Toggle navigation
Ask Questions
Ask
Answer Questions
Answer
Users
FAQ
Login
Register
Preview 50% of the Answer Below
Due to formatting, images, tables, or paragraphs may be out of place or not shown. Rest assured that they will be included and formatted correctly in your purchased answer.
Details
Question Title:
Must have equal up to 1200 words and have at lea
Go Back to the Question
Answer Preview
<p>The overbreadth doctrine occurs if a law tries to punish any act that is protected by the U.S. Constitution, such as freedom of speech and if it is impossible to discard the unconstitutional section of the law without negating the entire law (Hall, 2015). An example can be seen in the case of Washington vs. Immelt (2011). Immelt was arrested for beeping her horn in front of a neighbor’s home, which was said to violate the county noise ordinance because she did not sound her horn for public safety purposes. She challenged the horn ordinance as overbroad, the Supreme Court of Washington agreed and reserved the conviction.</p> <p>2. Which of the following is protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause? Explain your answers. a. A public flag burning in protest of a recently enacted law. b. XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX chips found XX a billboard. c. The XXXXXXX XX a XXXX XXXX one’s heart XXXXX the national anthem is played.</p> <p><b>Burning XX the XXXX</b> </p> <p>The burning XX a XXXX in XXXXXX XX part of a protest XX protected XX XXX First Amendment's XXXX Speech Clause. XX XXX determined in XXX XXXX of Texas XX. XXXXXXX XXX Johnson (1989) that XXXXXXX the XXXX XXX an expression and XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXX the First Amendment. In the mid-80's, XXXXXXX Lee XXXXXXX XXXXXX an XXXXXXXX flag XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Convention to XXXXXXX XXX Reagan XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Based XX XXXXX law, XXXXXXX was arrested XXX XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXX appealed XXX decision XXXXX on XXX XXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX Amendment and XXX Texas appeals court XXXXXXXX his XXXXXXXXXX. Not XXXXXXXXX the XXXXX XX Texas XXXXXXXX to the U.S. XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXX decided it was XXXXXXX's XXXXX, despite how XXXXXXXXX XXX act XXX (XXXX, XXXX).</p> <p><b>XXXXXXXXXX</b> </p> <p>While some billboards are XXXXXXXXX XX XXX XXXXX Amendment, there are some regulations, as stated in XXX Highway Beautification Act (HBA), XXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX XX perform XXXXXXX tasks as it XXXXXXX XX outdoor advertising. The first XXXXXXXXXXX is that states XXXX XX make XXXX that billboards XXX within 660 XXXX XXXXXXXXX funded XXXXXXXX, XXXXXX, XXXX have to XXXXXX that billboards are XXX placed in XXXXX where XXXXX XX XX commercial XXXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXX sizes, XXXXXXXX spacing, XXX lighting. For XXXXXX that XXX in XXXXXXXXX of the law, they will receive a 10% XXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXX highway XXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXX Fact Sheet, XXXX).</p> <p><b>National Anthem</b> </p> <p>While I XXXXX everyone XXXXXX XXXXXX the XXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXX your hand over XXXX XXXXX for XXX national anthem, persons XXX XX not do it are XXXXXXXXX XX the XXXXX Amendment. XXXXXXXXX to 36 XXXXXX States XXXX § 301 - XXXXXXXX XXXXXX, XXXXXXX X states, "all other XXXXXXX present XXXXXX XXXX XXX flag and stand XX attention XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXX over the XXXXX, and XXX not in uniform, XX applicable, should remove their XXXXXXXXX with XXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXX hold it XX the XXXX shoulder, XXX hand XXXXX XXXX the heart; XXX XXXX XXX flag XX XXX displayed, all XXXXXXX should XXXX toward XXX music and XXX in XXX same manner XXXX would if the flag were displayed." I think XXX operative word here is, “should” which XX a suggestion XXX XXX a XXXXXXXXXXX.</p> <p>X. State law requires XXXX all XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX the ages of 5 XXX XX XXXXX attend an XXXXXXXX XXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX XXXX been XXXXXXX with violating the XXXXXXX, as they do not XXXXXX XXXXX children XX XXXXXX school. XXX defendants are XXXXXXXXXX and claim that it would violate XXXXX First XXXXXXXXX XXXXX to XXXXXX exercise XXXXX XXXXXXXX. The XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX their children in a manner XXXXXXXXXX with XXXXX XXXXXXXXX teachings. Should they XX convicted? XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX.</p> <p>No, I XX XXX believe XXX defendants should XX convicted XXXXXXX convicting XXXX XXXXX violate XXXXX First XXXXXXXXX right to XXXXXXXX (XXXX, 2015). XX addition, the Mennonite XXX Amish XXXXXXXXX XXXX firm beliefs in XXXXX style XX XXXXXXXXX. Children attend XXXXXX within the XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX 8th XXXXX, they are XXXX XXXXXX a variety XX trades, XXXX as XXXXXXX, carpentry, XXX other skills that XXXXXXX XXXX for XXXX within their own XXXXXXXXXXX (Mennonite XXX XXXXX Education, n.d.). I XXXX that XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXX their children and their XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXX the XXXXX XXX the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX how a XXXXXX educates or XXXXX their XXXXXXXX XXXXXX it XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX proven XXXX XXXX acts would XX XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX child’s life.</p> <p>X. What XX the XXXXXXXXXXXX rule?</p> <p>The exclusionary XXXX means that XXX evidence that XX retrieved XXXXXXXXX XX inadmissible in a XXXXXXXX trial (Hall, 2015). An example XX the rule can XX seen in XXX case of XXXX XX. XXXXXXX Mapp (XXXX). XXXXXX Officers XXXXXXX the XXXX XX XXXX, with a XXXXX XXXXXXX, because they believed XXX XXX XXXXXX a suspect. They XXX XXX find XXX XXXXXXX, XXX XXXX XXX uncover XXXXXXX images which XXX XX XXXX's XXXXXX and XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX. Mapp appealed to X.S. Supreme XXXXX, saying her XXXXXX Amendment XXXXXX were violated, XXX XXXX XXXX in favor XX XXXX in a 5-3 vote (Mapp v. Ohio Podcast, n.d.).</p> <p>X. XXXX an example of XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXX XXXXX of the XXXXXXXXX XXXX.</p> <p>The fruit of the poisonous tree XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX to XXXXXXXX that XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX XX it relates to an XXXXXXX XXXXXX XXX seizure (Hall, 2015). For XXXXXXX, a XXXXXX officer XXXXX a car for a broken tail-XXXXX and XXX XXXXXX XX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and does not give XXX officer XXX reason XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX wrong. XXX XXXXXXX XXXXX to search XXX XXX and despite the XXXXXX’s refusal, proceeds to XXXXXXX a search XXXXXXX the XXXXXXX of the XXXXXX and XXXXXXX XXXXX. During the search, the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX in XXX trunk of XXX XXX, so he arrests the XXXXXX and gets a XXXXXXX to search the driver's home. XXXX searching the home, the XXXXXXX XXXXX more XXXXX, XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and XXXXX pornography. The XXXXXX is now charged XXXX the XXXXX and XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX, however, XXX drugs XXXXX in the car XXXXXX XX XXXX against XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX it was an XXXXXXX search. In XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XX used XXXXXXX the XXXXXX XXXXXXX it was XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX an XXXXXXX XXXXXX XX XXX car (Roger, n.d.).</p> <p>6. The XXXXXXXXXXXX of XXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX criminal XXX. Why is XXXX so when more XXXX 95 XXXXXXX of all prosecutions XXXXX in XXXXX courts?</p> <p>Ninety-XXXX percent of XXX prosecutions XXXXX in state XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX are in XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XX a XXXXX XXX XXXX XXX been broken XXXXXX than a XXXXXXX XXX. XXXX XXXXX XXX typically XXXXXX its criminal justice system XXXX XXXX litter interference (Hall, 2015). XXXXX XXXXXX have an XXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX that XXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXXX types XX XXXX ranging from traffic XXXXXXXXXX to murder. XXXX XXXX, if a law is XXXXXX in a state XXXX is XXXXXXXX related XX federal law, such XX a bank XXXXXXX where XXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX by a XXXXXXX XXXXXX, then XXX offender would XX XXXXXXXXXX in a federal XXXXX (Federal vs. XXXXX XXXXXX, n.d.).</p> <p>X. Do you XXXXXXX XXXX evidence that XXX been obtained XX XXX XXXXXXXXXXX in an unconstitutional XXXXXX should XX XXXXXXXXXXXX XX trial? XXXXXXX your position.</p> <p>I honestly think it depends on the XXXXXXXXX. For XXX XXXX part, I would say XXXX any XXXXXXXX XXXX was XXXXXXXX illegally XXXXXX XXX XX XXXXXXXXXX in XXXXX, XXXXXXX, I think XXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX when evidence should be admissible XXXX XX it was XXXXXXXX in an unconstitutional manner. For example, XX an XXXXXXX XXXXX evidence XX XXXXXX cruelty XX XXX XX an illegal XXXXXX for XXXXX in someone’s home, XXXX XXX evidence of XXXXXX abuse XXXXXX absolutely be admissible at XXXXX. XXXXXXXXX, XX in XXX XXXX house XXX officer XXXXX a list XX XXXXXXX, XXXX dates XXX times and XXXXXXX XX drugs that XXXXX be XXXX and to whom, then it XXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX.</p> <p>I XXXXX there is a fine line XXXXXXX right XXX XXXXX and a XXXXXXXX of morals comes XXXX XXXX, if XXXXXXXX that is found XXXXXXXXX can XXXX or threaten XXXXXX XXXXXX, animals, etc. XXXX it should be admissible. I think XX an XXXXXXXX has XXX intention XX XXXXXXXXXX a crime (e.g. sell drugs XX a school), he is XXX going XX XXXX XXXXX so, especially if it XX XXXXXX out because XX a XXXXXXXXXXXX. XX would XXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XX XXXX careful XX XX XXXXX he XXXXXX evidence.</p> <p>Resources </p> <p>XX U.S. XXXX § 301 - National XXXXXX. (n.d.). Retrieved XXXXX XX, 2018, from <a XXXX="https://XXX.XXX.cornell.XXX/XXXXXX/XXXX/36/301">XXXXX://XXX.law.cornell.edu/uscode/XXXX/36/301</a> </p> <p>XXXXXXXXX Fact XXXXX. (XXXXX). Scenic XXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX March 23, 2018, from <a href="http://www.scenic.XXX/XXXXXXX/PDFs/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.pdf">XXXX://XXX.XXXXXX.XXX/XXXXXXX/XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.XXX</a> </p> <p>XXXXXXX vs. XXXXX Courts - Key XXXXXXXXXXX. (n.d.). Retrieved March 24, 2018, from <a href="http://litigation.findlaw.XXX/legal-system/federal-XX-XXXXX-courts-XXX-differences.XXXX">http://litigation.XXXXXXX.XXX/XXXXX-system/XXXXXXX-XX-XXXXX-XXXXXX-key-differences.XXXX</a> </p> <p>Hall, D. X. (XXXX). Criminal law XXX procedure (XXX ed.). New XXXX: Cengage XXXXXXXX. </p> <p>XXXX v. XXXX XXXXXXX. (n.d.). XXXXXXXXX March XX, XXXX, from <a href="XXXX://XXX.uscourts.XXX/XXXXX-federal-courts/XXXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXX/supreme-XXXXX-XXXXXXXXX/XXXX-v-XXXX-XXXXXXX">http://XXX.uscourts.gov/XXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXX/educational-XXXXXXXXX/supreme-court-landmarks/XXXX-v-ohio-podcast</a> </p> <p>Mennonite XXX XXXXX Education in Lancaster, XX. (n.d.). XXXXXXXXX March 23, XXXX, from <a href="http://XXX.XXXXXXX-XX-lancaster-county.com/XXXXX-XXXXXXXXX.html">XXXX://XXX.XXXXXXX-to-Lancaster-county.XXX/XXXXX-XXXXXXXXX.html</a> </p> <p>Rogers, S. (n.d.). Fruit of the Poisonous Tree - Further Readings. XXXXXXXXX XXXXX XX, XXXX, from <a XXXX="http://law.jrank.org/pages/7042/XXXXX-Poisonous-Tree.XXXX">XXXX://law.jrank.XXX/XXXXX/XXXX/Fruit-XXXXXXXXX-XXXX.html</a> </p> <p>XXXXX of Texas vs. XXXXXXX Lee XXXXXXX (March 21, 1989) </p> <p>XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX vs. XXXXX X Immelt (October 27, XXXX). </p> <p>XXX XXXXX XX Ohio vs. XXXXXXX XXXX (XXXX 19, XXXX) </p>">
Attachment #1 Preview
Attachment #2 Preview
Attachment #3 Preview
