Provide Substantive Responses to these Forum postings.
Forum Post 1:
The case of Hiibel v. Nevada is a simple one in regards to the other complex matters that come before the Supreme Court, but it raises a very intriguing question. Is it a crime to remain silent when approached by a police officer? This is exactly what Larry Dudley Hiibel of Nevada chose to do when an officer questioned him about a police call that he was suspected of being involved in. Hiibel was subsequently arrested and fined $250 for not giving the officer his name. The officer was justified because Nevada has a law in place stating, "any person so detained shall identify himself, but may not be compelled to answer any other inquiry."1 So, by not giving this officer his name, Hiibel was convicted.
Now, let`s talk about the Miranda rights. The Miranda rights were formed and passed by the Supreme Court back in 1966 in the famous case, Miranda v. Arizona. They have established that any suspect must be read and understand their legal rights when being placed under arrest. One of these rights just so happens to be the "right to remain silent, anything you say can, and will be used against you in a court of law."2 These two pieces of legislature would seem to contradict one another, because which one takes precedence? By stating one`s name to a police officer, you could be unintentionally incriminating yourself in another crime. But, if you have nothing to hide, you should have no problem with at least providing your name and nothing else.
I believe the reason the Supreme Court chose to hear and vote on this case was for that very reason. There was a clear disconnect between federal and state law and when that happens, citizens will exploit it. I also concur with the Supreme Court`s ruling that you will provide an officer with your name because that person is most likely hiding something and is wanted for another crime. Police are out there doing their jobs the way they were trained to do, and when citizens do not obey simple orders, it makes their jobs that much more difficult and ultimately ties up the already flooded court system.
Forum Post 2:
United States Supreme Court choices have formed history. Vital choices have finished child labor laws, racial isolation, kept guns far from schools, and given the central government the teeth it needs to manage interstate commerce. At the same time, it is rather difficult to understand the reason of why certain cases were chosen to listen and some were not.
In order to explain this, it is necessary to mention that every case has a right on approval, but in fact there are some requirement needed for the decision-making. First of all, a case must include an issue of government law or generally fall inside the locale of elected courts. A case that includes just an issue of state law or gatherings inside a state will probably stay inside the state court framework where that state`s preeminent court would be the last step. Secondly, accepting the case is equipped for being heard by the U. S. Supreme Court is to record a claim in your nearby state or government court. The trial judge would hear confirm and consider legitimate contentions from every side before settling on a choice. Thus, thirdly, justices will consider a case if it touches constitutional questions or a disagreement between other Sate/Federal courts.
Gonzalez v. Raich was accepted for adjudication because it was a controversial case. On the one hand, it touched the laws related to the legalizing marijuana. In fact, marijuana can not finally become “legal” until the Department of Justice and other government organizations quit implementing the Controlled Substances Act, which records the medication as a Schedule I controlled substance. From the other side, the judges at last presumed that Congress` Commerce Clause power incorporates the ability to deny the nearby development and utilization of marijuana, actually when it is in consistence with California law. In a 6-3 conclusion composed by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court perceived Congress` energy to control absolutely nearby exercises that are a piece of a financial “class of exercises” that have a considerable impact on interstate business (Scarinci, 2012).
To sum up, The Court`s choice has essential ramifications for the long-standing “federalism” discuss under U.S. law, which concentrates on the points of confinement of government power under the Constitution and which has commanded a significant part of the Court`s compositions lately. Since states` energy to set general well-being strategy is profoundly influenced by the course of this debate,3 this portion of Law and the Public`s Health is dedicated to an examination of Gonzales v. Raich and its suggestions (Rosenbaum, 2005).