美国历史吧 关注:960贴子:2,880

- -真是的 没人发我发 几个很有名的supreme court decision

只看楼主收藏回复

突然觉得这些表情好萌


1楼2013-06-27 17:16回复
    Mainly from wikipedia
    Plessy v. Ferguson
    The law upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring racial segregation in public facilities under the doctrine of "separate but equal".
    The decision was handed down by a vote of 7 to 1 with the majority opinion written by Justice Henry Billings Brown and the dissent written by Justice John Marshall Harlan. "Separate but equal" remained standard doctrine in U.S. law until its repudiation in the 1954 Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education.


    2楼2013-06-27 17:19
    回复
      2025-06-10 03:03:22
      广告
      Equal protection clause:
      All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


      4楼2013-06-27 17:20
      回复
        Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge
        In 1785, the Charles River Bridge Company had been granted a charter to construct a bridge over the Charles River connecting Boston and Cambridge. When the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sanctioned another company to build the Warren Bridge, chartered 1828, that would be very close in proximity to the first bridge and would connect the same two cities, the proprietors of the Charles River Bridge claimed that the Massachusetts legislature had broken its contract with the Charles River Bridge Company, and thus the contract had been violated. The owners of the first bridge claimed that the charter had implied exclusive rights to the Charles River Bridge Company.


        本楼含有高级字体5楼2013-06-27 17:23
        回复
          Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
          The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits. It ruled that it had no original jurisdiction in the matter, as the Cherokee was a dependent nation, with a relationship to the United States like that of a ward to its guardian.Contents


          本楼含有高级字体6楼2013-06-27 17:27
          回复
            Gibbons v. Ogden, was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the power to regulate interstate commerce was granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The case was argued by some of America's most admired and capable attorneys at the time.


            本楼含有高级字体7楼2013-06-27 17:28
            收起回复
              Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), also known as the Dred Scott Decision, was a landmark decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.It made two main rulings. The first ruling was that African Americans were not citizens, and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. The second ruling was that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in any territory acquired after the creation of the United States.
              The opinion of the court, written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, stirred debate. The decision was 7–2, and every Justice besides Taney wrote a separate concurrence or dissent. For the first time since Marbury v. Madison, the Court held an Act of Congress to be unconstitutional
              --in excercising judicial review and declaring he Missouri Compromise inconstitutional, Taney and the Court were saying slavery could go anywhere


              本楼含有高级字体8楼2013-06-27 17:33
              回复
                Marbury v. Madison
                The case resulted from a petition to the Supreme Court by William Marbury, who had been appointed by President John Adams as Justice of the Peace in the District of Columbia but whose commission was not subsequently delivered. Marbury petitioned the Supreme Court to force the new Secretary of State James Madison to deliver the documents. The Court, with John Marshall as Chief Justice, found firstly that Madison's refusal to deliver the commission was both illegal and remediable. Nonetheless, the Court stopped short of compelling Madison (by writ of mandamus) to hand over Marbury's commission, instead holding that the provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 that enabled Marbury to bring his claim to the Supreme Court was itself unconstitutional, since it purported to extend the Court's original jurisdiction beyond that which Article III established. The petition was therefore denied.


                本楼含有高级字体9楼2013-06-27 18:25
                收起回复
                  2025-06-10 02:57:22
                  广告
                  Mcculloch v. Maryland
                  McCulloch v. Maryland, was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States. The state of Maryland had attempted to impede operation of a branch of the Second Bank of the United States by imposing a tax on all notes of banks not chartered in Maryland. Though the law, by its language, was generally applicable to all banks not chartered in Maryland, the Second Bank of the United States was the only out-of-state bank then existing in Maryland, and the law was recognized in the court's opinion as having specifically targeted the U.S. Bank. The Court invoked the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution, which allowed the Federal government to pass laws not expressly provided for in the Constitution's list of express powers, provided those laws are in useful furtherance of the express powers of Congress under the Constitution.This case established two important principles in constitutional law. First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional national government. Second, state action may not impede valid constitutional exercises of power by the Federal government.


                  本楼含有高级字体10楼2013-06-27 18:29
                  收起回复
                    Wabash, St. Louis & Pacific Railway Company v. Illinois,, also known as the Wabash Case, was a Supreme Court decision that severely limited the rights of states to control interstate commerce. It led to the creation of the Interstate Commerce Commission.


                    本楼含有高级字体14楼2013-06-27 18:47
                    收起回复
                      Worcester v. Georgia, , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Indians from being present on Indian lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.The opinion is most famous for its dicta, which lay out the relationship between tribes and the state and federal governments, building the foundations of the doctrine of tribal sovereignty in the United States.


                      本楼含有高级字体15楼2013-06-27 18:49
                      回复
                        Abrams v. United States, was a 7-2 decision of the United States Supreme Court involving the 1918 Amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917, which made it a criminal offense to urge curtailment of production of the materials necessary to the war against Germany with intent to hinder the progress of the war. The 1918 Amendment is commonly referred to as if it were a separate Act, the Sedition Act of 1918. The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 that the Act did not violate the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.


                        本楼含有高级字体16楼2013-06-27 18:50
                        收起回复
                          Furman v. Georgia, was a United States Supreme Court decision that ruled on the requirement for a degree of consistency in the application of the death penalty. The case led to a de facto moratorium on capital punishment throughout the United States, which came to an end when Gregg v. Georgia was decided in 1976.


                          本楼含有高级字体17楼2013-06-27 18:51
                          回复
                            Escobedo v. Illinois, was a United States Supreme Court case holding that criminal suspects have a right to counsel during police interrogations under the Sixth Amendment. The case was decided a year after the court held in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963) that indigent criminal defendants had a right to be provided counsel at trial.


                            本楼含有高级字体18楼2013-06-27 18:52
                            收起回复
                              2025-06-10 02:51:22
                              广告
                              Griswold v. Connecticut, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution protected a right to privacy. The case involved a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy".


                              本楼含有高级字体19楼2013-06-27 18:53
                              收起回复