Amnesty International is a global movement of people fighting injustice and promoting human rights. The government should not be able to wiretap them. They are trying to make the world a better place. The fourth Amendment says the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This is saying that they have to have probable in order to even search a place. The government has no probable cause of Amnesty International doing anything. Just because they talk to people outside of the United States does not mean they’re planning terrorist acts. The government should not be able to wiretap Amnesty International, and if they do they should at least let them know.
In the Boumediene versus Bush the court said that alleged terrorists must be given some way of challenging the legality of their detention. The government never gave Amnesty a way of challenging. In the Laird v. Tatum case they sued the army for partially violating their First Amendment rights of free speech. They think they violated their rights because the Army was taking too much private information. In the City of Los Angeles v. Lyons case Adolph Lyons accused the LAPD for putting him in a chokehold after a traffic stop. The court couldn’t do anything about it because Lyons couldn’t prove that chokehold was against the LAPD policy. In the Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife case a group of environmentalists sued the Department of the Interior due to policies that would affect habitats of some animals. The court didn’t do anything because they didn’t have proof that they were going back to study these animals.
Concurring: Fisher not being accepted to the University of Texas goes against her Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment stating that 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. Fisher was denied addmission because of her race, and this goes against her Equal Protection Clause. Such as in University of California v. Bakke, the 5-4 majority said that this case went against the Fourteenth Amendment because the process application saved 16 out of 100 places for students of minority. In Parents Involved In Community School v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, students were allowed to choose what school they wanted to apply to. The more popular schools get to choose their top student’s, with one of their main decision factors being the students race. Chief Justice Roberts stated that this goes against the Equal Protection Clause, because there main goal was to have racial diversity compared to holistic “diversity in higher education.” Also in the case from 2009, Ricci v. DeStefano, firefighters were given promotions due to their race. This Court ruled that the work place should be a place free of discrimination. It is not fair to have two students, one white and one hispanic, with the same test scores but one be accepted because they are part of a minority. Colleges should look at the students achievements and base it solely on academics and after school involvement and not on the students race.Why FISA can't tap our lines!
I don’t think that FISA has the right to tap lines that are suspicious. If something is suspicious to FISA then why can’t they contact the police and tell them about the “suspicious activity”? Everyone is granted privacy, as stated in the Fourteenth Amendment, and the ability to feel safe in their own home and line tapping completely violates the victims’ rights. I say victim because they are being spied on. Although it might make some extremists feel safe, it is still a violation of the 14th. No one likes to be searched. In the Lujan V. Wildlife case, it was already stated by many that there was no for sure evidence to sue, so someone being eavesdropped on without any for sure evidence is unconstitutional. If something is found suspicious then it should be brought to the law because everyone has different opinions and what some people think is suspicious might seem normal to others. In the Laird V. Tatum case, the army used their resources but they had permission to because the meetings were open to the public. If the person, who talks regularly to another suspicious person, permits the line to be tapped, or listened in on, then it is okay. When there is permission given by a concerned person who is talking to the suspicious person, the action of tapping the line at any given time would be considered constitutional. In the Massachusetts V. EPA one side had the standing because the fact that the gases were out of control was provable, and if one person one the phone is concerned and has for sure evidence I think tapping the line would be constitutional.jardines opinion
To me, it seems almost common sense, with knowledge of the constitution, that Jardines house was illegally searched. We the court decide that the search was in fact illegal, but Jardines may be searched and tested, with a warrant, at any time. Also, Jardines house must be cleaned by the DEA. The defendant should not get charged for possession because the marijuana was found in an illegal search. If anyone should be charged, it should be either the officer or the department in which he belongs. Everyone must have their constitutional rights protected. In the Kyllo V. U.S. case, the U.S. had a tool to help them detect, but they never searched the house until they had a warrant. If Florida had used the dog to assist them in obtaining a warrant, that would be constitutional, then Jardines would be guilty and charged for possession and distribution would have been further looked into. In the Indianapolis V. Edmond case, the search was unconstitutional, which we agreed with because, just like in this case, there was no warrant for a search and there was no one person or group being looked for. In the U.S. V. Place case, we decide to stick with the precedent and say that a sniff search, without a warrant, is in fact illegal. If there are found weapons or explosives in the detector or scanner, a search must happen to insure the safety of our country, but because drugs couldn’t physically hurt anyone on the plane, the search was unconstitutional. Everyone is guaranteed a protection of rights, and an illegal search is a violation of these rights.Fisher v. University of Texas, Opinion
On behalf of those who voted in favor of Ms. Abigail Fisher, we believe that what has occurred in the matter of this case is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution due to the admission factor of race of the University of Texas. Due to this factor, Ms. Abigail Fisher was denied admission to this university. Race should not, under any circumstances, take part in any drastic role as to whether or not a student is granted admissions. It is understood that universities want diversity among their student body, but this should not be a major factor of admissions.
This idea of race playing an important role in the decision of admission should be eliminated. Race should not be completely eliminated, it can still be a small factor, but must not make or break an admission. In the case of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it was vividly shown in a similar fashion to this case that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth was violated. Similar cases like these would no longer occur if the race factor is removed as a monumental factor to the admissions decision. Had the University of Texas not made race of such drastic impact on admission, Ms. Abigail Fisher would be the student that was admitted to the University of Texas at Austin. One that note, it is extremely apparent of why this policy of admission should be eliminated, or at least have its importance brought down to a lesser importance.