Various CasesVarious Cases In re Gault (1967)In re Gault (1967)

DC v. Heller (2008)DC v. Heller (2008)

Bush v. Gore(2000)Bush v. Gore(2000)

In re GaultIn re Gault Gerald Gault, age 15, was taken into police custody with Ronald Gerald Gault, age 15, was taken into police custody with Ronald

Lewis, a friend of his, on Monday, June 8, 1964. Neither of Gerald’s Lewis, a friend of his, on Monday, June 8, 1964. Neither of Gerald’s parents were home at the time this police action was taken. The parents were home at the time this police action was taken. The police left no notice at the home, and the parents were not notified police left no notice at the home, and the parents were not notified that Gerald had been taken into custody and brought to a juvenile that Gerald had been taken into custody and brought to a juvenile detention center.detention center.

The police action was taken on the basis of a neighbor’s complaint The police action was taken on the basis of a neighbor’s complaint that Gerald had made obscene remarks to her over the telephone. At that Gerald had made obscene remarks to her over the telephone. At that time, Gerald was serving a six-month probation for having been that time, Gerald was serving a six-month probation for having been with another boy who had stolen a wallet.with another boy who had stolen a wallet.

The police didn’t tell his parents he was arrested, and the parents The police didn’t tell his parents he was arrested, and the parents were not properly informed of the charges, location/time/reason for were not properly informed of the charges, location/time/reason for court hearings.court hearings.

In re GaultIn re Gault Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the same rights as adults Supreme Court ruled that juveniles had the same rights as adults

when facing criminal charges, and allowed for more restrictions on when facing criminal charges, and allowed for more restrictions on law enforcement in some cases.law enforcement in some cases.

In Florida, parents have to be contacted before interviewing a In Florida, parents have to be contacted before interviewing a juvenile in a Life Felony (armed robbery, sex crime, homicide)juvenile in a Life Felony (armed robbery, sex crime, homicide)

In Florida, (and most states), if a juvenile asks for a In Florida, (and most states), if a juvenile asks for a parent/guardian before or during an interview, the interview must parent/guardian before or during an interview, the interview must stop until a parent arrives.stop until a parent arrives.

IF YOU GET ARRESTED, ASK TO SEE YOUR PARENTS IF YOU GET ARRESTED, ASK TO SEE YOUR PARENTS BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO A DETECTIVE. LET THEM HELP BEFORE YOU SPEAK TO A DETECTIVE. LET THEM HELP YOU DECIDE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD SEEK YOU DECIDE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU SHOULD SEEK LEGAL COUNSEL.LEGAL COUNSEL.

District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)(2008)

The FactsThe Facts

In 1976 the District of Columbia, concerned with the high levels of In 1976 the District of Columbia, concerned with the high levels of gun-related crime, passed the nation’s most restrictive gun control gun-related crime, passed the nation’s most restrictive gun control ordinance. The law essentially banned the private possession of ordinance. The law essentially banned the private possession of handguns. Shotguns and rifles could be owned, but only if the handguns. Shotguns and rifles could be owned, but only if the weapons were registered, kept unloaded, and disassembled or weapons were registered, kept unloaded, and disassembled or restricted by trigger locks. The law allowed the chief of police, under restricted by trigger locks. The law allowed the chief of police, under certain circumstances, to issue a one-year certificate to carry a certain circumstances, to issue a one-year certificate to carry a handgun. handgun.

Dick Heller, a D.C. police officer, had been granted a license to carry a Dick Heller, a D.C. police officer, had been granted a license to carry a handgun while on duty providing security at the Federal Judicial handgun while on duty providing security at the Federal Judicial Center. Heller applied for permission to own a handgun for self-Center. Heller applied for permission to own a handgun for self-defense, but he was refused. Claiming that the District’s statute defense, but he was refused. Claiming that the District’s statute violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms, Heller brought a violated his Second Amendment right to bear arms, Heller brought a suit against the city.suit against the city.

22ndnd Amendment Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free

State, the right of the people to

keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)(2008)

An Individual RightAn Individual Right

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the 5-4 majority opinion, striking down the DC law Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the 5-4 majority opinion, striking down the DC law and declaring a right to own handguns for self-defense in the home.and declaring a right to own handguns for self-defense in the home.

The Court engaged in both a textual and historical analysis of the 2The Court engaged in both a textual and historical analysis of the 2ndnd Amendment. Amendment. Scalia explained:Scalia explained:

the “right of the people” means an individual right as it is used elsewhere in the the “right of the people” means an individual right as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution;Constitution;

““arms” applies “to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were arms” applies “to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity” hence, non-military weapons are protected;not employed in a military capacity” hence, non-military weapons are protected;

““to keep arms” means “to retain… to have in custody… to hold; to retain in one’s power to keep arms” means “to retain… to have in custody… to hold; to retain in one’s power or possession”or possession”

““bear” means to “carry” for a purpose – confrontation.bear” means to “carry” for a purpose – confrontation. Scalia concluded that in an era when there was no standing U.S. Army, everyone Scalia concluded that in an era when there was no standing U.S. Army, everyone

understood the right to keep and bear arms as an individual one in case a militia understood the right to keep and bear arms as an individual one in case a militia was necessary to fight oppressors if order broke down.was necessary to fight oppressors if order broke down.

““Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. This meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second meaning is strongly confirmed by the historical background of the Second Amendment. Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)(2008)

Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the dissent.Justice John Paul Stevens, wrote the dissent. He explained that the 2He explained that the 2ndnd Amendment was passed as a Amendment was passed as a

response to fears that “Congress would disarm state response to fears that “Congress would disarm state militias and create a national standing army.” Stevens militias and create a national standing army.” Stevens said that it has nothing to do with regulating private said that it has nothing to do with regulating private civilian use of firearms and does not enshrine the civilian use of firearms and does not enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Hence, the right to keep and bear arms is for military Hence, the right to keep and bear arms is for military purposes. Congress may regulate civilian use.purposes. Congress may regulate civilian use.

““Even if the textual and historical arguments on both Even if the textual and historical arguments on both sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the sides of the issue were evenly balanced, respect for the well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, well-settled views of all of our predecessors on this Court, and for the rule of law itself would prevent most jurists and for the rule of law itself would prevent most jurists from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law. . . .”from endorsing such a dramatic upheaval in the law. . . .”

““Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new regulated militia. The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes upsets that purposes upsets that settled understanding.”settled understanding.” (emphasis added by me)(emphasis added by me)

McDonald v. Chicago McDonald v. Chicago (2010)(2010) In In McDonald v. Chicago McDonald v. Chicago (2010) the Court (2010) the Court

ruled 5-3 that the 2ruled 5-3 that the 2ndnd Amendment right to Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense applies keep and bear arms for self-defense applies to state and local governments as well as to state and local governments as well as the federal government. Hence Chicago’s the federal government. Hence Chicago’s local gun ban was unconstitutional. local gun ban was unconstitutional.

Writing for four justices, Justice Samuel Alito Writing for four justices, Justice Samuel Alito held that the 2held that the 2ndnd Amendment was Amendment was incorporated via the 14incorporated via the 14thth Amendment’s Due Amendment’s Due Process Clause.Process Clause.

Bush v. GoreBush v. Gore

Bush won the State by less than 2,000 Bush won the State by less than 2,000 votes, initially.votes, initially.

Gore asked for recount of computer ballots Gore asked for recount of computer ballots which had not been counted because the which had not been counted because the ballots were not readable (over 5,000 in ballots were not readable (over 5,000 in Palm Beach County alone…not to mention Palm Beach County alone…not to mention the statistically high number of people who the statistically high number of people who voted for the Reform Party candidate, Pat voted for the Reform Party candidate, Pat Buchanan).Buchanan).

Issues with the 2000 ElectionIssues with the 2000 Election

Ballot counting/design processes in Ballot counting/design processes in several counties in Florida several counties in Florida

Media involvement with “calling” the Media involvement with “calling” the winner. (This was not decided by the winner. (This was not decided by the court, but the media’s mistake in this court, but the media’s mistake in this election caused them to change the way election caused them to change the way they cover and call elections).they cover and call elections).

Bush v. Gore (2000)Bush v. Gore (2000)

Media IssuesMedia Issues

Due to exit polling, the Media felt that Al Due to exit polling, the Media felt that Al Gore would win Florida and said so early Gore would win Florida and said so early on.on.

Do you think that could have impacted the Do you think that could have impacted the election? Why or Why not?election? Why or Why not?

Opinion of the CourtOpinion of the Court

Justice John Paul Justice John Paul Stevens:Stevens:

“ “Preventing the Preventing the recount from being recount from being

completed will completed will inevitably cast a inevitably cast a doubt upon the doubt upon the

legitimacy of the legitimacy of the election.”election.”

Final Official ResultsFinal Official Results

2,912,790 votes2,912,790 votes 2,912,253 votes2,912,253 votes

Difference in votes: 537 Difference in votes: 537 Total votes cast: 5,825,043Total votes cast: 5,825,043 Percentage: .000092%Percentage: .000092%

Bush v. Gore RulingBush v. Gore Ruling

In a 5-4 ruling (split straight down party In a 5-4 ruling (split straight down party lines), the Court halted the recount giving lines), the Court halted the recount giving the election to Bush.the election to Bush.

Opinion of the CourtOpinion of the CourtThrough its ruling in Through its ruling in Bush v. GoreBush v. Gore, the U.S. , the U.S.

Supreme Court effectively ended the 2000 Supreme Court effectively ended the 2000 presidential election giving the presidency to presidential election giving the presidency to Bush. At issue was whether the “undervotes” Bush. At issue was whether the “undervotes” in Florida – ballots on which counting in Florida – ballots on which counting machines had detected no vote for president – machines had detected no vote for president – would be tabulated by hand. Florida’s top would be tabulated by hand. Florida’s top court had ordered a statewide manual recount, court had ordered a statewide manual recount, but the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow 5 – 4 but the U.S. Supreme Court by a narrow 5 – 4 margin and issued a rare emergency order margin and issued a rare emergency order halting the action. Asked that this ruling not be halting the action. Asked that this ruling not be added to “precedent” and that it applied to this added to “precedent” and that it applied to this case onlycase only..