🏷️ LIMITED TIME OFFER: GET 20% OFF GRADE+ YEARLY SUBSCRIPTION →
Log in
Law
12
answers
2
watching
147
views

Who is involved of the New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What happened in the New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

How did the lower court rule in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What was the legal issue at hand to be decided in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What arguments ware given in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What precedents were cited in. New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What was the decision of the court in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

What was their reasoning in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

Were there any significant dissenting opinions in New Jersey v. T.L.O.?

Watch
12
answers
2
watching
147
views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 1 person
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 2 people
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 2 people
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 2 people
Already have an account? Log in
Share
Avatar image
Read by 2 people
Already have an account? Log in
Share

Related questions

CAN YOU ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS. and then can you support your opinions by recent cases or anything that has happened around the world to prove your point is right and to have a good argument. Can you also try to relate some questions to either Cesare Beccarias essay on crimes and punishment so basically stuff she has said that validates your point or even al pacino or Martin Luther king or anyone else. PLEASE

 

Supreme court of Canada, strikes down life without parole ruling. In Canada's legal justice system, sentencing is the process of determining the appropriate punishment for a person who has been found guilty of a criminal offense. Sentencing is a critical part of the criminal justice system as aims to balance, the interest of the offender, the victim and society as a whole.

1. What do you think about the Supreme Court's ruling on striking down life parole sentences? Do you believe this will have a positive or negative impact on the Canadian justice system? why or why not

2. In what ways do you think this ruling will affect the victims of violent crimes and their families?Will this ruling bring them justice or will it further traumatize them?

3. The Supreme Court's decision was based on the notion that life sentences with no possibility of parole are " cruel and unusual punishment". Do you agree or disagree with this assertion? Why or why not?

4. What alternatives to life parole sentences do you think that Canadian justice system can implement to ensure public safety and rehabilitation of offenders?

In your opinion, how will this ruling change the way in which Canadian courts sentence individuals convicted of violent crimes? Do you think that other countries should adopt a similar approach?Why or why not?

6. How do you think this ruling will affect the public's perception of the Canadian justice system?Will it increase or decrease public confidence in the system? why?

CAN YOU WRITE A REFLECTION BASED ON THE INFORMATION GIVEN??

MY THESIS STATEMENT:

Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of the categorical imperative aligns with peoples beliefs of the most, because it emphasizes the importance of treating people as end rather than means, promoted the idea of universal ethics, and stress is the significance of individual autonomy in decision making.

NEXT PART IS THREE POINT PROOF EXPLANATION:

POINT 1: Immanuel Kant emphasizes the importance of treating people as end, rather than means. For Kant, human beings have inherent value and dignity, and they should never be treated merely as a means to an end, but always as ends in themselves. This means that individuals should be respected and treated with dignity, regardless of their social status, or usefulness to others. According to Kant, using people as mere means to achieve one’s own goals, is not only an ethical also undermines the dignity of human beings.

PROOF: “A human being however, is not a thing, and hence not something that can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions always be regarded as an end itself.” (Kant, 113)

EXPLANATION: Here, Kant argues that every person has inherent dignity and worse, and should be treated as an end in themselves, rather than merely as a means to an end. This means that we should not use others for our own purposes, or treat them as objects to be manipulated, but rather respect their autonomy, and treat them with respect and dignity.

POINT 2: Immanuel Kant promoted the idea of universal ethics. Kant believed that ethical principles should be universal and applicable to all human beings. He argued that ethical rules are not based on personal preferences or opinions, but are grounded in reason, and rationality.

PROOF: Kant believed, in the principle of universalizability, which he describes as, “Act only according to that maxim through you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (Kant, 109)

EXPLANATION: Kant believed that ethical principles should be universal and applicable to all people. He argued that morality is not relative, and that there are fundamental principles that apply to everyone. This proof supports the point that Kant promoted the idea of universal ethics. Kant argues that morality is not relative and that ethical principles should be universal. He believes that there is only one categorical imperative that should guide all moral actions, which is to act in a way you could will to become a universal law.

POINT 3: Immanuel Kant stress is the significance of individual autonomy in decision making. He believed that individuals have a moral duty to act autonomously and to use their own reason and judgment, to make ethical decisions. He believes individual should not simply follow the rules or conventions of society, but should use their own judgement to determine what is morally right or wrong.

PROOF: Kant states, “So act that you use humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as a means.” (Kant,112)

EXPLANATION: Kant’s  emphasis on individual autonomy, highlights the importance of respecting individuals freedom and independence in the moral decision making. This principle suggest that individual should take responsibility for their actions, and not be unduly influenced by external factors, such as societal norms, or pressure from others. It also implies that individuals have a duty to use their own reason and judgement to make a decision that align with moral principles, rather than blindly, following authority or tradition.

THE CONCLUSION: In conclusion, Immanuel Kant’s philosophy of the categorical imperative is a valuable philosophical framework for guiding moral decision making. It emphasizes how crucial it is to view people as ends rather than means, encourages the concept of universal ethics, and highlights the value of individual autonomy in decision making. These ideas are crucial for creating adjust and equitable society that values the inherent worth and dignity of all individuals.

MY THEMATIC STATEMENT: Kant’s philosophy offers a framework for examining ethical behaviour that is relevant, not only in personal decision making but also and broader social and political contexts. By emphasizing the importance of treating people with respect and promoting universal ethics, Kant challenges us to consider the impact of our actions on others, and to strive for a more just and equitable society.

YOUR JOB IS TO TAKE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND CREATE A GOOD AND WELL WORDED REFLECTION. I ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO DO SO. HOWEVER, YOU CAN ADD EXTRA SENTENCES AND EXTRA INFORMATION THAT WILL MAKE IT SOUND BETTER. (DONT JUST TAKE ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND PUT IT ALL IN ONE, MAKE SURE YOU MAKE GOOD USE OF EXTRA WORDS AND SENTENCES TO MAKE THIS SOUND GREAT FOR AN A+) l

Picking the Brains of the Founding Fathers
Experts Clash Over Whether the District Was Meant to Get a Vote in Congress
 
By Mary Beth Sheridan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, May 28, 2007
 
The setting is Congress, the year 2007. But as lawmakers wrangle over the D.C. voting rights bill, they are turning the clock back to the $1700 \mathrm{~s}$, furiously debating whether the Founding Fathers intended to deprive District residents of a vote in the national legislature.
 
On one side: the Bush administration and other critics of the bill, who believe the framers created the current situation intentionally. On the other: supporters of the bill, including Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), the District's nonvoting congressional delegate.
 
It is "slander," she declared heatedly last week, to suggest that the founders would fight a war over voting rights "and then would turn around and deny representation to the residents of their own capital."
 
Who's right?
 
Leading historians say the record on the founders' intentions for the future capital is unclear in some respects. But there is little evidence they sought to deny the vote to what would eventually become hundreds of thousands of D. C. residents, the historians say.
 
Does it matter what a bunch of bewigged 18 th-century revolutionaries thought about the District? It actually matters a lot: Their 200-year-old opinions could affect whether the current voting rights bill is deemed legal. The legislation, which seeks to give the District its first full seat in the House of Representatives, has passed the House and is now before the Senate.
 
The main argument advanced by the bill's opponents is that the Constitution reserves House membership for representatives from states. And the District is not a state, they note.
 
Supporters and opponents of the bill are delving into history to try to clarify what the framers intended in 1787 , when they inserted 38 words into the Constitution allowing for the creation of a federal government district. The brief clause gives Congress the power "to exercise exclusive legislation" over a future seat of government.
 
Did the framers mean its residents couldn't vote in Congress?
 
Absolutely, said John P. Elwood, a Justice Department official who testified at a hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. "The framers and their contemporaries clearly understood that the Constitution barred congressional representation for District residents," he said.
 
Nonsense, retorted Richard P. Bress, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. "I can't agree the evidence shows the Founding Fathers intentionally and permanently disenfranchised the people of the District of Columbia," he told the Senate panel.
 
Historians say early politicians disagreed about the nature of the future federal seat of government, with some wanting a strong, independent enclave and others fearing it would turn into a new imperial Rome. Political maneuvering colored the discussion.
 
"There is no one Founding Father position," said John Kaminski, a historian at the University of Wisconsin and editor of a 28 -volume collection of documents on the ratification of the Constitution.
 
But several prominent scholars who have studied the period say there appeared to be little debate on whether residents of the new federal enclave would have the vote.
 
"The Constitutional Convention overlooked it," said Kenneth Bowling, a George Washington University historian and author of "The Creation of Washington, D.C." "The issue was not on the Senate Judiciary Committee last week. "The framers and their contemporaries clearly understood that the Constitution barred congressional representation for District residents," he said.
 
Nonsense, retorted Richard P. Bress, a former assistant to the U.S. solicitor general. "I can't agree the evidence shows the Founding Fathers intentionally and permanently disenfranchised the people of the District of Columbia," he told the Senate panel.
 
Historians say early politicians disagreed about the nature of the future federal seat of government, with some wanting a strong, independent enclave and others fearing it would turn into a new imperial Rome. Pōlitical maneuvering colored the discussion.
 
"There is no one Founding Father position," said John Kaminski, a historian at the University of Wisconsin and editor of a 28=volume collection of documents on the ratification of the Constitution.
 
But several prominent scholars who have studied the period say there appeared to be little debate on whether residents of the new federal enclave would have the vote.
 
"The Constitutional Convention overiooked it," said Kenneth Bowling, a George Washington University historian and author of "The Creation of Washington, D.C." "The issue was not on their radar screen."
 
Historians traditionally have traced the District's status to a raucous demonstration in 1783 by unpaid Revolutionary War veterans outside what's now known as Independence Hall in Philadelphia. The federal Congress, which used the building, was not in session at the time; the rioters were aiming their wrath at a meeting of the Pennsylvania state executive council.
 
But some congressmen who were proponents of a strong central government seized on the incident, saying it underscored the need for a federal enclave under Congress's control, historians say. They got their way when the Constitution was drawn up.
Soon afterward, Alex ander Hamilton and a few other politicians realized the Constitution did not provide specifically for congressional representation for residents of the new capital. Hamilton suggested that the first Congress fix the problem, but his amendment went nowhere.
Opponents of the current bill view the Hamilton amendment as a sign that the issue was debated at the time - and that Hamilton lost.
"It was as controversial then as it is now," Jonathan Turley, a legal scholar from George Washington University, said at last week's Senate hearing.
But Bowling and other historians disagree, saying the young states and the first U.S. Congress were preoccupied with weightier issues - such as the amendments that became known as the Bill of Rights.
 
"They had to organize the entire government!" declared Bowling, co-editor of a 22-volume edition of records and letters from the first federal Congress, which met in 1789-91. "They certainly weren't going to pay a lot of attention to the federal district when it didn't even exist yet."
 
In fact, it was 1790 before the U.S. government decided where to locate the capital - on land ceded by Maryland and Virginia. Residents of the new district continued to vote in those states until 1801.
 
But in that year, Congress passed the Organic Act, assuming control of the District of Columbia and providing no provision for its residents to vote for members of Congress or a president.
That would seem a clear enough sign of Congress's intent. But historians caution that that act, too, should be seen in the context of the politics of the time.
 
It was passed by a lame-duck Congress fearful that the incoming president, Thomas Jefferson, an anti-federalist, would junk their vision of a strong capital, said William diGiacomantonio, a historian who has studied the period.
 
The outgoing Congress "really did want to preserve the independence of the District. And so they passed this really haphazard thing," he said, referring to the act.
"It's politics," the historian added. "It doesn't have anything to do with principle."

 

Step 1: Click here to access the article you will read in preparation for the Paideia Seminar. Read the article once, and note below any terms or ideas that you do not understand. Using the internet, try your best to find definitions and understandings for those terms and ideas.Once you have completed your first read of the text, proceed to the next step.

 

Terms/Ideas

 

What it means

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Step 2: As you read the text for a second time, complete the Cornell Notes on the next page to identify the different claims* that are presented in the article. Then, summarize the evidence used to support those claims. Include your evaluation of these claims and evidence. Finally, summarize your main conclusions after completing your chart.

 

*Note that the template below is just to get you started. There may be more or less than three claims in the article. Adjust the template as needed to eliminate or add to the number of claims.

 

Cornell Notes

 

 

 

Title of article:

 

Author and Publication:

 

Date Written:

 

Claims

 

Supporting Evidence and Evaluation of Evidence

 

Claim 1:

 

Claim 2:

 

Claim 3:

 

Evidence for Claim 1:

 

Evaluation of claim:

 

Evidence for Claim 2:

 

Evaluation of claim:

 

Evidence for Claim 3:

 

Evaluation of claim:

 

Summary of learning: What are your conclusions after reading this article?

 

Step 3: After completing the first two reads of the text, create at least four questions to ask your classmates during the Paideia Seminar. Remember that the central question for this Paideia Seminar is “Should the Founders’ intentions for D.C. still be relevant today?” Click here for tips on starting your questions.

 

Question #1:

 

Question #2:

 

Question #3:

 

Question #4:

Related Documents

LAWS 2180
Final Exam
Study Guide
LAWS 2180 Study Guide - Establishment Clause, Judicial Restraint
apricottortoise419
CRM/LAW C144 Chapter Notes - Chapter Week 8: Federal Reporter, Diminished Capacity, Insanity Defense
burgundyjackal461
LAW 602 Lecture 28: Property - State v. Shack
aquamarinetermite100

Weekly leaderboard

Home
Homework Help 3,900,000
Law 700
Start filling in the gaps now
Log in