Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
welcome
FOR wikispaces, go to http://norwenglish.wikispaces.com
Even though the chances of somebody going into your blog are quite slim, there is always the possibility that someone out there will read what you have written. It is much more fun that just writing to the teacher.
Even though the chances of somebody going into your blog are quite slim, there is always the possibility that someone out there will read what you have written. It is much more fun that just writing to the teacher.
About Me
- Inger Langseth
- Trondheim, Sør-Trøndelag, Norway
- Je suis professeur de francais langue étrangère au lycée Brundalen à Trondheim. J'enseigne aussi la didactique francaise à l'Université de Trondheim, NTNU.
Luncheon
Norwegian
6 comments:
The Supreme Courtdecides on state matters!
the Supreme Court has decreed that the death penalty for those under the arbitrary age of 18 is "cruel and unusual punishment". Their reasoning: "most states" (3/5ths) don't allow juvenile execution and that "the trend" is to abolish the practice.
I hope that this country will end this practise.
The 1954 United States Supreme Court decision in Brown vs the Board of Education of Topeka is among the most significant cases. It dismantled the legal basis for racial segregation in schools and other public facilities.
By declaring that the discriminatory nature of racial segregation ... "violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees all citizens equal protection of the laws," Brown v. Board of Education laid the foundation for shaping future national and international policies regarding human rights.(Source Internet http://brownvboard.org/summary)
Federal troops were sent down south in order to protect the colored students.
In 1968 members of sportsman clubs and gun dealers brouht and action to declare unconstitutional the state's gun-control law. Conjuring up an image of "political assassinations, killings of enforcement officers, and snipings during riots," the court expressed exaggerated fears of a revolution. The New Jersey Supreme Court restricted the definition of militia to "the active, organized militias of the states," that is, the National Guard. The court's very use of these adjectives to modify the word "militia" ignores the constitutional militia comprised of all persons capable of bearing arms.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndsup.html
"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of United States
1964
Background
This is a civil suit in which the plaintiff (Sullivan) is a city official in charge of the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The defendant was a newspaper (the New York Times) that had published an advertisement that had criticized the manner in which the police department had handled several civil rights protests. Sullivan alleged that he had been libeled by statements in the ad that were critical of the police. Defendants admitted that some of the statements contained in the ad were not accurate descriptions of events which had occurred in Montgomery, but argued that their statements were protected by the first amendment.
Facts of Legal Standpoint
1. This was an advertisement in question protected by the 1st and 14th amendments.
2. This was a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to assess damages in this case."
"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of United States
1964
Background
This is a civil suit in which the plaintiff (Sullivan) is a city official in charge of the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The defendant was a newspaper (the New York Times) that had published an advertisement that had criticized the manner in which the police department had handled several civil rights protests. Sullivan alleged that he had been libeled by statements in the ad that were critical of the police. Defendants admitted that some of the statements contained in the ad were not accurate descriptions of events which had occurred in Montgomery, but argued that their statements were protected by the first amendment.
Facts of Legal Standpoint
1. This was an advertisement in question protected by the 1st and 14th amendments.
2. This was a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to assess damages in this case."
"New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
Supreme Court of United States
1964
Background
This is a civil suit in which the plaintiff (Sullivan) is a city official in charge of the police department in Montgomery, Alabama. The defendant was a newspaper (the New York Times) that had published an advertisement that had criticized the manner in which the police department had handled several civil rights protests. Sullivan alleged that he had been libeled by statements in the ad that were critical of the police. Defendants admitted that some of the statements contained in the ad were not accurate descriptions of events which had occurred in Montgomery, but argued that their statements were protected by the first amendment.
Facts of Legal Standpoint
1. This was an advertisement in question protected by the 1st and 14th amendments.
2. This was a violation of the 1st and 14th amendments to assess damages in this case."
Bjørn.
Post a Comment