Essay on Case Analysis of Webster v. Doe (486 US 592) - Legal Issues

Essay on Case Analysis of Webster v. Doe (486 US 592) - Legal Issues

            Two important doctrines have been pronounced by the Supreme Court in the case of Webster v. Doe (486 US 592). 

            The first is that the language of Section 102 (c) of National Security Act which allows the termination of a CIA employee whenever the Director “shall deem such termination necessary or advisable in the interest of the United States” is couched in broad terms that even if the Congress did not preclude judicial oversight, review could not be made since the “court would have no meaningful standard against which to judge the agency’s exercise of discretion.”  Because the efficiency of CIA as an agency depends mainly on the reliability and trustworthiness of CIA employees, section 102 (c) has vested upon the Director of CIA broad power and authority to terminate the employment of any CIA employee for the purpose of protecting unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources

            The second is that the district has full power and authority to review whether the Director of CIA violated the constitutional rights of respondent John Doe.  While it is true that the Director of CIA was given discretion to make decisions regarding the termination of employees such does not prevent the courts from inquiring into the violation of constitutional rights of the respondent.  As such the Supreme Court remanded the case back to the district court. 

            I disagree with the first doctrine enunciated by the Supreme Court.  The decision that the courts cannot interfere with the decision of the CIA Director simply because there could be no meaningful standard to determine whether he abused his discretion is a renunciation of the solemn duty imposed upon the courts by the US Constitution.  The principle of balance of power demands that the courts should look into the decisions and the exercise of discretion by the executive and the legislative branch.  This is simply put the power of judicial review.  If the courts will reneged on this obligation then no other department will perform their function.  The purpose of the same is to determine whether these co-equal branches gravely abused their discretion in the performance of their function.  The Supreme Court cannot merely abdicate this responsibility simply because the act was done “in the exercise of national security.” By doing so, the Supreme Court committed a serious infraction of the US Constitution.  It must be stressed that this nation affirms the democratic principles.  One of these principles is that the people are entitled to their right to property.  The Supreme Court cannot disregard this right in favor of perceived threats to national security which have no basis and unsupported by evidence.

            Secondly, even if it is true that there are certain acts that the courts cannot inquire into for purpose of determining whether the persons concerned properly exercised its discretion, the same should not be interpreted to mean that every Director of any federal agency is entitled to the same privilege.  While it may be true that the wisdom or policy behind some actions of the legislative branch or executive branch is beyond judicial scrutiny because these acts were done in the exercise of functions that have been delegated to them by the constitution such should not be interpreted to mean that the legislative branch and the executive branch may delegate this authority to the other department or agency.  Thus, once these powers have been delegated by these branches, it does not follow that these departments enjoy the same privileges by the delegating authority.  The privilege of judicial scrutiny should not be allowed to extend to the departments and agencies upon which these powers have been delegated otherwise the privilege is susceptible to being abused and violated.  It must be stressed that when the Director of CIA exercised his power to remove the CIA employee the action was not done directly by the Executive Branch as such the CIA director should not be entitled to the same privilege endowed upon the President. 

This is a sample essay from smartessaywriters.com – the leading provider of affordable and reliable essay writing services and research paper writing services in the US and the UK

BUY ESSAY ON CASE ANALYSIS OF WEBSTER V. DOE (486 US 592) NOW!

Related Posts:

1. Case Analysis Essay on Lawrence v. Taylor (538 U.S. 558)
2. Case Analysis Essay on Woolworths v. Olson
3. Case Analysis Essay on District of Columbia v. Heller
 

Essay on Analysis of Lawrence v. Texas, (539 US 558)

Case Analysis Essay on Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558)

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the US Supreme Court.  In a 6-3 decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the ruling in the case of Bower’s should be reconsidered.  Firstly, it is incorrect to state that there is a long standing antipathy against homosexual activities.  Sodomy was prohibited early in our history because it does not promote procreation which should be the ultimate goal of every sexual activity.  Sodomy was prohibited not because these are homosexual activities.  The reason why sodomy was directly prohibited because it often involved those sexual activities between men and minor girls, or between adults but with the use of force or between adults with marked differences in their status or between men and animals.   

Further, the Bowers case cited 25 states prohibiting homosexual activities.  In the past years, however, these 25 states have been reduced to 13 of which 4 enforce their laws only against homosexual conduct.  This proves that there is no longstanding antipathy towards homosexual conduct.  In some of these states which prohibit sodomy whether for same-sex or heterosexual couple, there is a general pattern that these laws are not enforced when it involves two consenting adults who conduct their homosexual activities in private.    

Granting without admitting that the society has considered homosexual activity as immoral it does not follow that this is a sufficient reason for enacting a law prohibiting it.  Individuals should be given sufficient liberty to do and perform any act concerning the intimacies of personal relationship.  It is for these reasons that the Bowers case should be overruled.

The Reliable and Affordable Essay Writing Services

The Texas Law prohibiting sexual intercourse between people of the same sex violates due process which is protected by the US Constitution.  It bears stressing that the petitioners were caught in a moment of sexual intimacy.  They were both adults who willingly gave their consent to such intimacy.  There was no physical force, intimidation or coercion involved.  The right of liberty of every individual under the due process clause gives them the freedom to engage in private conduct without government intrusion and interference.  Further there is no valid reason to be advanced by the government for its intrusion in the affairs of private individual, to wit:   

“The present case does not involve minors. It does not involve persons who might be injured or coerced or who are situated in relationships where consent might not easily be refused. It does not involve public conduct or prostitution. It does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter. The case does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent from each other, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. The petitioners are entitled to respect for their private lives.”

It is worthy to take note that Justice Scalia dissented in this case.  In her dissenting opinion she expressed her apprehension about the possible effects of the reversal of the ruling in Bowers case on the other cases previously decided on the basis of the Bowers case.  Further, Justice Scalia argued against the decision on the ground that the overturning of the Bowers case meant the violation of a basic principle known as stare decisis.  This principle simply means adherence to precedents which states that once a case has been decided one way, then another case, involving exactly the same point in issue, should be decided in the same manner. 

I agree with this Supreme Court decision.  The Right to be Let Alone is a time-honored rule which has been recognized by the society since time immemorial.  In essence it is the right to privacy.  This right grants individuals the right to be secured in their persons, houses and effects.   The right to privacy also immunes the houses and places of abode of people from any unwarranted searches in the absence of a valid search warrant.  This right even extends to the offices, business establishments and papers and effects that may be found in these places.  There was even a case when the right was held to be available to a person in the seclusion of a glass-paneled telephone booth. (Katz v US 381 US 347)  This is a landmark Supreme Court decision that has empowered not only our gay brothers and sisters but also affirmed and strengthened our right to privacy.  It is indeed one of the most important civil rights victories in history.  (Chad Graham 1)

This is a free Essay on Analysis of Lawrence v. Texas (539 US 558).  We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom. If you need help we will write well written Essay on Analysis of Lawrence v. Texas,  (539 US 558) at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page.

BUY ESSAY ON ANALYSIS OF LAWRENCE V. TEXAS NOW!

Related Posts:

1. Case Analysis Essay on Lawrence v. Taylor (538 U.S. 558)
2. Case Analysis Essay on Woolworths v. Olson
3. Case Analysis Essay on District of Columbia v. Heller
4. Case Analysis Essay on Webster v. Doe (486 U.S. 592)

Essay on Case Analysis

Facts: Lacono was a photographer of Sports Illustrated who was assigned to cover the Bowe – Golota fight.  He situated himself near the ring to take pictures of the events.  Unfortunately, Golota, for unknown reasons, could not help but continue hitting Bowe below the belt which was an illegal punch.  After repeated warnings by the referee, the fight was stopped, Bowe was declared the winner, and a riot ensued inside the Madison Square Garden.  Lacono who went to the ring to take photographs of the riot was also hit.  As a result, he filed a suit against MSG Holdings to hold it liable for the injuries he suffered caused by their failure to provide enough security in the ring to prevent a riot or to contain the damage which maybe caused by a riot. 

Issue: whether MSG Holdings is negligent

Rule: Organizers of sports event like boxing are required to take reasonable precaution so as to prevent any violent events from taking place inside and outside the ring.

Application: The court held that in failing to provide reasonable and adequate security to the fighters, their crew and to the crowd, the MSG Holdings was negligent. 

There were several factual circumstances that should have caused the MSG Holdings to take a more reasonable security measures prior and during the event.  First, both Riddick Bowe and Andrew Golota had a history of illegal tactics on the ring.  Riddick Bowe’s crew once assaulted a fan and even fighters even while the boxing bout was going on.  On the other hand, Golota had a history of either head butting his opponents or biting them due to frustration.  Second, the crowd was immersed in the fight as 50% of Golota’s fans went to the Madison Square Garden to watch the fight.  The newspapers at the time even acknowledged that it had become an issue of race between the fighters.  Third, there was already bad blood between the two fighters and their camps even before the fight took place. 

Considering these factual circumstances the organizers of the historic boxing event should have instituted reasonable security measures to prevent any untoward incident from taking place.  However, it was clear that there were no policemen on the scene except for the 60-plus year old security personnel of MSG who were very few.  It was clear that a handful of personnel were not enough to control the unruly crowd who were mostly in their 20s or 30s.  It was only after 23 minutes after the riot ensued that the policemen entered the Madison Square Garden to take control of the situation.  It was clear that there were no policemen at the scene at the time the riot ensued.  There would not have been a riot had there been policemen situated inside the Madison Square Garden who were of sufficient number.  Or, even if a riot may have taken place it would have been controlled earlier before several people were injured. 

The decision is very important so as to instill responsibility to organizers of every sporting event like boxing, mixed martial arts, or soccer. It reminds the organizers that as the individuals who organized the sporting even and who profited from the event they should take responsibility to ensure that the crowds who paid money are protected from any untoward event.  They have to be reminded that they need to take control at the very beginning as an action of an irresponsible man can trigger a trigger a riot on all parts of the arena. All persons who watch sporting events at ringside or those who may have relatives watching sporting events at ring side know how important it is for organizers to be able to institute enough measures so that riots do not take place at sporting events. 

The decision has an impact on the world of sports.  First, it places the burden on the organizers of the sporting events to take the reasonable precaution by placing enough security inside the arena.  Second, it highlights that those who are caught participating in riots – whether he is a crew of the fighter or a spectator of the show – can be criminally charged. 

The decision also impacts other professionals like sports commentators, journalists, and analysts who are assigned to cover sporting events.  It assures them that they can perform their functions without fear of being harassed or injured in sporting events.

This is a free Essay on Case Analysis.  We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.  If you need help we will prepare a well-written Essay on Case Analysis at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page

Essay on U.S. v. Greenberg and U.S. v. Garber

The cases of US v. Greenberg and US v. Garber pertain to the failure to pay by both taxpayers of their duty to pay taxes to the government.  Though the defendants in these cases committed similar infractions in failing to pay their income taxes, the outcome was different in the sense that one was adjudged not guilty of any criminal liability while the other was adjudged guilty of a criminal liability.  In the end, the courts reached different conclusion insofar as determining the defendants’ intent to evade the payment of their taxes.

In US v. Greenberg, a case was filed against Jack Greenberg for filing a materially false corporate income tax return, a materially false personal income tax return and failure to file a federal income tax return.  In contrast, in the case of US v. Garber, Dorothy Clark Garber was charged for filing a false and fraudulent income tax return on behalf of her and her husband.

In US v. Greenberg, the applicable law is Section 7206 (1) of 26 USC which makes it unlawful for a person to willfully make and subscribe any return under the penalties of perjury which he does not believe to be true and material.  In the case, In the case of US v. Garber, the applicable law is Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code which defines gross income as all income from whatever source derived including but not limited to compensation for serves, including fees, commissions and similar items and gains derived from dealings in property;

Jack Greenberg did not dispute the fact that he assisted in the filing of false income tax return.  However, he argues that his convictions should be revised because of the issue of materiality essential in the governing provision of Section 7206 which he said should be submitted to the jury rather than decided by the court as a matter of law.  He argued that issue of materiality is a question of fact should be decided by the jury.

The Reliable and Affordable Essay Writing Services

Dorothy Clark Garber, however, argues that the money she received from different companies was not within the legal definition of income under Section 61(a) of Internal Revenue Code and alleged that she participated in tax-free exchanges based on the theory that the funds obtained by conversion of capital assets and which represented only the actual value of such assets was not a taxable income.

In the Greenberg case, the court decided that the false statements were material and making and subscribing to the income tax returns is punishable under the law.  Citing the case of US v. Whyte, 699 F.2d 375, the court ruled that the issue of materiality is a question of law which should be decided by the court.

In contrast, the court in Garber case ruled that the defendant should not be held guilty of evading and defeating income taxes on income where the liability for the payment of which is uncertain that even co-ordinate branches of the government reached different conclusions.  Citing the case of US v. Critzer, 498 F.2d 1160, the court ruled that the defendant cannot be held guilty of willfully evading taxes on income when the taxability of the same is so uncertain that even the other branches of government have different views on its taxability.

 

As a matter of law, defendant cannot be guilty of willfully evading and defeating income taxes on income, the taxability of which is so uncertain that even co-ordinate branches of the United States Government plausibly reach directly opposing conclusions.  Because of the uncertainty in the existing laws and jurisprudence, intent to evade and defeat income tax is missing.

This is a free essay on U.S. v. Greenberg and U.S. v. Garber.  We are the leading provider of affordable essay writing services in the United States and the United Kingdom.  If you need help we will prepare a well-written essay on  U.S. v. Greenberg and U.S. v. Garber at very affordable costs starting at $7.50/page

BUY ESSAY ON US V. GREENBERG NOW!