Schenk starting from 1918, can be convicted with arime under the espionage act of 1917. And that the First Amendment isnt absolute. And then 9 30, from the 1934 case, holding the internment camps dont violate the constitution as they were needed in world war ii. Watch landmark cases tonight, on cspan three or anytime on cspan. Org. All persons having business for the Supreme Court are required to give their attention. Landmark cases, cspan special history series, produced in collaboration with the constitutional center. 12 historiciz Supreme Court decisions. Number 759. Petitioner. Well hear arguments from number 18. Quite often in our most famous decisions, the court took unpopular decisions. 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 to stick together because they believe in the rule of law. Good evening and welcome to cspan the landmark cases. Our series explores 12 landm
Affirmative action under the constitution. And then the legacy of those decisions. Youre watching American History tv on cspan three. The u. S. Supreme court today ruled that the Death Penalty does not necessarily represent cruel and unusual punishment, and that i can be a deterrent to crime. By seven to two, the judges upheld the Death Penalty in florida georgia and texas, other states may be affected in this similar way. But about five to four, the court struck down Capital Punishment laws and and louisiana. That ruling could prevent still other states from invoking their own Death Penalty laws. All persons having business before the honorable, the Supreme Court of the United States are admonished to drawn their and give their attention. Landmark cases, spends special history series, produced in partnership with the National Constitution center. Exploring the human stories and constitutional dramas behind 12 historic Supreme Court decisions. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court
Authority the da has under state law as to the president , the Second Circuit is wrong and should be reversed. If not reversed the decision weapon isis 2300 local das, overwhelming number of them elected to office and thereby accountable to local constituencies. The decision would allow any da to distract and interfere with a sitting president , subjects the president a local prejudice that can influence prosecutorial decisions and the grand jury can be utilized issue compulsory criminal process in the form of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not mere speculation. It is precisely what has taken place in this case with the subpoena we challenge. In the argument just concluded we asserted the subpoenas did not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome. Yet the da copy almost verbatim the House Oversight Committee Subpoena with an additional 13 words which seek the president s tax returns without revealing the exact same language utilized by two congressional co
Cspan, created by americas Cable Television companies as a Public Service and brought to you today by your Cable Television provider. Today, the u. S. Supreme court handed down rulings regarding access to President Trumps finances. In a 72 vote, justices ruled the Manhattan District Attorney connexus President Trumps financial records including tax returns. The court also ruled 72 to send back to lower courts a case concerning congressional subpoenas for President Trumps financial records. Read those decisions at cspan. Org. Up next, hear the oral argument case,e trump versus mass which deals with the Manhattan District Attorney getting access to trumps financial records. Argument next in versus 635, donald trump cyrus. Chief justice. R. May it please the court. No county District Attorney in our history has issued a criminal process against a sitting president , and for good reason. The constitution does not allow it. Immunity president ial is required by article to end accordingly, t
Argument next in versus 635, donald trump cyrus. Chief justice. R. May it please the court. No County District attorney in our history has issued a criminal process against a sitting president , and for good reason. The constitution does not allow it. Immunity president ial is required by article to end accordingly, the supremacy clause that beats any authority the da has under state law as to the president. The Second Circuit is wrong. If not reversed, the decision weaponizes 2300 local das. An overwhelming number are elected in their fight accountable to constituents and thereby accountable to constituents. This would allow any da to harass the president and subject the president to prejudice, and state rent juries could issue compulsory process is in the forms of subpoenas targeting the president. This is not speculation, it is what has taken place in this case and the subpoena we challenged. We assert the subpoena does not serve a legitimate legislative purpose and were burdensome.