Stany Zjednoczone Ameryki: Wyrok Sądu Najwyższego Stanów Zjednoczonych z dnia 6 lipca 2020 r. w sprawie Peter B. Chiafalo, Levi Jennet Guerra i Esther Virginia John vs. stan Waszyngton (dotyczący legalności nakładania na elektorów sankcji za oddanie głosu niezgodnego z wynikami wyborów powszechnych), 591 US (2020)

2021 ◽  
Vol 5(166) ◽  
pp. 237-248
Author(s):  
Marcin Rulka
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
General Election ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
2016 Election

The case concerned the election of the President of the United States of America who is elected by the Electoral College. In the 2016 election, Washington’s three electors voted inconsistent with the results of the general election in the state from which they were delegated. As a result, these electors were fined $ 1,000. The Supreme Court confirmed the constitutionality of this type of solution, because there is no provision in the Constitution of the United States of America that would explicitly prohibit states from depriving presidential electors of their freedom to vote.

The Red River Boundary Dispute

1925 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 517-529 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Clayton Carpenter
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Red River ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Points Of View

The Supreme Court of the United States is now bringing to a close a case which has occupied its attention for five years, involving the boundary along the Red River between Oklahoma and Texas. The principles of law applied by the court were not new, but the facts to which they were applied were complicated and interesting, both from historical and legal points of view, and when taken in connection with the warmth of popular feeling along the boundary, are perhaps worth recording in this JOURNAL, since they could easily have given rise to actual warfare had the contesting sovereignties been independent nations instead of members of the United States of America.

The Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Religion

1967 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 657-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Carroll
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Schools ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
National Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Local School ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Liberty Of Conscience ◽  
Bible Reading

The Supreme Court of the United States, whose decisions not only define constitutional law but vitally affect national policy, has long held both an honored and a controversial place in American life. In no area do its decisions bring it more honor or more controversy than in the field of religion; for, as a member of the First Congress under the Constitution said, “the rights of conscience are, in their nature, of peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand. … Thus, the same decision of the Court may be hailed by some as a great landmark in the struggle for religious liberty, and denounced by others as a serious invasion of liberty of conscience. For although it may be pleasant to dream of religion insulated from governmental touch, the dual membership of citizens in the state and in religious bodies insures that conscience and government will touch at some points with inevitable friction, and, to the conscience so touched, it makes little difference whether the governmental hand is that of a local school board, the Congress, or the Supreme Court of the United States.The Court has recently been attacked as antireligious, or at least as callous to our religious heritage, because of its decisions invalidating a state-prescribed prayer and state-prescribed Bible reading in public schools. The first of these decisions prompted the more excited outcry, but the two, at first singly and then together, have precipitated a renewed debate about the proper constitutional relationship between the state and religion.

Exile within the United States

1965 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-29
Author(s):  
Brent T. Lynch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Prison Inmates ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Executive Agency

The Utah Board of Pardons, an executive agency, releases some Utah prison inmates by an order of "conditional termina tion," which directs the recipient to leave the state immediately and remain away permanently. The Supreme Court of Utah has recently held this order to be valid and constitutional, a ruling attacked by this article, which cites cases wherein rights guaranteed by the federal Constitution are violated. Public policy, sound penology, and constitutional law all militate against use of conditional termination.

The Unrealized Precedent of DAVIS V. BANDEMER

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas R. Seabrook
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
The State ◽  
Congressional Districts ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Legislative Districts ◽  
State Legislative

This chapter examines the involvement of the Supreme Court of the United States in litigation relating to partisan gerrymandering, paying particular attention to a case that attempted to apply the previously established Davis v. Bandemer precedent to congressional elections: Vieth v. Jubelirer. It begins with an overview of Badham v. Eu, which arose from the redrawing of California's congressional districts in the aftermath of the 1980 census and its most significant holding: that the Bandemer precedent, which had initially been applied to the drawing of state legislative districts only, also extends to the drawing of congressional districts. The chapter then considers the circumstances surrounding the Vieth case, in which the alleged political gerrymander concerned the reapportionment plan for the congressional districts in the state of Pennsylvania rather than those for the state assembly. It also analyzes the Supreme Court's 2004 decision in Vieth, focusing on Justice Antonin Scalia's plurality opinion and Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurring opinion.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document