Roe v. Wade

                     This case was about a women who named herself as Jane Roe (not her real name).She was not married and she was pregnant.Roe lived in Texas.Roe wanted to have an abortion but ,in Texas there was a law that women could not have abort a fetus unless they had a medical reason.Roe did not agree with this law because she thought it violated the 14 amendment and she then suit against Wade and Roe ended up wining the case.
                      The Bill of Rights infers a right to privacy because in the 2nd amendment it says "right to bear arms''.This means you can make desions for all your personal belongings.The amendment  1,2,3,4,5,9 and 14 include the right to privacy.
                      The court decision was 7-2 in favor of Roe. The court said that the Texas law violate the right to privacy for the doctors and their patients inferred under the 1st,3rd,4th,5th,9th,and 14th amendments.
                      The arguments that Roe had was that the government can't take away your freedom with out a good reason. The argument that Wade had was that they need to respect the life of the fetus because the fetus has equal protection too.
                       Roe v. Wade and  Planned parenthood v. Casey was the same because they both wanted to have abortions but they couldn't .In other words both cases were different because in Roe v. Wade they didn't want to let her have an abortion because they wanted to save the fetus life because it has equal protection too and they would only let her abort if it is to save the life of the mother. In Planned parenthood v. Casey they had many rules in order for her to have an abortion.

UC Regents v. Bakke

         
        The case was about a medical school of the university of california.Allan Bakke was a white male that applied to the medical school but was rejected.The university then admitted other applicants with lower scores. Bakke then took his case to court because he wanted the universtity to admitt him in that medical school because he thought they were violating the 14 amendment.
        The legal question was should the was be consider in any admission process?And if the special programs violated the 14 amendement ''equal protection''?
        The university argued that their system of admission had served important purposes. For example it helps with the effects of discrination in the society.In the other hand Allan Bakke argued that the special admission program violated the equal protection clause of the 14 amendment and that it excluded him on basis of race.He wanted to be accepted to the university.
        The court decided that Bakke should be addmitted to the medical school. The court said that schools can't use race as the only plus factor for admission.The school can balance between racial or other groups.UIKeyInputRightArrow
                                                      

         In my opinion, the affirmative action program does violate the 14 amendement ''equal protection'' because race should not be considered when doing admissions decision.They schould instead pick the top student and not leave one out because they have to many students of the same race.
        Gratz v. Bollinger decion was 6-3 for Gratz.For Fisher v. Texas the decion was 4-3 for texas because it did not violate the 14 amendment                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
       
       

Brown v. Board

         The 14 amendement is for all personsborn in the U.S or naturalized in the U.S are citzens in the United States.The three main ideas of the14 amendement is the no state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges of the United States. The State shall not deprive any persons life,liberty,or property, without process laws.

         Brown v. Board was about a little girl name Linda and her sister.They lived in Topeka,Kansas were the schools were seperated by color.Linda and her sister had to walk dangerous railroads in order to go to school. The school closer to them was for whites only.The browns then took the case to court.The law question was should there be segerated shools even if they are equal?The browns won the case 9 to 0 because the chief of the jury made everyone of the other believe in the browns argument.

         The Browns argued that the segerated schools were hurting the black kids beacuse when they did them the doll test they ask them which the was prettier and they picked the black doll.They also said that segerated school violated the consitition.They also argued that it violated the14 amendement,because kids at the school werent being treated equal.They said "No state should deny to any person withn its jurisdiction the equal protection of laws''.

          Topeka argued that both schools were equal and that segerated schools werent hurting nobody in the school.They said that as long as they were equal it was okay to have segerated schools.Topeka also said that it did not violate the consition.They also said that it did not violate the 14 amendemt.Topeka lost to the browns 0 to9
                                                        

Links to this case. http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/history-brown-v-board-education-re-enactment
    http://www.history.com/topics/black-history/brown-v-board-of-education-of-topeka                          


                                                              

Texas v. Johnson

 Texas v. Johonson was about a guy buringing a flag beacuse how he felt  toward the reagon adminstration U.S policy.He was then scented for 1 year in jail and was given a fine.They then had to decide if flag burning is a form of a protected speech or not.Johmson won 5:4.The brandenburg test was based on the first amendement.It made a land mark in the united states.
              http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-texas-v-johnson
             

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/491/397

Gideon v. Wainwright

Gideon v. Wainwright was about a man named Clarence Earl Gideon. Someone had acused him of burglary because someone had asumed they saw him near the pool room and had lots of money on his pockets and he had always been poor.Clarence was not given a lawyer there for he was not capable of defending himself so he lost and was given 5 years of prison.He then spent reading about laws while in prison then wrote a petition because he knew his sixth amendement had been violated.He then won the case.
             The sixth amendment changed from Powell v Alabama through Argersinger v. Hamlin by in one way hurting the defendent and in an other by defending the defent.

http://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright 

Map v. Ohio

The Map v. Ohio was about some police looking for a bomber and instead they found pormagraphy which is illegal.The police wanted to come in her house but she didnt want to let them in they then handcoff her and showed her a fake warrent.According to the fouth amendment you have the right to,be secure in there houses against unreasonable searches.The supreme court vote was 5-4 in favor of Mapp.The exclusionary rule is when a law that prohibits the use of illegaly obtained evidence in a criminal trail.A probable cause is a reasonable ground.An warrent is not necassary when you have a consent from the criminal or the person who they ivestigating,when the evidemce is in plain viw,protective sweep,car searches, exigent circumstances,inevestable discovery,and immediare control.That is the story about Mapp v. Ohio she was then found not guilty and won the case.

In re Gault

Gault did a nasty prank to this lady.