Joseph to what extent should abortion be legal.

Joseph R. DayanMrs. Netkin12/28/17Credit recovery assignment I chose the  Roe. v Wade Supreme Court case from 1973. The constitutional question was,”does the Constitution embrace the right of a woman to obtain an abortion, nullifying the Texas prohibition?” The problem was that Texas law made it a crime to assist a woman in getting an abortion. The United States Supreme Court discussed the issue of restricting access to abortions and they understood the women’s decision to have an abortion. They stated that it was dangerous for a women’s health to have an abortion and they felt the need to protect the potentiality of human life. The Court rejected Roe’s view that a woman has the right to abort her baby before it’s able to live outside the mother’s womb, also known as viability. Since we have highly advanced technology, a baby can be able to live outside of a mothers womb at around 24 weeks. Roe v. Wade started a national debate that continues until today speaking about whether, and to what extent should abortion be legal. It discusses who should decide the legality of abortion and how the Court should deal with the religious views in this political issue. Roe v. Wade divided the United States into pro-abortion camps while activating grassroots movements, an act which uses the people in a district for a political or economic movement. The Court issued its decision on January 22, 1973, with a 7-to-2 majority vote in favor of Roe. The Court regarded abortion a fundamental right under the United States Constitution which cancelled all laws attempting to restrict it. The decision was that The Court holds is that a woman’s right to an abortion is connected to the right of privacy which is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision made it able for a woman to abort during the entirety of the pregnancy and gave guidelines on regulating abortion in the second and third trimesters. Roe v Wade is known as the case that legalized abortion nationwide.I chose the Mapp v Ohio Supreme Court case. The constitutional question is,”may evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?” The case started off of in Cleveland, Ohio when police officers forced their way into Dollree Mapp’s home without a search warrant. Police officers thought a bombing suspect was being held at Mapp’s house because there was evidence leading to her house of the bombing. After the police tried to get permission to visit and it was denied, the officers returned with a fake search warrant and forced themselves into her house. They discovered a trunk of suspicious photographs in Mapp’s basement and arrested her even though the suspect wasn’t found.She was being held in an Ohio court at the time while she argued that her Fourth Amendment rights had been violated by the search. Mapp’s appeal was taken to the United States Supreme Court and at this time, unlawfully seized evidence was banned from federal courts but not state courts. The court tried to excuse the First Amendment problem by stating that, “all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court.” Mapp has been put into jail because of the illegal evidence she had in her basement. The decision troubled the Court on how to determine when to use the exclusionary rule. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in a 5-3 vote in favor of Mapp. The evidence was taken unlawfully without a search warrant. It was therefore unable to be used in criminal prosecutions in state courts. All evidence that was discovered in this violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution won’t be used as valid information or evidence in State court proceedings.The legislative branch has many powers one of them is the ability to pass laws. An example of this power that the legislative branch holds would be the republican tax bill that passed the senate recently. What they changed was they lowered the the tax rate for corporations by a lot and they also minimized the individual tax rate. The causes for the legislative branch to lower the taxes were that the legislative branch felt that tax was a little to high. The reason for that was because when seeing how much big corporations were paying for tax they thought it could be better for the economy if they lowered it. The benefits of lowering the taxes for corporations would be more jobs available. Jobs would become available because if the owners of these corporations had more money they would be able to invest in more stores for their businesses or offices, the more stores and office building companies have the more people they would need to work in those buildings thus helping the unemployment rate to decline. The effects of the new tax plan that was passed by the legislative branch would be that people would be saving money. That could benefit the economy while being harmful to the government. Since there would be more money saved people could hire more workers as mentioned previously. The reason it could be harmful to the government would be because the tax money that people pay go to things like public schools, the police departments, fire departments, and social security. These are all things that benefit everyone that lives in America no matter who you are. Since there is a new tax plan the government will be receiving less money than they were previously getting and the effect of that would be the public schools wouldn’t be getting as much money as they may need, same goes for the police and fire department.Another power of the legislative branch would be passing treaties. Treaties are writtenPromises that bind the two parties to an agreement. An example of the legislative branch passing a treaty would be the nuclear test ban treaty. The treaty was signed to prevent the testing of nuclear bombs for civilian or military purposes. One of the causes for this treaty was because on August 5th 1963 499 nuclear test were performed. This gained major public attention which forced the government to take action. Another cause for the signing of this treaty would be the castle bravo test of March 1st 1954 which resulted in some of the surrounding environment to be uninhabitable and caused a group of Japanese fishermen to get very sick. This gained a lot of public attention when the test was performed. The effects of this treaty being signed would be that the population of the affected countries would not have to worry about nuclear test being done where they lived and they wouldn’t have to live in fear anymore. This helps everybody because since there wouldn’t be anymore nuclear test the people that were trying to use the nuclear bombs would have the test to lead them to use them if they ever decided to. Another effect of this treaty would be less wars. Considering the termination of nuclear bomb tests there would be no reason for countries to be threatened by the power of other countries nuclear bombs.