Brown v. Board of Education of Topek, Kansas (1954)

In general, Brown v. Board of Educations of Topeka, Kansas deals with the famous line "separate but equal." At the time schools were separated by the Jim Crow Laws, which stated that the all public places were separated by race. One black third grader, Linda Brown, had to walk to the black elementary school that was a little over a mile away from her house, while the all White's school was  just seven blocks away from her house. The communities argued that the Jim Crow Laws should be terminated completely and let everyone join together in equal schools. Together all of the cases regarding black children being denied entrance into white public schools became apparent in the one case Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas.

Once reading this case i realized that this little girls could have died just by trying to get to her school. she could have been kidnapped or run over by a train while trying to cross the tracks. Also, when the little girl got to school she probably didn't even get the same education as the white schools did. Overall this little girl, who just wanted to learn, could easily get to the all white school, seven blocks away, not crossing train tracks, and just a straight shot there from her house. In Texas there wasn't even a single black school equal to the white schools, so this case's verdict was the potential turn around for the all black schools. This whole case was defiantly a violation of the fourteenth amendment.

In the end, the Browns won and their case by a landslide which was then the start of the elimination of the overall Jim Crow Laws. The third grader was able to attend the former all white school, and from then on the schools kept combining further and further. Today, all over the U.S., anyone can look onto a campus and find Blacks, Whites, Asians, Latinos, etc... Overall this was just the nudge that the schooling systems needed to start a whole diverse system in schooling.   

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

On June 3 1961, Clarence Earl Gideon was caught, by a witness, breaking into a Florida pool hall and stealing booze and money. When he was arrested he could not afforded an attorney so he basically became his own defendant during the court case. Even though Florida provided free counsel they still denied Gideon his request for a court appointed lawyer. In jail, Gideon sent a petition to the Supreme court asking to accept his case as an appeal. the court accepted his case and he was finally appointed an attorney in the case Gideon v. Wainwright.

The Supreme Court had been doing studies on previous cases as to whether a lawyer can make a difference on a completely obvious case, and that was also Gideon's argument As well. He wanted to be able to have a fair trail where both sides had a generally equal chance with an attorney on both benches. Every person should have that right, because what if the person is actually innocent but has no attorney to prove it? An attorney at least gives the defendant a chance to be found not guilty.

This specific case had a great impact on every defendant. No matter how rich or how poor a person is they will be able to get some kind of an attorney. Even though a court appointed lawyer is not as skilled as a lawyer who has been greatly paid for, a court appointed lawyer still gives the defendant some luck in being able to get out of the case. No court should deny a lawyer no matter haw bad the crime is, and even with a lawyer if there is some raw and proof worthy evidence then the court should not have to be concerned by giving the accused an attorney since they will probably be found guilty anyways.

Miranda v. Arizona

Ernesto Arturo Miranda was arrested under the conviction of kidnap and rape of an 18-year old woman as he was taken in to custody the officer did not tell Miranda his rights to an attorney nor of his rights to remain silent so just after two hours of interrogation he signed a written confession to his crimes and was found guilty. Since he was never aware of his rights this smaller case was taken all the way to the Supreme Court as the case Miranda v. Arizona. He pleaded the fifth amendment in the Supreme Court, in a majority vote, his previous convictions were overturned and he was let loose.

Even though Miranda's crimes were unforgivable the police officer who arrested Miranda should have been aware to tell Miranda his rights. There had been several cases before this regarding the same thing, so most of these officers should have no excuse to forget to keep their criminal aware of their rights. Miranda, might have had a chance to win this specific case if he had an attorney, and if he knew that he did not have to admit to his crimes then that might have given him an even bigger of an advantage. Once he signed that written confession Miranda pretty much dug a whole for himself, but luckily he was able to get out of that whole once he realized that he was not actually aware of what he could and couldn't do.

This court case became the the biggest changer for law enforcement. After this case the law enforcements all over the country even named all of the rights after Miranda; today when a person is told of their rights they are called the Miranda Rights which states that the criminal has the right to remain silent and that they have the right to an attorney.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

In 1978 Alan Bakke tried to admit to the UC Davis Medical School. The Medical School used a separate admission for minority students, which made it easier for them to get in then the white students. Alan scored a little below the median level of the minority students but scored way above the average aptitude test, but he was still denied admittance even though he did, overall, better on the test than the minority students that had been admitted. Alan took the school to court for giving an unequal advantage to s specific set of races, in the case Regents of the University of California v. Bakke.

Overall this situation is being unfair to the white population. Why is it that the minorities get the special circumstances? Though, at the time there may have been less education for the colored community, but there were still opportunities for these races to get the same education as the white community. Bakke's argument of the fourteenth amendment seemed to stretch the argument, due to the fact that he did score a little less thin science. That specific field looks heavily on the science level, and since he scored less then those minority students the school might have made their decision based off of that.

Bekke won his case and was admitted to the school. In the end, Bakke acted like a spoild child who got mad since he didnt get what he wanted. People at UC Davis probably looked at him in that same way. Though, today many residences all over california are dealing with this sort of issue. Collages are accepting more out of state applications due to the fact that the students pay more money from out of state areas. These situations are what do upset the students of the community.

Miller v. California

Marvin Miller was an operator of one of the largest mailing orders for sexually explicit material in 1973.  He sent out brochures that contained sexual photographs and drawings, also known as pornography. Miller was later arrested and prosecuted under California's obscurity laws. He was then found guilty in the court case Miller v. California.

In this case Miller had argued under the first amendment, everyone has the right to free speech. Even though the material was grotesque it was still advertisement for the company. His job was to get the word out about the company and he was doing just that. One arguable thing is whether he put a warning or not. The front of the brochures should state whether the content should be seen by children or not. If he did not put that then he has the right to be prosecuted by the obscurity laws, but if there was a clear warning about the materials in the brochure then he has all the right to advertise. He is not hurting a soul by pitting grotesque pictures in a pamphlet, and he is not hurting anyone's reputation, so the first amendment does back up his cause.

In the end the court's decision was charged and found guilty under California's obscurity laws in a vote of 5 to 4. The court argued that the the material should be banned, but there was no physical harm from it at all. It should be the people's choice whether to watch it or not; it is their decision not the court's. Although, Miller's actions were a little too rash. he defiantly could have found a different way to advertise by putting warning and signs that there is adult material in the brochure.

Plessy v. Ferguson

In 1896 a single court case helped establish the phrase "separate but equal." Plessy was a man who was just  one-eighth black and when he attempted to sit in the white section of a train he was asked to give up his seat. When Plessy refused to move "he was then arrested and ordered imprisoned Ferguson, a local judge;" This specific case was known as Plessy v. Ferguson.

Plessy defiantly has the right to fight this case. Plessy was able to buy a ticket for a higher class coach seat, but when a white man needed that seat the conductor ordered Plessy to be removed. That completely goes against the fourteenth amendment. Even though the Jim Crow Laws state that there has to be separate places for black and white individuals, one person cannot decide at one moment that there is one car for black individuals then change that same car to one for white individuals. Sadly, the court argued that those laws do not count on a train.

 In the end Plessy was found guilty, but his idea of separate but equal lives on even till this day. Rosa Parks was one of the most famous people who took Plessy's decision to heart. She did the same thing in 1955 when she refused to move from the white section of the bus to the black section in the back. Plessy was the start of the whole colored revolution. Many people think of Rosa Parks as the start, but really it was Plessy who refused to move from the white section of the train.

United States v. Nixon

In 1974 Nixon was found to have illegally taped conversations in the White House, and when he was asked to turn them over he refused the official's request. When the government went to court about this matter, Nixon was unanimously forced to turn over the tape. This specific case was known as United States v. Nixon.

I agree with the court's decision, because the information on some of those tapes could have been threatening to the whole nation. Also, when the tapes were recovered from Nixon there were fourteen minutes missing from them which makes Nixon look even more suspicious. There could have been so many illegal things going on with that erased fourteen minutes, but now no one will b e able to know. Luckily, the government was able to get these tapes out of Nixon's possession.

Nixon should not have been able to get away with as much as he did. He had hired people to steal documents and information, and then illegally recorded conversations that could have been life threatening. Even though the government was going to impeach him, he just resigned with a slap on the wrist and went on with his life. Nixon's impeachment was one for the history books, as well as him resigning. Even though he was a brilliant president he was just as big of a criminal.

Roe v. Wade

In this specific case of Roe v. Wade i personally feel that abortion should be legal as well. everyone is equal and should get the equal amount of opportunities, but when a woman has a child then those opportunities are gone. Every woman should be able to say whether they want to have a child or not. Jane Roe states a very valid point:

"Roe argued that the protection of life granted by the fourteenth amendment could not be applied to a fetus because a fetus was not a person in the eyes of the law."

When the court case was finalized and there was a decision made, their conclusion of letting women have an abortion within three months is extremely valid. a fetus up to three months is not even developed to the point of even looking like a child. it is alive, but other than just having a heart pump its mind and soul aren' alive. The woman up to three months should have enough time to chose whether they want to keep it or not.