The word between your formulation and petitioners formulation that says this is substantive because it did away with mandatory life imprisonment . Youre articulating it slightly different. Tell me what you see as the difference and why your articulation. Justice sotomayor. I dont think there is substantive day light between. Petitioners use and ours. It meant in treating it as a category. I think sums up the reality of what is happening. We broke it out into its Component Parts because i think it facilitates the analysis of it to understand that miller does have a procedural component. Sentencing courts must now consider the mitigating characteristics of age. But it also and more fundamentally, in our view, contains a substantive component that required a change in the law. Now, the change here was expanding the range of outcomes. Previously when this court has analyzed substantive changes in the law there have been changes that restricted the form of outcomes, say, for example, in Jus
,atters of the constitution and the federal hay be as statute only applies in federal court. The federal habeas corpus can grant if relief is warranted. Says pleasee acknowledge we are holding a prisoner in contradiction of federal law that used to do nothing about it, then the answer is federal habeas corpus . Theres not a second answer the state can be required under the supremacy clause under its own procedures to enforce the federal law . If i were to take that position, im not sure what would support me. Martinez versus ryan suggested there are advantages to citing the federal hay be us statute the hay be a rather than what the court called a freestanding constitutional plan. A major advantage here is if you say the state courts are bound by the constitution, when it would go to federal hay be us, there would be a very efrin shall review. If you say the redress question in state court is a matter of when the issue goes to federal hay be us, it would not apply because the state cou
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 help stick together because they believe in a rule of law. Evening and welcome to cspan of the National Constitution landmark cases. Our 12 part series looks at some of the Supreme Courts most interesting and impactful historic decisions. Tonight, we are looking at a case you might not know very much about. Called the slaughterhouse cases. For the first time, the Supreme Court reviewed the newly enacted 14th amendment to the constitution. What we do use you to our guests. Let me introduce you to our guests. He has argued more than 75 cases before the Supreme Court. Paul, welcome. Michael is a legal historian and the author of a biography of a justice you are hearing about tonight. His home base is at the university of maryland. I will have you make the case to the audience. Why is this on our list . Why did the slaughterhouse cases matter . T
Would you be interested in being the chairman . Rep. Blackburn we have a great chairman and fred upton, and he is doing a great job. The lead to do is focus on getting some of the energy legislation, telik medications and internet legislation done this year, the privacy and Data Security bills. People want us to take action, you are not worried about personalities and leadership positions. Peter representative marsha blackburn, vice chair of the dnc committee. The washington journal. This is the communicators. Johnis week House Speaker boehner spoke about abortion decision of planned parenthood. Representative blackburn will serve as chair of the committee. Landmarknal series cases is next, with a look at the Supreme Courts 1873 decision in the slaughterhouse cases. Later this evening, we will be live from des moines, iowa. Is is quite unusual for me, but i do want to thank all of you for your friendship and your loyal support and for planning this wonderful evening for me. I shall mem
Let me introduce you to our guests. He has argued more than 75 cases before the Supreme Court. Paul, welcome. Michael is a legal historian and the author of a biography of a justice you are hearing about tonight. I will have you make the case to the audience. Why is this on our list . Why did the slaughterhouse cases matter . This case belongs in any list of great Landmark Supreme Court cases and it is the first opportunity the Supreme Court has to interpret the 14th amendment and the reason that is so important is the 14th amendment is what essentially takes big erin t of the bill of rights eventually and constraints the actions of State Government and if you think about the bill of rights, all of them by their terms were designed to restrict the federal government. It is really only at the point that we go through a civil war were people realize its not just a federal government they have to be concerned about but State Governments. There is a process of adding the 13th, 14th, and 13