Decisions. Number 759, bernies miranda, Petitioner Versus arizona. Number 218, roe v. Wade. The most famous decisions are once that the court took were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people, who helped stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening. Welcome to cspan in the National Constitution centers landmark cases. Our 12 part series looks at some of the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historical decisions over the course of our countrys history. We are going to be talking about a case you might not know much about, but by the and you understand why it is on our last. Its called the slaughterhouse cases, it was the first time that the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. Let me introduce you to our two guests, here to tell you about the history and importance of these cases. Paul clement s
Reach to change what for them was an exercise in arousing their own base so they could say we impeach donald trump. The democrats can pursue whatever policy they want. They dont dictate to me how best to bring us to the attention of the American People. But you can understand why your critics say why didnt he come forward before . Why is he making a profit on this now . It is nothing to do with making a profit. It is every thing do with making sure that the Constitutional Responsibilities that are accorded the different branches of government are carried out the right way. Host john bolton on abc news last night about his forthcoming book, the room where it happened. Again it is released martyr john bolton on a media tour this week expected to then Good Morning America this morning and other interviews throughout the week. Just another one posted last night at 10 p. M. Eastern just after that abc j news interview aired. This of usa today. It is their lead story today. Describes pinball
Powells pivotal vote in the case. Indeed, that reasoning flouted precedent at the time and has since been relegated to nothing more than an isolated relic of an abandoned doctrine. The states only defense in support of the judgment below is that the sixth amendment does not require unanimity at all, that is hnot in state courts or federal court. This court should reject that argument. As the court has said many times over many decades, the sixth amendment requires a unanimous verdict to convict. In particular, what the court has said is the sixth amendment right to try by jury carries with it the essentials of the common law. The common law authorities are uniform, explicit, and absolute. Unanimity is an absolute requirement to trial by jury. The reasons that the common law commentators gave for that rule resonate just as powerfully now as they did then. In a nutshell, were not prepared to take away somebody ice liberty unless a Cross Section of the community uniformly agrees criminal
Constitutionally required in, cases for federal and state courts. Evangelista ramos was convicted of seconddegree murder when only 10 of 12 jurors found him guilty. At that point under louisiana law unanimous juries were not required but since the louisiana has passed a law requiring unanimous juries but does not apply retroactively to his case. He was sentenced to life in prison without parole. The Louisiana Supreme Court denied him a review. This is about an hour. In case 185924, ramos versus louisiana. Mister fisher. Mister chief justice, may it please the court. This court reaffirmed the wellsettled rule that Incorporated Provisions of the bill of rights applied the same way to the state as they apply to the federal government. Taking that as a given the state does not defend Justice Powells pivotal vote. That flouted president at the time and since been relegated to nothing but isolated relic of an abandoned doctrine. The states only defense in support of the judgment below, the s
Last term in timbs against indiana this court reaffirmed the wellsettled rule that Incorporated Provisions of the bill of rights apply the same way to the states as they apply to the federal government. Taking that rule as they given, the state does not defend Justice Powell pivotal vote in the apodaca case. That we shouldnt flouted president at the time and is simply relegated to nothing more than isolated relic of an abandon doctrine. The states only defense in support of the judgment below is the sixth amendment does not require unanimity at all. That is not sick courts or in federal courts. This court should redact that argument because a court has said many times over many decades sixth amendment requires unanimous verdict to convict. In particular what the court has said is the sixth amendment right to trial by jury carries with it the essential common law and the, authorities are uniform, explicit, and absolute. Unanimity is an absolute requirement to trial by jury. The reasons