by Pexels

Supreme Court in the case of McCarver v.

— Mapp v. Ohio (1961), was a landmark case in criminal procedure, in which the United States Supreme Court decided that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures," may not be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts, as well as federal courts.

Task: Select two Supreme Court cases that have affected American society.
Photo provided by Flickr

Theme: Constitutional Principles
United States Supreme Court cases have dealt with a variety of important issues that have affected American society.

The Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction....
Photo provided by Flickr


Special Supreme Court Committee on Capital Cases

It is simply no longer possible for the court to conclude, even if it wanted to, that a violation of Miranda's rules is a violation of the Constitution. But as I explained at the outset, that is what is required before the court may disregard a law of Congress governing the admissibility of evidence in federal court. The court today insists that the decision in Miranda is a ''constitutional'' one; that it has ''constitutional underpinnings,'' a ''constitutional basis'' and a ''constitutional origin''; that it was ''constitutionally based''; and that it announced a ''constitutional rule.'' It is fine to play these word games; but what makes a decision ''constitutional'' in the only sense relevant here -- in the sense that renders it impervious to supersession by Congressional legislation such as 3501 -- is the determination that the Constitution requires the result that the decision announces and the statute ignores. By disregarding Congressional action that concededly does not violate the Constitution, the court flagrantly offends fundamental principles of separation of powers, and arrogates to itself prerogatives reserved to the representatives of the people.

Important Supreme Court Cases Flashcards | Quizlet

As the court today acknowledges, since Miranda we have explicitly, and repeatedly, interpreted that decision as having announced, not the circumstances in which custodial interrogation runs afoul of the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendment, but rather only prophylactic rules that go beyond the right against compelled self-incrimination. Of course the seeds of this prophylactic interpretation of Miranda were present in the decision itself. In subsequent cases, the seeds have sprouted and borne fruit: The court has squarely concluded that it is possible -- indeed not uncommon -- for the police to violate Miranda without also violating the Constitution. . . .

Start studying Important Supreme Court Cases

You may use any appropriate Supreme Court case from your study of United States history. Some suggestions you might wish to consider include Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), Schenck v. United States (1919), Korematsu v. United States (1944), Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), Miranda v. Arizona (1966), Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969), or New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985).