The first Supreme Court, discussion help

please replies to my classmates posts for example you can start like this Hi nice post i like the fact that …..

Brandon wrote:

The first Supreme Court case that came to mind was the case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This case arguably had the most profound impact on criminal law since the constitution was erected. Well the case all started in 1963 when Ernesto Miranda raped and kidnapped an 18 year old women. The case appeared to be a lock for the prosecution. Miranda was identified by the girl and after being interrogated admitted that he was guilty. But, ahh here comes the issue… Miranda was never informed of his constitutional rights prior to being interrogated. So he subsequently appealed his conviction on the pretense that his constitutional rights were violated. The issues his case dealt involved the 5th amendment (right to remain silent) and 6th amendment (right to counsel). In a shocking move the court held, in its 5-4 opinion, that Miranda’s rights were violated. Therefore, overturning his conviction. Chief Justice Warren wrote the opinion of the court which said “The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remain silent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; he must be clearly informed that the has the right to consult with a lawyer and to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if he is indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him.” If that sounds suspiciously similar to the Miranda rights that you have heard on shows like Cops and in the movies then you would be correct. This case is what forced law enforcement officials to read individuals suspected of crimes their constitutional rights when they are being custodially interrogated. This case ties in with the economic classes’ termfrom the book. While everyone should have equal protections under the law, arguably minorities and people from poverty (low economic classes) often were forced to speak to speak police without an attorney present or they couldn’t afford one. But, after this case suspects had the constitutional right to counsel—even if they cannot afford one.

Timothy wrote this:

In one of the landmark Supreme Court Cases, Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), Justice Fortas affirmed that a student maintains their constitutional rights while in public school. In 1965, John and Mary Beth Tinker wore black armbands to school against the policies set forth by the school in Des Moines, Iowa. The black armbands at the time were a symbol of protest against the Vietnam War. The two Tinker students were suspended from school after they refused to remove the armbands and were told they were not allowed to return to classes until they agree to remove the armbands. Instead of complying, the Tinkers filed a suit against the school in the U.S. District Court claiming that the wearing of armbands is a form of free speech–called symbolic speech. The District Court ruled in favor of the school claiming that the armbands were a disruption to learning–this means that the District Court favored undisruptive learning in schools over a student’s right to free expression. The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals: Eighth Circuit and was once again disappointed after the Court of Appeals sided with the District Court (Street Law, Inc., 2016).

By 1968, the Tinkers have taken their case to the Supreme Court with the following question: “Does the constitutional right of free speech protect the symbolic speech of public school students?” In 1969, the Supreme Court reached their decision with a 7-2 vote in favor of the Tinkers (Street Law, Inc., 2016).

Tinker v. Des Moines is a case that is an example of federal question. A federal question is a legal issue directly involving the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or treaties. The case brought before the Supreme Court questioned whether or not the protected right to free speech and expression, as stated in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applies to students in public schools (Hanes & Ekern, 2013, pg. 58).

James wrote this :

Smoking bans and other tobacco related regulations have been increasingrapidly since the first surgeon general’sreport in 1964 thatdefinitively linked the use of tobacco with certain diseases. Despitethis report being 50 years old, there has been no federal smoking ban enacted. The lack of federal action allows state legislators tocreate a vast array of alternative policymethods to reach goals more specific to that state. Policy analysts can then use varying policy proposals to fine tune previously suggested proposals byfocusing on specific problem areas within a given policy. By creatingmultiple policy alternatives, analysts can then create entire models of multiple policies, that work cohesively to mitigate problems associated with one policy or that promote the positive effects of another. Despite the differences betweentobacco regulations state by state, the country has been moving forward with a tri-tiered policy model that combines public education like labeling laws, monetary incentives in the form of excise taxes, and blatant deterrence in the form of smoking bans and age limits to reduce the negative affects associate with tobacco use. 
Why do you think it may have been beneficial for Delaware to be one of the first states to implement such a policy?

 Policy makers can seek to be the first to enact a policy for personal political gain, but also because being first or early can be beneficial to the cause, and subsequently benefit those who the policy will effect. The text for this course mentions a bandwagon effect associated with being the first of its kind policies or movements. The Bandwagon effect works by drawing in substantive interests that are concerned with being on the ‘winning’ side of an issue. Secondly the bandwagon effect works to suppress opposition by not providing proper time or an easy way to create an opposition. So by being early or first in policy creation a state or cause can benefit as people will pick sides based on the problem definition. Additionally, the oppositions ability to mobilize, or point to handpicked statistics that show a negative fall-out of similar policies in other states is diminished.

Cary wrote this:

I think it is vitally important to look around at other jurisdictions on how they handle policy in other areas that you are not from. It will give you stronger insight to why a certain area or group of people have or do not have a specific law set in motion, such as the indoor smoking ban. When I first read the prompt I thought to myself ‘This is such a one sided argument and all states should have an indoor smoking ban.’ To gain more insight I tried to look from the other perspective of why you would NOT have a smoking ban initiated in your state. It appears there are just a few states left, about 10 or so, that do not have a statewide ban on indoor smoking. It appears as though some smaller localities want to give their citizens the freedom to do as they wish, even if that means smoking indoors. Another argument is that is smoking is allowed in public then they will be less likely to smoke in their home where there could possibly be children. If you ban smoking completely indoors, you are going to have some bars and clubs that may lose business because the people who come in prefer to smoke there. Lastly, it is just very difficult to enforce the ban everywhere. Especially in smaller facilities, they may choose to ignore it because they simply have no desire to follow the rules. I honestly could not think of any reasons to keep smoking allowed but after looking around at research I found some valid arguments for it. For this precise reason it is important to look around before making any decisions or alterations as a policy analyst. 

As for Delaware being first on the smoking ban, I think that it set a tone that Delaware cares for the health and safety of its citizens. This is looking at what will benefit the greater good of society. While smoking is legal, limiting the usage may make some people upset, though I think more people would be upset becoming ill from secondhand smoke which they did not consent to. In this case I am glad Delaware sided with keeping public order over individual rights. Plus, this sets a precedent to other states in the nation. When they are evaluating whether or not they should initiate a smoking ban, they are going to look at the positive results Delaware has seen since the smoking ban was created. This allows Delaware to have recognition to doing the right thing before others.

Dear writer what would you reply to these classmates post