BOTUS

Understanding Marbury v. Madison (1803)

Marbury v. Madison (1803): established the power of Judicial Review

McCulloch v. Maryland (1819): established the federal government’s implied powers over states

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)**: established the right of a criminal defendant to have legal counsel

Miranda v. Arizona (1966): created the requirement that police advise people in custody of their rights before questioning them

Loving v. Virginia (1967): in a unanimous decision, it invalidated laws forbidding interracial marriage

Roe v. Wade (1973): determined that the right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment extended to a woman’s right to have an abortion

United States v. Nixon (1974)**: prohibited sitting Presidents from using their executive powers to withhold evidence during a criminal investigation

  Obergefell v. Hodges (2015): held that same-sex couples had a fundamental right to marry as guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment 

**BOTUS summaries are available for these cases

In my opinion, I think that Nixon vs. the U.S. is one of the most important Supreme Court cases brought forth to date. This case basically re-outlined what would be included “executive privilege”. Executive privilege is defined as “claimed by the president for the executive branch of the US government, of withholding information in the public interest”.

Basically, when the court ruled against this, they said “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice."

By Hareplane ;) 

Thomas Jefferson!

Thanks for asking!

20 million!

Bonsoir BOTUS readers! Here’s a reaction to the groundbreaking 1963 case that established the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in all state and federal courts in the US. 

In my opinion this is one of the most important decisions in the history of the Supreme Court, as it guarantees due process of the law under the 6th and 14th amendments.

Legal terminology is an entirely different language to be learned and understood before one can hold up any kind of argument in court. No person should have to defend themselves in court without proper knowledge of the law and how to apply it in such a high-stakes situation. 

In Gideon’s case, he was forced to defend himself without adequate knowledge, resulting in his incarceration. If he had not petitioned the Supreme Court to hear his case, he would have been jailed for charges that he was subsequently acquitted of with proper counsel. 

The fact that Gideon was acquitted in his second trial shows the importance knowledge of the law is in these situations and the importance of this case to the rights of the people in the United States.

Konnichiwa BOTUS readers! Here is another installment of our politician recipe series. Let us know if you try it out!

The RBG Power Snack:

Ingredients:

1.     1 cup of milk chocolate chips

2.   4 cups rice Chex cereal

3.   1 ¼ cups powdered sugar.

4.    1 cup peanut M&Ms in red, white, and blue

5.    1 cup whoppers candy

Directions:

1.     Line a large baking sheet with wax or parchment paper. Put the 4 cups of cereal in a large mixing bowl. Set both aside.

2.   Put the milk chocolate chips in a microwave-safe bowl. Microwave on high for 30 seconds. Stir. Repeat in 30 second intervals until the chocolate is fully melted.

3.   Use a large spoon to drizzle the melted chocolate over the cereal. Gently mix as you drizzle, making sure to coat the cereal evenly.

4.    Place the powdered sugar in a 1-gallon zip-top bag.

5.    Carefully scoop the chocolate-coated cereal into the bag with the powdered sugar. Seal the bag and shake it to cover the cereal with the powdered sugar.

6.    Let it sit for 1-2 minutes then spread it out onto the prepared baking sheet. Let dry for 1 hour.

7.   Put your cereal back in the large bowl and gently mix in the whoppers and M&Ms.

Greetings, BOTUS readers! Today we will be focusing on another case. The all-too-famous Nixon v. United States. Please enjoy!

The Supreme Court Case, Nixon v. the United States, started off after a break in at the Democratic National Committee Headquarters in Washington, D.C. These “burglars” were caught wiretapping and stealing documents from the headquarters. President Nixon was paying them off with hundreds of thousands of dollars to do his dirty work. He wanted to ensure his win.

           Once this was uncovered by the United States Congress, it was clear that Nixon was likely to get impeached. Both sides of the line were looking to impeach him. It was not until minutes before the impeachment vote, Nixon sent a little note to the Senate floor saying how he was resigning. Nixon probably would have been the first person ever to be impeached.

           This case was brought to the Supreme Court in 1974, and the main question that was asked was if Nixon was using his “executive privilege” had confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review. It was decided by the Burger court and it was decided unanimously against Nixon.

Shalom BOTUS readers! The staff has decided to add some fun to this site by including recipes from politicians. Our first one will be Kamala Harris’ Thanksgiving turkey recipe. 

For the wet brine: Get a pot of water with a couple bay leaves, a little bit of sugar, a little bit of peppercorns, and maybe a slice of orange. Then add your turkey into the pot to brine.

The butter spread: Take a couple sticks of butter and add in some kosher salt, fresh ground pepper, thyme, and rosemary. Spread the butter under the skin and inside and out of the turkey so when it cooks, it gets some good flavor.

Lastly, grab a bottle of cheap wine and pour into the pan that your turkey is cooking and baste as it cooks.

Enjoy! 

Salutations BOTUS readers! We will be diving into Gideon v. Wainwright for our next case. Here’s a brief summary before one of our staff writers gives her opinion on the case!

BACKGROUND: Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested on June 3, 1961 for breaking into the Bay Harbor Pool Room in Panama City, Florida. Gideon was charged with breaking and entering with the intent to commit a misdemeanor, which is a felony under Florida law.

THE CASE: At trial, Gideon appeared in court without an attorney.  

In open court, he asked the judge to appoint counsel for him because he could not afford an attorney. The trial judge denied Gideon’s request because Florida law only permitted appointment of counsel for poor defendants charged with capital offenses. 

Gideon represented himself to no avail, as the jury found Gideon guilty and he was sentenced to five years imprisonment.

While in jail, Gideon filed habeas corpus with just a pencil and paper to the Florida Supreme Court to challenge his conviction on the grounds that judge’s refusal to appoint counsel violated his constitutional rights period this petition was denied.

Gideon then petitioned the Supreme Court which agreed to hear the case and decide whether the right to counsel under the 6th amendment applies to state courts.

There was an issue with the previous decision of the court in Betts v. Brady, 1942, that held that the refusal to appoint counsel for an indignant defendant charged with a felony in state court did not necessarily violate due process of the 14th amendment.

SCOTUS eventually ruled unanimously in favor of Gideon which overturned Betts v Brady and guaranteed the right to legal counsel for criminal defendants in all state and federal courts.

Gideon was not freed by this decision but allowed a re-trial where he was acquitted from all charges.

Sources: https://www.uscourts.gov/educational-resources/educational-activities/facts-and-case-summary-gideon-v-wainwright

That’s all folks!

Hola BOTUS readers! Please enjoy this reaction by our head writer to our previous case summary: Tinker v. Des Moines.

I personally agree with the decision of the supreme court, students should not be treated like prisoners of war and do not have any less access to rights just because they may be under 18. This case was very influential to today’s society, it helped solidify many in-school protests and student free speech. Most recently is the national school walk out in 2018 for March for Our Lives to protest school shootings and help get better gun control laws in America.

I think if this case were to be tried presently, in the exact same manner, I think it would have the same outcome because it is not as dividing as some other court cases are, so there is less of a chance of party alignment. And the same to be said if this case were to be tried in the future, plus along with this one case, there are plenty of examples of student expressing their first amendment rights in school that would be unconstitutional to overturn this case.

Hello, BOTUS readers! Our first case we will be discussing the infamous Tinker V. Des Moines case. Here is a summary for those who are new or familiar to the case. Stay tuned for our opinion piece by one of our writers!

BACKGROUND: 1965 America was divided of troops aiding in the Vietnam war.

THE CASE: In Des Moines, Iowa 15-year John Tinker, his sister Marybeth Tinker and Hope Tinker, his brother Paul Tinker, and friend Christopher Eckhardt carried out an act of protest by wearing black armbands.

To which the school district banned the armbands and threated the students with suspension and expulsion if they did not comply. Then John, Marybeth, and Christopher wore them anyways and got suspended and could not come back unless they stopped wearing the armbands. And to push the school more they came back to school in January of 1966 wearing all black clothing.

The Tinker family was who were civil rights and antiwar activist, with the help of the ACLU took the school district to the U.S. district court for southern Iowa, which ruled in favor of the policy.

The thing to remember is that the district court agreed that a student had the right to protest under the first amendment, the court’s decision was made because the concern was a school would have a hard time keeping an orderly environment where student could learn.

The case was then brought to the appeals court for the 8th circuit which ended up in a tie, causing the Tinker family to make one last appeal to the supreme court who heard arguments on November 12, 1968.

Attorney Dan Johnston, who took the case for the Tinkers argued that the school district’s policy was unconstitutional and violated 1st amendment rights.

He also argued that since the 1943 case west Virginia board of education vs. Barnett protected student’s rights to symbolic expression (with the pledge of allegiance and the flag); the same should be applied to the tinkers.

OUTCOME: 1969 supreme court ruled that a public-school forbidding student from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam war was against the first amendment rights of students.

The supreme court eventually came to a decision (7-2) on February 24, 1969 with Judge Abe Fortas for the majority, where he said students and teachers do not leave their rights at the schoolhouse door. And argued that the armbands symbolized pure speech that was separate from any actions of those wearing them.

Created the “tinker test” which is a way to see if a student’s speech is disruptive at school. Also weakened the legal idea that the school takes the place of a parent while the student is in attendance.

Sources: https://youtu.be/27M3BO69ZCs , https://youtu.be/qOk7sjqKmhI , https://youtu.be/HQ_EAbM3zxo

Thanks for tuning in! 

Welcome to our brand new blog that is aptly named after the former BOTUS (Bunny of the United States) Marlon Bundo. 

Meet our team!

Marlon Bundo: Our inspiration , our mascot, our leader, and our editor-in-chief!

Rose McCaffrey: Our Assistant editor-in-chief! She has been a reporter for 2 years with the AIC’s Yellow Jacket and is currently a sophomore in Political Science and Communications at American International College.

Alyssa Kelleher: Our Head Writer! She had never written for a newspaper before but she has tons of writing experience. She is currently a honors students in Political Science at American International College.