Toggle navigation
Home
Ask A Question
Answer Questions
Users
Support/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 XXX. b. An advertisement XXX XXXXXX chips found XX a billboard. c. The XXXXXXX XX a hand over one’s XXXXX while the national anthem is played.</p> <p><b>XXXXXXX XX the Flag</b> </p> <p>The burning XX a XXXX in public XX part of a protest is protected XX the XXXXX XXXXXXXXX's XXXX XXXXXX Clause. It was determined in the XXXX of XXXXX XX. XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXX (1989) XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXX XXX an expression XXX XXXXXXXXX protected under XXX First XXXXXXXXX. XX the mid-XX's, XXXXXXX Lee Johnson XXXXXX an American flag XXXXXX the XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX Convention to protest XXX Reagan administration. XXXXX on XXXXX law, XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXX. Johnson XXXXXXXX the XXXXXXXX based on his XXXXXX under XXX XXXXX Amendment and the XXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX reversed his XXXXXXXXXX. Not XXXXXXXXX XXX State XX XXXXX appealed to XXX X.S. Supreme XXXXX which XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX it XXX Johnson's right, despite how offensive XXX act was (XXXX, XXXX).</p> <p><b>XXXXXXXXXX</b> </p> <p>While XXXX billboards are XXXXXXXXX by XXX XXXXX Amendment, there are XXXX regulations, XX XXXXXX in the Highway Beautification Act (XXX), XXXX require XXXXXX XX XXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXX as it XXXXXXX to outdoor XXXXXXXXXXX. XXX first XXXXXXXXXXX XX XXXX states XXXX XX XXXX XXXX that XXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX 660 XXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXXXX roadways, XXXXXX, they XXXX XX ensure XXXX billboards XXX not placed in XXXXX XXXXX there is XX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXX XXXX all XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XX specific XXXXX, adequate spacing, XXX lighting. For XXXXXX XXXX XXX in violation of XXX XXX, they will receive a 10% reduction in federal highway XXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX, 2014).</p> <p><b>National Anthem</b> </p> <p>XXXXX I XXXXX everyone XXXXXX XXXXXX the practice of XXXXXXX your XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXXX XXX XXX national XXXXXX, XXXXXXX XXX do not do it are protected XX the First XXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXX XX XX XXXXXX States Code § XXX - XXXXXXXX anthem, section X states, "XXX XXXXX persons present should face the flag XXX stand XX XXXXXXXXX with their right hand XXXX the heart, and XXX not in uniform, if XXXXXXXXXX, should remove XXXXX headdress XXXX XXXXX XXXXX hand XXX XXXX it at XXX left shoulder, XXX XXXX being over XXX XXXXX; XXX when the flag is not displayed, XXX present XXXXXX face XXXXXX the XXXXX and act in the XXXX XXXXXX XXXX would if the flag XXXX XXXXXXXXX." I think the operative XXXX XXXX XX, “should” XXXXX XX a XXXXXXXXXX and XXX a XXXXXXXXXXX.</p> <p>X. XXXXX law XXXXXXXX that XXX XXXXXXXX between the ages XX X and XX years attend an approved school. Defendants have XXXX charged with violating XXX statute, XX XXXX do XXX XXXXXX their children to XXXXXX XXXXXX. XXX defendants are Mennonites and claim XXXX it would violate XXXXX First Amendment XXXXX to freely XXXXXXXX XXXXX XXXXXXXX. XXX defendants XXXXX their children in a XXXXXX consistent with XXXXX religious teachings. XXXXXX XXXX be XXXXXXXXX? Explain XXXX reasoning.</p> <p>No, I XX XXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXXXX should be convicted because XXXXXXXXXX them would XXXXXXX their First XXXXXXXXX right to religion (Hall, 2015). XX XXXXXXXX, the Mennonite XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX firm beliefs in XXXXX style XX XXXXXXXXX. Children attend school within XXX XXXXXXXXX until XXX 8th XXXXX, XXXX are then taught a variety XX trades, XXXX as XXXXXXX, carpentry, and XXXXX skills XXXX prepare XXXX for work within XXXXX own XXXXXXXXXXX (XXXXXXXXX XXX Amish XXXXXXXXX, n.d.). I feel XXXX XXX defendants XXXX XXXX XX XXXX XXX their children XXX their respective XXXXXXXXX and the State XXX the XXXXXXXXXX should dictate how a family educates or XXXXX XXXXX children unless it XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX proven XXXX XXXX acts XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXX to that XXXXX’s life.</p> <p>X. What XX the XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX?</p> <p>The XXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX that any evidence that XX retrieved XXXXXXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX in a XXXXXXXX trial (XXXX, 2015). An XXXXXXX of the XXXX can XX seen in XXX case of XXXX vs. Dollree Mapp (1961). Police XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX the home of Mapp, XXXX a false warrant, XXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX she was XXXXXX a XXXXXXX. XXXX XXX not find XXX XXXXXXX, XXX they did XXXXXXX obscene XXXXXX XXXXX led to XXXX's XXXXXX XXX subsequent conviction. Mapp appealed XX X.S. Supreme Court, XXXXXX her XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX rights were violated, XXX they rule in favor XX XXXX in a 5-3 XXXX (Mapp v. XXXX Podcast, n.d.).</p> <p>5. Give an example XX when the XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX the XXXXX of XXX poisonous tree.</p> <p>XXX XXXXX of XXX XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXXXXX applies XX XXXXXXXX that would be considered XXXXXXXXX as it XXXXXXX XX an XXXXXXX search and seizure (XXXX, XXXX). XXX example, a XXXXXX XXXXXXX stops a car for a broken tail-XXXXX and XXX driver is not acting XXXXXXX and does not XXXX XXX XXXXXXX any XXXXXX to believe XXXXXXXX XX XXXXX. The officer wants to XXXXXX the XXX XXX despite XXX XXXXXX’s refusal, proceeds to XXXXXXX a XXXXXX without the consent XX XXX driver and without cause. XXXXXX XXX search, the XXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX in XXX XXXXX of XXX car, so he arrests the driver XXX gets a XXXXXXX XX XXXXXX the XXXXXX's XXXX. Upon XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXX, the XXXXXXX finds more drugs, XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX, and child pornography. XXX driver XX XXX XXXXXXX with XXX drugs XXX child pornography, however, XXX drugs XXXXX in the car XXXXXX be used XXXXXXX the driver XXXXXXX it was an XXXXXXX search. In XXXXXXXX, XXX XXXXXXXXXX XXXXX XXX XXXXX pornography XXXXXX be XXXX XXXXXXX XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX it XXX discovered XXXXXXX an XXXXXXX XXXXXX of the car (Roger, n.d.).</p> <p>6. The XXXXXXXXXXXX XX XXX United XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXX criminal law. XXX XX XXXX so when XXXX XXXX XX percent XX all prosecutions XXXXX in state XXXXXX?</p> <p>Ninety-XXXX percent of XXX XXXXXXXXXXXX occur in state XXXXXX because most cases XXX in direct relation to a state law XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXX rather XXXX a federal law. Each XXXXX can typically design its XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXX with XXXX XXXXXX interference (XXXX, 2015). State XXXXXX XXXX an expansive jurisdiction that XXXXXX many different XXXXX of case XXXXXXX from traffic XXXXXXXXXX XX murder. That said, if a law XX broken in a XXXXX XXXX is XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX to XXXXXXX XXX, XXXX XX a bank XXXXXXX XXXXX monies are XXXXXXX by a XXXXXXX agency, then XXX XXXXXXXX XXXXX XX XXXXXXXXXX in a XXXXXXX court (Federal XX. State Courts, n.d.).</p> <p>X. Do you believe that evidence that XXX XXXX obtained XX XXX enforcement in an XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XX inadmissible at XXXXX? Explain XXXX position.</p> <p>I XXXXXXXX think it depends on XXX XXXXXXXXX. XXX XXX most part, I would XXX that XXX evidence XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX illegally XXXXXX not be admissible in court, XXXXXXX, I think there XXX situations XXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXX be admissible XXXX XX it was obtained in an unconstitutional manner. For example, if an XXXXXXX XXXXX evidence of XXXXXX cruelty by way of an XXXXXXX search XXX XXXXX in XXXXXXX’s home, XXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XX animal XXXXX should XXXXXXXXXX XX admissible at XXXXX. XXXXXXXXX, if in the XXXX house XXX officer XXXXX a list of schools, with XXXXX and times and XXXXXXX of drugs XXXX would be sold XXX to XXXX, XXXX it should XX XXXXXXXXXX.</p> <p>I XXXXX XXXXX XX a XXXX line between XXXXX and wrong and a question of morals XXXXX XXXX XXXX, if evidence XXXX is found illegally can XXXX or threaten public safety, XXXXXXX, XXX. then it XXXXXX be XXXXXXXXXX. I think XX an offender has XXX XXXXXXXXX XX committing a crime (e.g. sell drugs XX a XXXXXX), he is not going to stop doing so, especially if it XX XXXXXX out XXXXXXX XX a technicality. He XXXXX simply XXXXXXXX XXX XXXXXXXX XXX be more XXXXXXX XX to XXXXX he XXXXXX XXXXXXXX.</p> <p>XXXXXXXXX </p> <p>XX U.S. Code § XXX - XXXXXXXX XXXXXX. (n.d.). Retrieved XXXXX 24, 2018, from <a XXXX="https://www.XXX.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301">https://XXX.law.XXXXXXX.XXX/XXXXXX/text/XX/301</a> </p> <p>XXXXXXXXX XXXX XXXXX. (20144). Scenic America. XXXXXXXXX March XX, XXXX, XXXX <a href="XXXX://www.scenic.XXX/storage/XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.pdf">XXXX://XXX.scenic.XXX/XXXXXXX/XXXX/XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.pdf</a> </p> <p>XXXXXXX vs. State Courts - Key XXXXXXXXXXX. (n.d.). Retrieved XXXXX XX, 2018, from <a XXXX="http://litigation.findlaw.XXX/legal-XXXXXX/federal-vs-state-courts-key-differences.XXXX">XXXX://litigation.findlaw.XXX/legal-system/XXXXXXX-vs-XXXXX-XXXXXX-key-XXXXXXXXXXX.XXXX</a> </p> <p>XXXX, X. X. (XXXX). XXXXXXXX XXX XXX procedure (7th ed.). XXX XXXX: XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX. </p> <p>Mapp v. XXXX Podcast. (n.d.). Retrieved March XX, 2018, from <a href="XXXX://www.uscourts.XXX/XXXXX-federal-XXXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXX-XXXXXXXXX/supreme-court-landmarks/mapp-v-XXXX-XXXXXXX">XXXX://XXX.XXXXXXXX.gov/XXXXX-XXXXXXX-XXXXXX/XXXXXXXXXXX-resources/supreme-court-landmarks/XXXX-v-ohio-podcast</a> </p> <p>XXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXX in XXXXXXXXX, PA. (n.d.). Retrieved March 23, 2018, XXXX <a href="http://XXX.XXXXXXX-to-lancaster-county.com/amish-education.html">http://www.welcome-to-Lancaster-XXXXXX.XXX/amish-education.html</a> </p> <p>XXXXXX, S. (n.d.). Fruit XX the XXXXXXXXX Tree - Further XXXXXXXX. Retrieved March XX, 2018, from <a XXXX="http://law.XXXXX.org/pages/7042/Fruit-XXXXXXXXX-Tree.html">http://law.XXXXX.org/XXXXX/XXXX/Fruit-XXXXXXXXX-XXXX.html</a> </p> <p>XXXXX of Texas XX. Gregory Lee Johnson (March 21, XXXX) </p> <p>XXXXX of XXXXXXXXXX vs. XXXXX X XXXXXX (XXXXXXX XX, XXXX). </p> <p>The state XX Ohio vs. Dollree Mapp (June 19, XXXX) </p>">
Attachment #1 Preview
Attachment #2 Preview
Attachment #3 Preview
