archive-edu.com » EDU » C » CORNELL.EDU

Total: 1513

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Schenck v. United States
    service contrary to the Espionage Act of June 15 1917 P 49 p48 Incriminating document seized under a search warrant directed against a Socialist headquarters held admissible in evidence consistently with the Fourth and Fifth Amendment in a criminal prosecution against the general secretary of a Socialist party who had charge of the office P 50 Words which ordinarily and in many places would be within the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment may become subject to prohibition when of such a nature and used in such circumstances a to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils which Congress has a right to prevent The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done P 51 A conspiracy to circulate among men called and accepted for military service under the Selective Service Act of May 18 1917 a circular tending to influence them to obstruct the draft with the intent to effect that result and followed by the sending of such circulars is within the power of Congress to punish and is punishable under the Espionage Act 4 although unsuccessful P 52 The word recruiting as used

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Schick v. Reed
    court martial for murder attacked the validity of a Presidential commutation to life imprisonment under which petitioner had served 20 years conditioned on petitioner s never being paroled The District Court granted respondents motion for summary judgment The Court of Appeals affirmed additionally rejecting petitioner s contention that this Court s intervening decision in Furman v Georgia 408 U S 238 required that petitioner be resentenced to a life term with the possibility of parole the alternative punishment for murder under Art 118 Held The conditional commutation of petitioner s death sentence was within the President s powers under Art II 2 cl 1 of the Constitution to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States Pp 260 268 a The executive pardoning power under the Constitution which has consistently adhered to the English common law practice historically included the power to commute sentences on conditions not specifically authorized by statute United States v Wilson 7 Pet 150 Ex parte Wells 18 How 307 Pp 260 266 b Since the pardoning power derives from the Constitution alone it cannot be modified abridged or diminished by any statute including Art 118 and Furman v Georgia supra did not affect

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0419_0256_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War
    who were United States citizens and taxpayers brought a class action on behalf inter alia of all United States citizens and taxpayers against petitioners the Secretary of Defense and the three Service Secretaries challenging the Reserve membership of Members of Congress as violating the Incompatibility Clause of Art I 6 cl 2 of the Constitution which provides that no Person holding any Office under the United States shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office The District Court held that respondents had standing to sue as citizens but not as taxpayers and on the merits granted partial relief The Court of Appeals affirmed Held 1 Respondents had no standing to sue as citizens since the claimed nonobservance of the Incompatibility Clause which they assert deprives citizens of the faithful discharge of the legislative duties of reservist Members of Congress implicates only the generalized interest of all citizens in constitutional governance and is thus merely an abstract injury rather than the concrete injury that is essential to satisfy Art III s case or controversy requirement Pp 216 227 2 Respondents also lacked standing to sue as taxpayers since they failed to establish the required logical nexus between

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0208_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Schneckloth v. Bustamonte
    NINTH CIRCUIT No 71 732 Argued October 10 1972 Decided May 29 1973 During the course of a consent search of a car that had been stopped by officers for traffic violations evidence was discovered that was used to convict respondent of unlawfully possessing a check In a habeas corpus proceeding the Court of Appeals reversing the District Court held that the prosecution had failed to prove that consent to the search had been made with the understanding that it could freely be withheld Held When the subject of a search is not in custody and the State would justify a search on the basis of his consent the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment s require that it demonstrate that the consent was in fact voluntary voluntariness is to be determined from the totality of the surrounding circumstances While knowledge of a right to refuse consent is a factor to be taken into account the State need not prove that the one giving permission to search knew that he had a right to withhold his consent Pp 223 249 448 F 2d 699 reversed STEWART J delivered the opinion of the Court in which BURGER C J and WHITE BLACKMUN POWELL

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0412_0218_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Schneider v. Rusk
    163 Schneider v Rusk APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA No 368 Argued April 2 1964 Decided May 18 1964 Appellant who was born in Germany came to this country with her parents as a child and acquired derivative American citizenship She lived abroad since graduation from college became married to a German national and except for two visits back to this country has lived in Germany for the past eight years The State Department denied her a passport certifying that she had lost her American citizenship under 352 a 1 of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which provides that a naturalized citizen with exceptions not material here loses citizenship by continuous residence for three years in the country of origin She thereupon sued in the District Court for a declaratory judgment that she is still an American citizen and has appealed from that court s adverse decision Held by a majority of this Court that 352 a 1 is discriminatory and therefore violative of due process under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution since no restriction against the length of foreign residence applies to native born citizens though some members of

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0377_0163_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • School District of Abington Township, Pennsylvania v. Schempp
    COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA No 142 Argued February 27 28 1963 Decided June 17 1963 GO Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law respecting an establishment of religion which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0374_0203_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • School District v. Ball
    State The Shared Time teachers are full time employees of the public schools but a significant portion of them had previously taught in nonpublic schools The Community Education program offers classes at the conclusion of the regular schoolday in voluntary courses some of which are not offered at the public schools but others of which are Community Education teachers are part time public school employees who for the most part are otherwise employed full time by the same nonpublic school in which their Community Education classes are held Of the 41 private schools involved in these programs 40 are identifiably religious schools The students attending both programs are the same students who otherwise attend the particular school in which the classes are held Respondent taxpayers filed suit in Federal District Court against the School District and certain state officials alleging that both programs violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment The court agreed entered a judgment for respondents and enjoined further operation of the programs The Court of Appeals affirmed Held The Shared Time and Community Education programs have the primary or principal effect of advancing religion and therefore violate the dictates of the Establishment Clause Pp 381 398 a Even the praiseworthy secular purpose of providing for the education of schoolchildren cannot validate government aid to parochial schools when the aid has the effect of promoting a single religion or religion generally or when the aid unduly entangles the government in matters religious Pp 381 383 b The challenged programs have the effect of impermissibly promoting religion in three ways First the state paid teachers influenced by the pervasively sectarian nature of the religious schools in which they p374 work may subtly or overtly indoctrinate the students in particular

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0473_0373_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Scott v. Sandford
    reason why the alleged error apparent in the exception should not also be examined and the judgment reversed on that ground also if it discloses a want of jurisdiction in the Circuit Court 8 It is often the duty of this court after having decided that a particular decision of the Circuit Court was erroneous to examine into other alleged errors and to correct them if they are found to exist And this has been uniformly done by this court when the questions are in any degree connected with the controversy and the silence of the court might create doubts which would lead to further useless litigation III 1 The facts upon which the plaintiff relies did not give him his freedom and make him a citizen of Missouri 2 The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confederation of the States in the treaty of peace It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation 3 The United States under the present Constitution cannot acquire territory to be held as a colony to be governed at its will and pleasure But it may acquire territory which at the time has not a population that fits it to become a State and may govern it as a Territory until it has a population which in the judgment of Congress entitled it to be admitted as a State of the Union 4 During the time it remains a Territory Congress may legislate over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in relation to citizens of the United States and may establish a Territorial Government and the form of the local Government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself by the Constitution is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States in respect to the rights of persons or rights of property IV 1 The territory thus acquired is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit through their agent and trustee the Federal Government Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory which is prohibited by the Constitution The Government and the citizen whenever the Territory is open to settlement both enter it with their respective rights defined and limited by the Constitution 2 Congress have no right to prohibit the citizens of any particular State or States from taking up their home there while it permits citizens of other States to do so Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to another The territory is acquired for their equal and common benefit and if open to any it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms 3 Every citizen has a right to take with him into the Territory any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognises as property 4 The Constitution of the United States recognises slaves as property and pledges the Federal Government to protect it And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind 5 The act of Congress therefore prohibiting a citizen of the United States from p396 taking with him his slaves when he removes to the Territory in question to reside is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that Territory gave him no title to freedom V 1 The plaintiff himself acquired no title to freedom by being taken by his owner to Rock Island in Illinois and brought back to Missouri This court has heretofore decided that the status or condition of a person of African descent depended on the laws of the State in which he resided 2 It has been settled by the decisions of the highest court in Missouri that by the laws of that State a slave does not become entitled to his freedom where the owner takes him to reside in a State where slavery is not permitted and afterwards brings him back to Missouri Conclusion It follows that it is apparent upon the record that the court below erred in its judgment on the plea in abatement and also erred in giving judgment for the defendant when the exception shows that the plaintiff was not a citizen of the United States And the Circuit Court had no jurisdiction either in the cases stated in the plea in abatement or in the one stated in the exception its judgment in favor of the defendant is erroneous and must be reversed This case was brought up by writ of error from the Circuit Court of the United States for the district of Missouri It was an action of trespass vi et armis instituted in the Circuit Court by Scott against Sandford Prior to the institution of the present suit an action was brought by Scott for his freedom in the Circuit Court of St Louis county State court where there was a verdict and judgment in his favor On a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State the judgment below was reversed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court where it was continued to await the decision of the case now in question The declaration of Scott contained three counts one that Sandford had assaulted the plaintiff one that he had assaulted Harriet Scott his wife and one that he had assaulted Eliza Scott and Lizzie Scott

    Original URL path: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZS.html (2012-11-09)
    Open archived version from archive



  •