Today is the day that the United States Supreme Court decided to hear a case on the issue of “Stand Your Ground.” This case, which has been on the books for more than 20 years, is now the subject of a new argument and decision. In this case, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a person to use deadly force in self-defense in situations where he or she believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to protect himself or herself or another person.
As a member of the Supreme Court, the majority opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the dissent by Justice Samuel Alito have a lot to say about what a person needs to do to defend themselves from violence. As a constitutional law student, Thomas is probably the most-mentioned person during this argument, and Alito is probably second. But both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have a lot more to say about what is on the books than their colleagues.
The Supreme Court is supposed to be the highest court in the land, so a bunch of people need to agree what the law is, and what is wrong with it. In the last few years, both Justice Thomas and Justice Alito have made it clear that they want to see some checks and balances in place, which is exactly what a Constitution needs to function. This is what Justice Thomas said: “The Constitution is a living document. It must be changed by the people who write it.
The Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, and it is basically the Congress of the United States deciding what the law is. But since there are so many elected officials in the country, they don’t really have the ability to control the courts, so the people would need to agree what the law is. In fact, they might even need to set a constitutional amendment in order to change the Constitution.
If you’ve ever wondered why Supreme Court rulings seem to be so rare, it might be because the Supreme Court is really the only branch of government that the majority of Americans trust. But it’s also because its rulings are so rarely challenged that there is very little that can be done about them.
When the Supreme Court rules, it’s the final word on the case, and its ruling is final regardless of the arguments presented. The best defense of a law is when the law can be amended. Thats why the Supreme Court ruled in the Dred Scott case. It upheld slavery. Justices ruled that the states were free to prohibit slavery anywhere in the US. That was a huge victory for anyone who wants to preserve the right to own slaves.
The Dred Scott case led to the Civil War. The Supreme Court ruling was an important ruling because it meant that slavery could no longer be restricted in the US. Since then, the US has had a long, hot debate over the legality of slavery. One of the most interesting areas of discussion has been over states’ rights. In the past the states had very little power in deciding what was legal and what was not.
The case of Dred Scott led to a battle between states rights and “original intent.” The South, the original owners, had to give up their right to use slaves. The only way the states could take back their power was to have “original intent.” That is, they had to give up their right to enslave people. The Supreme Court ruled that the “original intent” rule was illegal, and the federal government was now in charge of slavery.
The case was the first time the states had to change their original intent to get power back. It was a step in the right direction, but only a step.
It’s the way the South got to be sovereign that’s the real problem. The Federal Government has a vested interest in having the South back to slavery. It’s why they pushed for the original intent rule. The South got to backslide.