United States v Nixon

The United States V. Nixon was a court case that started in the District court which ruled against nixon so he appealed to the Supreme Court. Nixon was accused of recording conversations while in Oval office. Also five men associated with Nixon from The committee of re-elect the president were found trying to break into the Democratic National Headquarters and also other illegal activities relating to the Nixon administration. Nixon argued that he was immune to any subpoenas, he believed he had the right to withhold information from the other branches of government. The Supreme Court decided in an 8 to 0 ruling that Nixon must hand over all the tapes to government investigators. Nixon the resigned from the presidency on August 9, 1974. When Gerald Ford took office he gave Nixon a pardon so that all illegal action he committed during his presidency would be excused. We believe that the ruling from the supreme was fair.

 The United States versus Nixon impacted America in a few different ways. The United States versus Nixon case impacted the presidents confidentiality from the courts if the evidence involves matters of national security or other sensitive information, but the president cannot withhold evidence involving non-sensitive information when needed for a criminal investigation. When the case ruled it established a constitutional basis for executive privilege. It also showed that the president is not excused from the judicial process and must give the evidence if the court asks for it.

The United States v Nixon has not impacted our lives in anyway. It has to do with a law for the president and we have nothing to do with that. It does not affect us in anyway at the moment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Nixon

http://www.infoplease.com/us/supreme-court/cases/ar41.html

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2036448_2036452_2036457,00.html

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0418_0683_ZS.htmlhttps://lh5.googleusercontent.com/LeYp1B0HzbKP1NFJK_TyWuxdGNMmjxrKjvdk2QHRPlRPHR_xlic4VZAG0zdQ8GWCnk6rnh_CPmPmGbTfdlP1V3W0RmjJZjqxu7H1MS7wyG7Iv1ppUo4

Jury Systems of the World

The beginning of the American trial by jury system was started by our constitutional writers. It is in the 5th,6th and 7th amendment.It is way more common here in the U.S then any other place in the world. 80% of trials world wide take place in America. The beginning of trial by peers was started by Charlemagne, he started the trial by panel. This system was honorable men who took an oath to listen to the accusations and judge fairly biased on evidence presented. This system was still somewhat flawed but it is more fair then any other form of trial at that time. I believe this was important start of a more fair trial even if it had its flaws i'm glad somebody came up with the idea.

 http://medievaleurope.mrdonn.org/trialbyjury.html
 http://www.fff.org/freedom/1295a.asp

I chose Frances jury system. It was interesting to learn that they do not have jury members for civil cases but they do have trial by jury for criminal cases. Trial by jury was introduced during 1790's during the revolution. They past a law that said any electors could be eligible to be a juror. Currently one of the only court that you can be trialed by jury in France is the Cour d'assises it is for major crimes though. Judge and jury have the same power and equal position for sentencing. French citizens are chosen to be jurors in the criminal cases. If i could change this id make it eaiser to get trial by peers in france.

 http://www.ca-rouen.justice.fr/art_pix/X-200702082334162966.jpg


http://www.jstor.org/stable/1273211
http://www.loc.gov/lawweb/servlet/lloc_news?disp3_l205402828_text

D.A not pressing charges

Ehud Halevy a 21 year old was caught on tap getting repeatedly punched by a brooklyn police officer for resisting arrest, assault, and trespassing. He was supposedly on the Women's side of the Jewish and refused to leave. He was sleeping on a bench that the Aliya said it was alright. The DA said that they would drop the charges on Halevy from the community center in Brooklyn. They decided to drop the cases after reviewing all the evidence.
I think its all a misunderstanding but the police are at fault for this because the organization said he was allowed to be on the bench and also the police should not be able to arrest him if he was doing nothing wrong.

 http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/23/justice/new-york-man-beaten-police/index.html?hpt=ju_c2



http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1189619.1350941777!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/beatdown23n-2-web.jpg

Mother found guitly

The mother of Gabriel an 8 month old baby is found guilty of unlawful imprisonment and custodial interference because she took the the baby to Texas with her. Originally the court was trialing her on kidnapping but they could not get to an agreement on that charge. She sent a text to her husband saying that she killed Gabriel and said to the police she gave Gabriel to a young couple.She was found guilty for forgery and conspiracy with custody of Gabriel. She got 30 days in jail and probation. I believe that she made a too rash decision and she should get no custody of the baby.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/18/justice/arizona-baby-gabriel-case/index.html?hpt=ju_t2

The first admendment

(link to being john marshall didnt work so i played the first admendment)
The game is telling me who gets the rights, what the amendment protects, what ratification is, and giving me games to explain it. It also talks about court cases like Tinker to show freedom of speech. It gives you vocabulary like plaintiff and respondent.I personally thought it was kinda boring and long but it was pretty easy and it did teach me a couple new words.

The naturalization test i got four out of four both times I did it. So it seems like i know mostly what i would need to know if i had to take the test.
 
For the founders test i was George Mason and it said he was principled, provincial and libertarian i think it sounds pretty accurate for me. He was one of the people who refused to sign the constitution without the bill of rights.