Brown V. the Board

   
Brown V. the Board was one of the biggest cases in the history of the United States. This case overturned an earlier case Plessy V. Ferguson which was the case determining that "separate but equal" was constitutional. During my classes Moot Court the team I am on went up against Brown. Sadly we were beaten but we put up an amazing fight. Most of our points focused more on ethical points instead of legal ones.
   
Brown's legal team brought up many good points. Most of these points were legal more than ethical. Most of their points pertained to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The Winners(team name) presented solid arguments that almost persuaded the honorable Judge Smith. The teams best point was arguing that the Equal Protection Clause was applicable to people as a whole instead of the individual. Other points argued by the Board ((The Winners)team name) was that African American students were not at the same educational level as their white counterparts. Other arguments include that the government should slowly integrate the races while fixing up black schools at the same time. Also, the Board argued that it was not safe for African Americans to go to white schools because of hate groups such as the KKK.
   
This case was very controversial, both teams brought good arguments to the table. However, in court a legal argument will always beat an ethical one.  

Bong Hits 4 Jesus

Bongs Hits 4 Jesus is nothing like I have seen before. The actual name of this court case is Morse v. Frederick. During the 2002 Olympic torch relay there was a school supervised event at Juneau-Douglas High School to watch the parade where Joseph Frederick a student at the time held up a poster that said "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" which was frowned upon. The principle at the time Deborah Morse took the sign from Frederick and suspended him for 10 days.

After this suspension Frederick took took his case to court. 5 years later the case made it all the way to the US Court of Appeals. There were many arguments given in this court case throughout the 5 years it took to make it to the Supreme Court. There were also certain facts that showed how and why Frederick won.

Frederick sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983 which was a federal civil rights statute because he believed it was a violation of his First Amendment right, freedom of speech. Originally, the District Court ruled in favor of Morse, once it got to the Court of Appeals the court reversed the decision and sided with Frederick.

Plessy vs Ferguson

Judge Harlan’s dissent was really one of a kind. Harlan managed to almost completely flip my view on separate but equal. He was right when he said “But it is difficult to reconcile that boast with a state of the law which, practically, puts the brand of servitude and degradation upon a large class of our fellow citizens”. I agree with his statement that equal is a disguise that doesn’t mislead anyone. I thought it was cool how he talked about Dred Scott in his dissent.

Harlan makes an incredibly good argument. Even though he wasn’t supported by any of the other justices I believe he hoped to accomplish showing everyone else that separate but equal was not actually separate but equal. In 1896 I have a feeling most white people would have agreed with the other justices that agreed with separate but equal. Even though Harlan talks about how there is nothing about color in the constitution in 1896 I am sure many people did still not want to be around black people. However, if this happened in 2016 everything would be different. There would be no way anyone would agree with the other justices thinking otherwise is just outrageous. People would go insane there would be so many riots. In this day and age, the United States has many things in place to make sure everyone is treated equal. 

Harlan’s dissent showed that there was still a way to voice other people’s opinions than just the court. It helps show that in any case there can be two sides to the argument. Dissents help show the other parties side of view when it needs to be shown.

Is rap free speech?

A young man named Taylor Bell was suspended from school after making a rap accusing two male coaches were engaging in inappropriate sexual actions towards female students. Bell posted this song on Facebook and Youtube. These girls affirmed sworn affidavits allegating the two teachers after the rap was made. Bell made this song on winter break away from school grounds. School officials did not investigate or deny allegations against the coaches. School officials learned about the song suspended him and forced him to attend alternative school for the next six weeks according to CNN.

During this process of moving Bell the school did not notify the police about what was going on. This case went to the Supreme Court under the name Bell v. Itawamba County School Board. The school argued the song intimidated harassed and threatened school employees. However, Bell's locker was not searched and one of the coaches named in the song said it was "just a rap". This case has yet to be resolved.  

Heritage or Racism

In June of 2015 there was a court case that made it all the way to the supreme court. This case was about a group called the Sons of Confederate Veterans who decided that they wanted their license plate to be the Confederate battle flag. When the state of Texas declined their wish to do this they said their First Amendment Right was being infringed upon and the case made it to the Supreme Court.




According to CNN, SCV wanted to honor the soldiers who fought for the Confederacy during the Civil War. When it comes to specialty license plates Texas has the power to choose whatever plates they deem fit. This plate was shot down by Texas Legislature because of the fact that it might be seen as offensive to some is a good enough reason to keep these plates off of the road. These plates were considered government speech not private speech which means the SCV has no say in what plates are made and which are not.

Scott V. Sanford

The case Scott Vs Sanford was about a slave Dred Scott who believed he should have been free because of the fact that his owner brought him into the free state of Wisconsin where there was no slavery. In our Moot Court in class the honorable Judge Smith ruled in favor of Sanford. In 1857 the ruling was the same Scott did not win his case to become free.

Both sides gave very convincing arguments in Moot Court. There were very strong points on both sides of the court room. The team arguing for Scott's freedom used different court cases such as Winny versus Whitesides in 1824 and the 1787 Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance was put into place for the Northwest Territories which were slowly becoming states. The Northwest Ordinance stated that any state over the 38th Parallel was a free state while any state below the 38th Parallel had the option of being a free state or a slave state. 

Winny vs Whitesides was a case used in Scott's Moot Court. Winny a slave filed a civil suit to become free because slavery was not aloud in the Indiana Territory. Winny ended up winning this case and got her freedom however Dred Scott was not as lucky. 

Scott's litigation team in Moot Court also argued points such as life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Scott's litigation team also used the Missouri Compromise of 1820.

Chief Justice Roger Taney ruled in favor of Sanford just as the honorable Judge Smith of our Moot Court did as well. Sanford's litigation team came out on top. I believe the case was over almost instantly because one of the main points brought up by the litigation team was that Scott was not a citizen of the United States therefor he could not sue. Sanford argued the fact that because Scott was not a citizen there was nothing the court could do. 

Other points brought about included the fact that Scott was purchased. Sanford was not reimbursed which is an illegal way to go about obtaining property or in Scott's case freedom. This is illegal because of the Fifth Amendment which states it is illegal to take property without compensation. Other points that were argued include the fact that slavery was still legal under the constitution of 1789. There was no way for Scott to appeal to the court because slaves and African Americans were not viewed as citizens.

State V. Mann

Today's Moot Court was the case of State versus Mann. In the court of our class room John Mann came out of the case victorious not only in Moot Court but in real life through the Supreme Court of North Carolina. There were very convincing arguments to both sides however Mann had the stronger better argument out of the two teams facing off in this case.

The Winners(Mann) won very easily in my eyes. According to the facts it was easily determined that Mann should not have to pay the $10 fine for shooting his slave in the back. The Winners used sources such as The Bible The Constitution and various laws in North Carolina. These laws along with the facts of the case helped the judge of our Moot Court make an easy ruling. The Winners gave arguments such as it was Mann's duty to return the slave and the only way to do so was by shooting her. The Winners also gave arguments of how the case should be a civil case between Mann and the original slave owner. Other arguments include common law and that of religion.

State vs Mann was a big topic of the time period as seen to the left there were many reasons why Mann did not have to pay the fine.

The losing side of the argument was that of the State. In our court room many points were brought up and some of the main points were for the State. The State used documents such as The Bible. The State also tried to appeal to the judges emotions by saying how inhumane and awful it was that Mann shot his slave. However the judge stood strong and ruled not based on emotion but law, Mann did not have to pay the $10 fine.