The Constitutional Law Standard

Author(s):  
Seth W. Stoughton ◽  
Jeffrey J. Noble ◽  
Geoffrey P. Alpert

Police officers, like all government officials, are subject to the limitations imposed by the Constitution of the United States. The Supreme Court has ruled that police uses of force are subject to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures; the constitutional question is whether the use of force was “objectively reasonable” under the circumstances. This chapter details Supreme Court decisions—including Graham v. Connor, Tennessee v. Garner, and Scott v. Harris—and explains how readers can reliably use constitutional principles to accurately assess any given use of force. The authors lead readers through the careful balancing that constitutional analysis requires, exploring the deference given to the hypothetical “reasonable officer,” the governmental interests that justify the use of force, and the determination of whether the type and amount of force used in any given situation was proportional to the justification.

1951 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-109
Author(s):  
Robert J. Harris

There were two changes in the personnel of the Supreme Court during the 1949 term. Attorney General Tom C. Clark was sworn in as an Associate Justice to succeed the late Justice Frank Murphy on August 24, 1949, after his nomination by President Truman had been approved on August 19 by a vote of 73 to 8. Judge Sherman Minton of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals was nominated to be an Associate Justice on September 15, 1949, to succeed Justice Wiley Rutledge. His nomination was approved by the Senate on October 4 by a vote of 48 to 16, and he was sworn in on October 12. During much of the term Justice Douglas was absent as the result of an accident incurred during the preceding summer recess. The loss of Justices Murphy and Rutledge greatly weakened the liberal alignment of the Court and very positively influenced the decision of a number of doubtful cases contrary to precedents of a recent date.


1938 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 278-310 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman

The 1936 term of the Supreme Court will probably be rated a notable one. This is due both to the Court's own work, and to certain extraneous occurrences which could hardly fail to have some impact upon it. In any attempt to evaluate the work of this term, one should bear in mind the following facts: First, a month after the Court convened President Roosevelt was reëlected by one of the most impressive popular and electoral majorities in our political history. Second, in February the President submitted to Congress his proposal for the reorganization of the Supreme Court, including the enlargement of its membership by the addition, up to fifteen, of a new justice for every one remaining on the Court beyond the age of seventy. This proposal aroused violent opposition, the debates on it continued for many months, and ultimately the plan was defeated largely through the efforts of the President's own party. The discussions on this proposal were going on during much of the time in which the Court was sitting. Third, in every case in which New Deal laws were attacked, they were held valid. These results were accomplished in many instances by five-to-four margins, and in the Minimum Wage Case by a five-to-four reversal of a previous five-to-three decision.


1949 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 275-308
Author(s):  
David Fellman

There were no changes in the personnel of the Court during the 1947 term. The former Chief Justice, Charles Evans Hughes, Avho had retired from the Court on July 1, 1941, died on August 27, 1948. Justice Hughes had served on the Court from May 2, 1910, to June 10, 1916, and was appointed Chief Justice on February 13,1930, succeeding William Howard Taft. In characteristic fashion, the justices filed during the 1947 term a very large number of dissenting and concurring opinions liberally salted with spirited and often bitter judicial invective.


Author(s):  
А. І. Дрішлюк

Наукова стаття присвячена визначенню значення рішень Верховного Суду України, прийнятих за результатами розгляду заяв про перегляд судових рішень з мотивів неод­накового застосування судом (судами) касаційної інстанції одних і тих самих норм ма­теріального права в аналогічних правовідносинах, порядку і її вплив на систему джерел цивільного і цивільно-процесуального права, після законодавчого закріплення обов'язко­вості рішень Верховного Суду України для всіх суб'єктів владних повноважень (суб'єктів правозастосовчої діяльності). На підставі проведеного дослідження сформульована авторська позиція щодо систе­ми джерел цивільного права, судової практики, а також впливу останньої на трансфор­мацію системи джерел цивільного та процесуального права України на сучасному етапі її розвитку.   The scientific article is sanctified to determination of value of decisions of the Supreme court of Ukraine, statements accepted on results consideration about the revision of court decisions on reasons of different application by the court (by courts) of appeal instance of one the same norms of material right in analogical legal relationships, order and her influence on the system of sources civil and civil judicial law of Ukraine, after legislative fixing of obligatoryness of decisions of the Supreme court of Ukraine for all the subjects of imperious plenary powers (subjects of law using activity). On the basis of the conducted research author position is formulated in regard to the system of sources civil law, judicial practice, and also the influence of the last on transformation the system of sources civil and civil judicial law of Ukraine on the modern stage of its development.


2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-146
Author(s):  
Endy Ronaldi ◽  
Dahlan Ali ◽  
Mujibussalim Mujibussalim

Tindak pidana narkotika merupakan kejahatan luar biasa sehingga menjadi prioritas pemerintah untuk diperangi. Penanggulangan tindak pidana narkotika diatur dalam Undang-Undang No. 35 Tahun 2009 tentang Narkotika. Salah satu pengaturan dalam undang-undang tersebut adalah pemberian sanksi di bawah minimum melalui putusan hakim. Sebagaimana kasus yang terjadi dalam Putusan Nomor 64/PID/2012/PN Sigli, Putusan No. 1/pid.sus/2016/PN Cag. (narkotika) dan Putusan No. 14/pid.sus/2016/PN Cag. Adapun permasalahan yang dikaji yaitu faktor penyebab hakim memutuskan sanksi di bawah minimum kepada pelaku narkotika dan implikasinya. Metode penelitian yang digunakan adalah metode yuridis normatif dengan mengkaji aspek normatif atas permasalahan yang dikaji. Pendekatan yang dilakukan adalah pendekatan kasuistik dengan menelaah putusan pengadilan. Putusan pengadilan dengan penetapan sanksi di bawah minimum disatu sisi bertentangan dengan asas legalitas dalam hukum pidana. Sehingga hal ini diakomodir dalam Surat Edaran Mahkamah Agung No. 3 tahun 2015. Narcotics crimes are extraordinary crimes so that become government priorities to be minimized. Tackling narcotics crime is regulated in Law No. 35 of 2009 concerning Narcotics. One of the regulations in the law is to impose sanctions below the minimum through a judge's decision. As the case with is the Decision Number 64/PID/2012/PN Sigli. The problems studied are the factors that cause the judge to decide the minimum sanctions for narcotics and their implications. The research method used is a normative juridical method by examining the normative aspects of the problem under study. The approach taken is a casuistic approach by examining court decisions. Court decisions with the determination of sanctions below the minimum on the one hand are contrary to the principle of legality in criminal law. So that accommodated in the Supreme Court Circular No. 3 of 2015.


1939 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 234-266
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman

During the 1937 term, the Supreme Court underwent the first changes in its personnel since Mr. Justice Cardozo succeeded Mr. Justice Holmes in March, 1932. On June 1, 1937, Mr. Justice Van Devanter retired and was succeeded at the opening of the new term in October by Mr. Justice Black. On January 18, 1938, Mr. Justice Sutherland retired and was succeeded on January 31 by Mr. Justice Reed. During a substantial part of the term, Mr. Justice Cardozo was absent on account of illness, and his death occurred July 9, 1938. Mr. Justice Black, whose appointment had attracted much public comment, threw himself into the work of the Court with unusual vigor. During the term, he wrote the opinion of the Court in fifteen cases. He dissented in fourteen cases, in nine of which he wrote dissenting opinions. He concurred without substantial opinion in eleven cases, and wrote a concurring opinion in one other case. Mr. Justice Reed participated less actively, first because of the lateness of his appointment, and second because his prior service as Solicitor-General of the United States disqualified him from sitting in a considerable number of cases. These changes in the membership of the Court have altered the almost even division on the bench between the so-called conservatives and the so-called liberals. Without attempting to speculate as to the course of future decisions, it is significant that the irreconcilably conservative block of justices, consisting of Justices Van Devanter, Sutherland, McReynolds, and Butler, has been broken up.


1998 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 682-694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edwin S. Gaustad

Most American scholars are reasonably well aware of the contributions of Thomas Jefferson (and his younger colleague, James Madison) to the establishment of the legal framework for religious freedom in the United States. Perhaps many are less aware of Jefferson's “second life” in the Supreme Court's several encounters with Jefferson and with the religion clauses of the First Amendment. This article will, first, review briefly Jefferson's lifelong commitment to religious liberty, which he regarded as the foundation of all liberties. Second, attention will be given to Supreme Court decisions in this troubled arena, with some comment on Jefferson's continued relevance—to use a tame and tired word—within the contemporary American scene.


1946 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-255
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman

The membership of the Supreme Court did not change during the 1944 term, but Mr. Justice Roberts resigned in July after the term had ended. Divisions in the Court were as numerous and as difficult to classify as before. Four justices dissented in twenty-seven cases, while three justices dissented in sixteen cases. The Court seems to be moving toward the old practice of the pre-Marshall period by which the justices wrote seriatim opinions. There is a depressing increase in the number of cases in which three, four, and even five justices feel impelled to write separate opinions.


1934 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 40-64
Author(s):  
Robert E. Cushman

The Supreme Court has at last passed squarely upon the broad powers of the Federal Radio Commission over the business of broadcasting and has upheld them in a sweeping manner in the case of Federal Radio Commission v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co. The general authority conferred on the Commission by the act of 1927 was enlarged in 1928 by provisions directing the Commission to maintain as great equality as possible in the allocating of broadcasting licenses among the zones created and further to distribute such licenses fairly and reasonably to the states within each zone according to population. In 1930, it appeared that Illinois had 55 per cent more than its quota of stations, while Indiana had 22 per cent under its quota. The Commission assigned to station WJKS at Gary, Indiana, operating rights on a frequency theretofore used by two Chicago stations. One of these, operated commercially by the respondent, used much National Broadcasting Company program material; the other, operated by the North Shore Church of Chicago, broadcast only religious programs. The effect of the order was to rule these stations off the air. It appeared that the Gary station had suffered from interference, and was furthermore equipped to serve its audiences with programs of unique interest.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document