0
Still curious? Ask our experts.
Chat with our AI personalities
Steve
Blake
RafaAdd your answer:
Earn +20 pts
Who won the case US v Lopez?
Lopez "won". Lopez was a high student who brought a gun into school. He was charged with violating Gun Free School Zone Act of 1990. He was tried and convicted. He appealed the decision, saying Congress didn't have a right to legislate guns in the way the did (through the interstate commerce clause). The appeals court agreed. The government appealed the appeals court decision to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court affirmed the appeals court ruling in a 5-4 decision (essentially overturning Lopez' conviction) saying that while Congress has broad powers under the commerce clause, that power was not limitless.
How long was John Rutledge on the US Supreme Court?
Term as Associate Justice: September 1789 - March 1791 (525 days)Term as Chief Justice: July 1, 1795 - December 28, 1795 (180 days)Total Time on the Court: 705 daysExplanationJohn Rutledge, who was a member of the Continental Congress and one of the framers of the US Constitution, was first appointed to the Supreme Court as an Associate Justice in September 1789. Rutledge was a friend of President Washington, and was reportedly disappointed that John Jay was nominated Chief Justice ahead of him. According to historical accounts, Rutledge never actually served on the Court or attended their required meetings, but worked as a judge in the South Carolina state system, instead. He officially resigned his position on the US Supreme Court in March 1791, after just 18 months.In the years between 1791 and 1795, Rutledge was Chief Justice of the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas in Charleston, SC. He also suffered the loss of his wife in 1792, which sent him into a depression.In 1795, John Jay, the incumbent Chief Justice of the United States, negotiated a difficult treaty with Great Britain, the Jay Treaty (officially: Treaty of London of 1794), and was subsequently elected Governor of New York. Eager to serve in that capacity, he tendered his resignation from the Supreme Court effective July 1, 1795.Rutledge heard about the Jay Treaty and the vacancy on the Court at about the same time. He solicited President Washington for the Chief Justice position, and was granted his request while Congress was on summer break, making his a recess appointment.Excerpts from John Rutledge's letter to President Washington:"Dear Sir/"Finding that Mr. Jay is elected Governor of New-York, & presuming that he will accept the Office, I take the Liberty of intimating to you, privately, that, if he shall, I have no Objection to take the place which he holds, if you think me as fit as any other person, & have not made Choice of one to succeed him: in either of which Cases, I could not expect, nor would I wish for, it."Several of my Friends were displeased at my accepting the Office of an Associate Judge (altho' the senior,) of the Supreme Court, of the United States, conceiving, (as I thought, very justly,) that my Pretensions to the Office of Chief-Justice were, at least, equal to Mr. Jay's, in point of Law-Knowledge, with Additional Weight, of much longer Experience, & much greater Practice..."and"I have held many Posts, of high Rank, & great Importance, & have been under the Necessity of refusing others: but, they were offer'd, spontaneously, & handsomely. I have Reason to believe, that I discharged all that I held, with Fidelity & Honour. I never sollicited a Place, nor do I mean this Letter as an Application. It is intended, merely, to apprize you, of what I would do, if elected."He was offered the position effective July 1, before the Senate had an opportunity to vote on his confirmation. The new Term of the Supreme Court and the new Session of Congress were to convene on August 1, 1795.On July 16, while still living in Charleston, Rutledge, who hated the British with a passion, spoke out strongly against Jay's treaty, calling it "prostitution," and suggesting he'd rather the President die than sign the "puerile" agreement. He also lead a protest in which John Jay was burned in effigy and the British flag dragged through the streets.Rutledge's escapades were published in both the Charleston and Philadelphia newspapers. Because Philadelphia was the nation's capital at that time, it wasn't long before his friends in the Federalist party learned of his outrageous behavior. While many expressed surprise and indignation, Oliver Ellsworth (who became the third Chief Justice) commented he was not terribly surprised to find John Rutledge had "acted like the devil." Rumors were already circulating that Rutledge was mentally ill.On July 31, Rutledge and his son sailed from Charleston to Baltimore, then traveled over land to Philadelphia, so Rutledge could open the new Term of the Supreme Court. He arrived in the city on August 10, but his temporary commission wasn't sealed until August 12, two days later.The session only lasted a few days, during which time the Court heard one case, that of Talbot v. Janson, 3 US 133 (1795), in which a French vessel had been illegally outfitted with guns while docked in the US, then engaged in acts of piracy, including capturing a Dutch vessel, the Magdalena, on its voyage between Curacoa and Amsterdam. Rutledge delivered the opinion of the Court that the ship had been captured illegally, and ordered all cargo returned to its rightful owner. Rutledge then closed the session of the Court and returned to South Carolina.In November, he traveled to Augusta, Georgia, to hold a term of the Circuit Court, which was one of the duties of Supreme Court Justices at that time. When he arrived, he discovered the case files were in Savannah, the Clerk of Court had recently died, and the Associate Justice who was supposed to join him never arrived. Rutledge had no choice but to adjourn court until the next session.He then began traveling to North Carolina, where he intended hold the next Circuit session. Enroute, he became seriously ill and was unable to complete the journey.In December, Congress met to discuss Rutledge's confirmation. Their anger toward him over his outrageous behavior in protest of the Jay Treaty had softened somewhat, but they had become concerned that his intellect was failing and decided he wasn't capable of leading the Court. The Senate rejected Rutledge's commission on December 15, 1795, by a vote of 14-10.Rutledge tendered his resignation to Washington in a letter dated December 28, 1795 (it is not known whether he'd received news of the rejection before writing the letter). A short excerpt offers this explanation:"...it requires a Consitution less broken than mine, to discharge with Punctuality & Satisifaction, the Duties of so important an Office..."According to a relative, when Rutledge heard the news, "The Senate's refusal to confirm his appointment extinguished the last spark of sanity." Rutledge allegedly tried to commit suicide by jumping off a pier into the Charleston Bay, but was saved from drowning by two passing slaves. He lived the last five years of his life in almost total seclusion.
What was the outcome of District of Columbia v. Heller?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US ___ (2008)In 2008, the US Supreme Court found in favor of Hellerand upheld Second Amendment protection by striking down a District of Columbia law that unconstitutionally restricted the use and storage of legally owned guns. The decision in Hellerapplied only to the District of Columbia, which is federal territory, and not to the states.McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 US ___ (2010). In McDonald, the Court held self-protection was a fundamental right and incorporated the Second Amendment to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. The decision was released June 28, 2010.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
What does incorporation mean as it relates to US government?
Incorporation means applying the US Constitution's Bill of Rights to the States to protect people's rights.The Bill of Rights originally regulated only the actions of the federal government, and did not apply to the states. Each state had its own constitution, and all state constitutions included a bill of rights, many of which mirrored the language of the US Constitution, and some of which afforded greater freedoms.In the 18th and 19th centuries, the Supreme Court often ruled in favor of state law when they were presented with cases that contradicted the first nine amendments (the 10th doesn't really confer any rights).After the Civil War, the US government decided it needed a way to enable Reconstruction and supplement the Civil Rights Act of 1866, so Congress created the 14th Amendment, ratified by the States in July 1868. The Fourteenth Amendment was written in a way that could have forced the States to uphold the Bill of Rights of the US Constitution, but the Supreme Court decided not interpret it that way.Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1875 to prevent businesses from discriminating against people, but the US Supreme Court declared the Act unconstitutional. They held the Fourteenth Amendment didn't give Congress authority to regulate private entities.Some historians believe that the Fourteenth Amendment was meant to require States to follow the entire Bill of Rights (Total Incorporation), but others claim the individual Amendments were designed to be incorporated selectively. The Supreme Court has followed the doctrine of selective incorporation, upholding individual clauses within each Amendment only when they were relevant to cases before the Court and the justices thought the individual rights outweighed the states' rights.As of 2010, some parts of the Bill of Rights remain unincorporated, such as the Third, Seventh, one clause of the Fifth, and part of the Eighth. The Second Amendment (right to bear arms) was not incorporated to the States until June 2010. Prior to the Supreme Court decision in McDonald v City of Chicago,(2010) States had the right to make their own regulations about owning and using guns.
Which statement supporting restrictions on guns is most clearly based on the language of the Second Amendment?
only people who are members of a militia should be able to own guns
How many guns salute does a soldier get?
A soldier gets a 21 gun salute.
In 1841 the gun salute was standardized to how many guns?
The gun salute was standardized in 1841 to include 21 guns, 3 shots per gun.
How many guns are fired at the Tower of London in salute to the Queen's birthday?
41 Gun Salute
What are the tools of the us supreme court?
there are lots of tools: the famous hammer type one that the JUDGE has and guns sometimes!
What is a military salute featuring firing of guns?
The actual act of firing the guns is called a "Salvo".
What is it called firing military guns in salute?
The actual act of firing the guns is called a "Salvo".
What is the Supreme Court case involving guns in a public school zone?
http://www.answers.com/topic/united-states-v-lopez
What is the origin of the 3 volley salute in military ceremonies?
The 3 volley salute is an adaptation of the 21 gun salute. 7 guns are fired 3 times. This is a common mistake. The 3 volley salute just happens to be preformed with 7 guns (but may be performed with a few as 3 guns), but it does not constitute a 21 gun salute. A 21 gun salute is preformed by a battery. The 3 volley salute originates from an old custom of removing the dead from the battle field to allow the fighting to continue. The armies would then fire 3 volleys to indicate the dead were cleared and they were ready to go back to fighting.
Should the US Supreme Court ban guns?
Absolutely not! For one, bad guys do not follow the law, and will smuggle in guns. When they do that, the law-abiding citizens will have nothing to defend themselves with. Also, the job of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution. The 2nd amendment says, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If the supreme court banned guns, that would be doing the thing it is not supposed to be doing.More information:The US Supreme Court upheld the Second Amendment right to bear arms in District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago, (2010). The McDonald ruling incorporated the Second Amendment to the states, ensuring states cannot pass overly restrictive laws regarding gun ownership. Banning guns altogether would be unconstitutional.
What best describes the US Supreme Court's current interpretation of the right to bear arms?
The US Supreme Court recently incorporated (applied) the Second Amendment to the States in McDonald v. Chicago, (2010). The Court held, as it did in District of Columbia v. Heller,(2008), that the Second Amendment protected the public's right to possess firearms in their homes, and that the amendment was not intended solely for the formation of a militia, but for personal protection, as well. Restrictions against felons owning guns and other federal legislation still applies.
What guns are used in a twenty-one gun solute?
Obviously, over the centuries the 21 gun salute of the US military has changed weapons. Currently from my experience the salute can be made with an M-1 Garand, and M-14, or a AR-15 (M-16).
Must the 21 gun salute be done facing North?
3 volley is not 21 gunsyou appear to be confusing the 3 volley salute, executed at the grave of a veteran, with a 21 gun salute. 3 volley salute, even if accomplished with 7 rifles, is not a 21 gun salute. It is simply called a 3 volley salute using 2 to 7 rifles. Execute the 3 volley salute facing north, if possible, over the casket. Keep your distance from the mourners. keep the volleys clean - no popcorn.21 gun salute is done with cannon. one shot at a time, in 5 second intervals unless it is a 21 minute gun salute. 21 guns only for POTUS funerals, otherwise, the number of guns fired, 13 to 21, according to status of high officials and ranking officers.21 guns (cannon) also fired at noon for Washington's birthday, Memorial Day, Independence day.
