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). Thiscase arguably had the most profound impact on criminal law since theconstitution was erected. Well the case all started in 1963 when ErnestoMiranda raped and kidnapped an 18 year old women. The case appeared tobe a lock for the prosecution. Miranda was identified by the girl andafter being interrogated admitted that he was guilty. But, ahh herecomes the issue... Miranda was never informed of his constitutionalrights prior to being interrogated. So he subsequently appealed hisconviction on the pretense that his constitutional rights were violated.The issues his case dealt involved the 5th amendment (right to remainsilent) and 6th amendment (right to counsel). In a shocking move thecourt held, in its 5-4 opinion, that Mirandas rights were violated.Therefore, overturning his conviction. Chief Justice Warren wrote theopinion of the court which said The person in custody must, prior tointerrogation, be clearly informed that he has the right to remainsilent, and that anything he says will be used against him in court; hemust be clearly informed that the has the right to consult with a lawyerand to have the lawyer with him during interrogation, and that, if heis indigent, a lawyer will be appointed to represent him. Ifthat sounds suspiciously similar to the Miranda rights that you haveheard on shows like Cops and in the movies then you would be correct.This case is what forced law enforcement officials to read individualssuspected of crimes their constitutional rights when they are beingcustodially interrogated. This case ties in with the economic classes termfromthe book. While everyone should have equal protections under the law,arguably minorities and people from poverty (low economic classes) oftenwere forced to speak to speak police without an attorney present orthey couldnt afford one. But, after this case suspects had theconstitutional right to counseleven 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 theirconstitutional rights while in public school. In 1965, John and MaryBeth Tinker wore black armbands to school against the policies set forthby the school in Des Moines, Iowa. The black armbands at the time were asymbol of protest against the Vietnam War. The two Tinker students weresuspended from school after they refused to remove the armbands andwere told they were not allowed to return to classes until they agree toremove the armbands. Instead of complying, the Tinkers filed a suitagainst the school in the U.S. District Court claiming that the wearingof armbands is a form of free speech--called symbolic speech. TheDistrict Court ruled in favor of the school claiming that the armbandswere a disruption to learning--this means that the District Courtfavored undisruptive learning in schools over a student's right to freeexpression. The Tinkers appealed their case to the U.S. Court ofAppeals: Eighth Circuit and was once again disappointed after the Courtof Appeals sided with the District Court (Street Law, Inc., 2016).By 1968, the Tinkers have taken their case to the Supreme Court withthe following question: "Does the constitutional right of free speechprotect the symbolic speech of public school students?" In 1969, theSupreme Court reached their decision with a 7-2 vote in favor of theTinkers (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 SupremeCourt questioned whether or not the protected right to free speech andexpression, 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 generalsreport in 1964 thatdefinitively linked the use of tobacco with certaindiseases. Despitethisreport being 50 years old, there has been no federal smoking banenacted. The lack of federal action allows state legislators tocreate a vast array of alternative policymethodsto reach goals more specific to that state. Policy analysts can thenuse varying policy proposals to fine tune previously suggested proposalsbyfocusing on specific problem areas within a given policy. By creatingmultiplepolicy alternatives, analysts can then create entire models of multiplepolicies, that work cohesively to mitigate problems associated with onepolicy or that promote the positive effects of another. Despite thedifferences betweentobacco regulations state by state, the country has been moving forward with a tri-tieredpolicy model that combines public education like labeling laws,monetary incentives in the form of excise taxes, and blatant deterrencein the form of smoking bans and age limits to reduce the negativeaffects 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 personalpolitical gain, but also because being first or early can be beneficialto the cause, and subsequently benefit those who the policy will effect.The text for this course mentions a bandwagon effect associated withbeing the first of its kind policies or movements. The Bandwagon effectworks by drawing in substantive interests that are concerned with beingon the winning side of an issue. Secondly the bandwagon effect worksto suppress opposition by not providing proper time or an easy way tocreate an opposition. So by being early or first in policy creation astate or cause can benefit as people will pick sides based on theproblem definition. Additionally, the oppositions ability to mobilize,or point to handpicked statistics that show a negative fall-out ofsimilar policies in other states is diminished.Cary wrote this:I think it is vitally important to look around at other jurisdictionson how they handle policy in other areas that you are not from. It willgive you stronger insight to why a certain area or group of people haveor do not have a specific law set in motion, such as the indoor smokingban. When I first read the prompt I thought to myself 'This is such aone sided argument and all states should have an indoor smoking ban.' Togain more insight I tried to look from the other perspective of why youwould NOT have a smoking ban initiated in your state. It appears thereare just a few states left, about 10 or so, that do not have a statewideban on indoor smoking. It appears as though some smaller localitieswant to give their citizens the freedom to do as they wish, even if thatmeans smoking indoors. Another argument is that is smoking is allowedin public then they will be less likely to smoke in their home wherethere could possibly be children. If you ban smoking completely indoors,you are going to have some bars and clubs that may lose businessbecause the people who come in prefer to smoke there. Lastly, it is justvery difficult to enforce the ban everywhere. Especially in smallerfacilities, they may choose to ignore it because they simply have nodesire to follow the rules. I honestly could not think of any reasons tokeep smoking allowed but after looking around at research I found somevalid arguments for it. For this precise reason it is important to lookaround before making any decisions or alterations as a policy analyst.As for Delaware being first on the smoking ban, I think that it set atone that Delaware cares for the health and safety of its citizens.This is looking at what will benefit the greater good of society. Whilesmoking is legal, limiting the usage may make some people upset, though Ithink more people would be upset becoming ill from secondhand smokewhich they did not consent to. In this case I am glad Delaware sidedwith keeping public order over individual rights. Plus, this sets aprecedent to other states in the nation. When they are evaluatingwhether or not they should initiate a smoking ban, they are going tolook at the positive results Delaware has seen since the smoking ban wascreated. This allows Delaware to have recognition to doing the rightthing before others. Dear writer what would you reply to these classmates post