Final American Legal History. History Term Paper.

Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course
Date
Final American Legal History
PART 1
Mapp v. Ohio Case
This case happened in 1957, and the Ohio court did not consider the Exclusionary rule that disallowed the use of unconstitutionally obtained evidence. This was after police officers entered into Mapp’s house without a proper search permit. However, the case was revisited later on by the Supreme Court. This was a consideration of Mapp’s arguments that the Fourth Amendment rights were breached by the unlawful search. Mapp v. Ohio case began as a result of the conviction of Dollree Mapp, whose home was searched for a bombing suspect. They searched without a warrant, and even though a suspect was not found, she was found having scandalous material that was prohibited by the law in Ohio State. As a result, she was convicted based on that evidence. Based on freedom of expression, she appealed the conviction where an opinion was reached upon under Justice Tom C. Clark. It was agreed that any evidence that is obtained by going against the fourth amendment could not be used in a state court. The fourth amendment prohibits searching and seizing individuals and property unreasonably. It, therefore, upheld the exclusionary rule, which also prevents the implementation of any evidence acquired unconstitutionally in federal courts (Carolyn, 117). It was made applicable and incorporated to the states. The court ruled in favour of Mapp and said that the evidence was traced unlawfully without a search warrant. It also added that such evidence could not be used for prosecution of criminals in the state courts. This ruling began the Criminal Procedure Revolution and provided an extension to the Civil rights cases that the court should protect citizens from the mistreatment by the police powers.
The decision on Mappy v. Ohio case affected law enforcement in that it gave more strength to the fourth amendment. During the time the ruling was passed, twenty-four states were using illegally obtained evidence in their trials while 24 were excluding it. It gave the public more protection against unreasonable searches and prohibited the use of illegally obtained evidence. As a result, the exclusionary rule is today regarded as one of the fundamental aspects of constitutional law that is applicable in all U.S. states and territories. Studies have predicted an increase in crime rates since the exclusionary rule came to effect. Notably, this is because police officers use search alternatives that end up being less useful.
Additionally, the cost of police investigation tends to increase; therefore, they focus more on activities that do not require a warrant and neglect on those that do. The police adhering to the exclusionary rule means that they commit a few illegal searches. Notably, this means that few crimes will be investigated hence reduced the probability of apprehension.
The ruling on Mapp's case created a transformation in the culture of how law enforcement officers treat ordinary citizens, especially racial minorities. The ignorance of constitutional requirements against unreasonable arrests and searches and the use of very detrimental tactics when being questioned as a suspect. In the past, the constitution played a minimal role in establishing a relationship between the public and the police. As per the opinion of the majority, blacks highly likely to engage in criminal activity (Edward. 107). Therefore, they are more likely to be targeted by the police and convicted. The law consequently changed the culture of the blacks being accused by the use of legally acquired evidence only based on their skin color. Also, there has been a history of blacks and whites in America, which is a tale of enslavement as well as being regarded as underclass citizens. With Mapp's law, America has transformed into being a much fair society that is protected by the legal structure (Carolyn, 109). The requirement that wrongfully acquired evidence should be excluded in prosecution has created a culture where justice is being pursued. It has reduced the number of innocent people that are sent to prison due to incriminating evidence.
Conservatives have therefore criticized the rule in that it gives too much freedom to criminals. Others have argued on its importance in assuring the fundamental rights of citizens. The law mostly considers public policy and is less on legal matters. It has stressed more on civil liberties and ignores the fact that the courts on trial levels emphasize more on enforcing the law and meeting the interest of the community and less on protecting the civil liberties of the individual. In Pennsylvania, for instance, courts have cited that the wellbeing of the people requires that certain limitations be placed on the Mapp law (Edward, 217). Juries have argued that the security of the people was more secure before the law that it is after. In this case, it has been cited that it’s more important to be free from a rapist, a robber, or any other dangerous person that it’s from an aggressive police officer.
Roe v. Wade Case
Roe v. Wade law dictates that any regulation of abortion in any state is unconstitutional. The ruling led by Justice Harry A. Blackmun pointed out that most statuses that criminalize abortion goes against the constitutional rights of a woman regarding her privacy (William, 217). As a result, the liberty provided by the fourteenth amendment in the process clause is hindered. The case of 1970 had Jane Roe take a federal action towards the district attorney in Texas. The plaintiff was challenging a law that regarded abortion as illegal unless under the order of a doctor. Presumably, this is in case the life of a woman needs to be saved. According to Roe, the constitutionality of the law was unreasonable since it inhibited her from enjoying her right to personal privacy. The right reason was under constitutional amendments, including the fourteenth. The fourteenth amendment grants citizens equal civil and legal rights, especially to privacy. The amendment, therefore, protects the choice of a pregnant woman to procure an abortion.
Nevertheless, the right partially goes against the interests of the government in protecting the health of women and the possibility of creating more human life. During the opinion of the court, it was determined whether the issue was subject to the discussion, which in this case, meant moot. Pregnancy was therefore considered to be non-moot as it was a classic justification.
The fourteenth amendment protects the woman’s liberty on whether to procure an abortion as one of her rights to privacy. Therefore, prohibiting abortion without considering the stage of the pregnancy and other interests in a violation of the right. Also, there are legitimate interests from the government to protect the health of a pregnant woman and even the potential that she will create human life. Therefore, both aspects need to be accounted for and determine their variability. It was therefore concluded that the decision to abort could not be regulated in the first three months of the pregnancy. The doctor or the pregnant woman can only make a choice. The situation, however, changes in the second trimester as the regulations related to maternal health apply; hence abortion may be regulated. It’s in the third trimester that the fetus becomes viable. In this case, a state has a mandate to regulate abortions or even prohibit them altogether. Presumably, this applies when the law contains exceptions when procuring an abortion is a necessity in case mother’s life is exposed to harm and needs to be saved.
The Roe v.Wade law did not begin the practice of abortion in the U.S. Instead. The rule provided a chance for people to have legal access to abortion. It also reduced the occurrence of illegal and unsafe abortions, which resulted in the loss of life. Research indicates that a sixth of pregnancy deaths in 1965 was as a result of illegal abortions. Individuals with low income profoundly felt the impact of the prohibition of legal abortion. The law, therefore, saw the development as a less dangerous medical abortion practice in the United States.
`The law has, however, been facing various opposition from anti-abortion movements. Politicians campaigning against abortion have put in place multiple bill that would hinder availability of abortion services during pregnancy. The law, for instance, was at risk when Donald Trump confirmed Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh has a record of making rulings that create limitations to legal and safe abortion and thus might be on a path to overturn the Roe v. Wade rule. In 2007, the Supreme Court upheld a law that criminalized specific procedures used in abortion. Some of them were said to be the safest and most effective in protecting the health of the patient (Carolyn, 198). The future of the law is, therefore, not clear since there has been an increase in anti-abortion state legislators. They are continuously attacking abortion access through the use of ballot and legislative restrictions. As a result, there is a likelihood of more than 20 states overturning the Roe v. wade law. Some of these states already have abortion bans and trigger laws that have existed even before Roe. There is, therefore, a possibility that in case the ruling was overturned, abortion could be banned immediately. Many states have enacted several restrictions that seek to punish and shame people who are for the idea of abortion. There are many abortion restrictions and anti-abortion bills that are awaiting confirmation in state legislatures.
President Ronald Reagan also had a significant impact on the rights and laws during his reign. Reagan appointed Sandra Day O’Conno to the Supreme Law court and had established that O’Connor’s views about issues such as abortion would be acceptable to all conservatives. The nomination of other associates such as Justice Antonin Scalia, who advocated for adherence to the constitution, was critical in making sure that all decisions implemented were based on the law of the land. The ruling of Roe v. Wade asserted that the state was restricted from banning most abortions (Carolyn 134). The ruling maintained that abortion would, however, be regulated to protect the life of both the mother and the fetus. The abortion law has been modified, and the Supreme Court made changes to Roe, asserting how abortion would be practiced. The issues and politics of abortion have, however, because divisions among people based on their political inclinations where Republicans have conservative opinions and ideas that are against abortion. While liberals see abortion as a critical issue in ensuring women get efficient reproductive health.  
Vinson Court
According to Robert (77), the Vinson court was in operation for seven years, whereby it dealt with several issues. Some of the opinions it arrived at have been present for a long time as its successors took over and improved them. It was during this time that the seizure and search rule was developed. The court, however, had put in place efforts to enforce limitations on the law, which was not successful. Instead, it made federal agents more accountable for their actions. Therefore the current practice on having a warrant before any search is conducted was first developed by the court even though they had plans to limit it. Notably, this has created a society that is more protected from the use of force by the law enforcers.
Other courts have seen the growth of this law, which has contributed to the democracy enjoyed today. They also offered various rulings regarding segregation in higher education and focused on the future. The court was against racial discrimination in education in a case where the University of Oklahoma denied an African American student access to its law school. The law required that people of color be allowed entrance into white school in a situation where there was no other school offering that particular course. It was the only school in the state whereby the student sued for immediate admission. Presumably, this was against the fourteenth amendment as the student was entitled to legal education, which the institution was required to provide her. The law has seen people of color being included more in education, more specifically, in schools that were solely attended by white people (William, 331). The blacks also have gone ahead and pursued more difficult courses since they now have access to resources that were in the past only available for the whites. With such a ruling, other courts that came after it would not have perpetuated discrimination in education since people had started becoming more accommodating to fight racism.
Vinson’s record on proving freedom of speech is, however, deficient. Its existence during the cold war might have contributed to it, whereby they cited that the law was against political freedom. The court was against the clauses in the first amendment, which acted as a continued infringement of free expression by the government. The court, therefore, did not play any role in offering people the freedom to express themselves. After the cold war, people became more vocal and received the support of other courts, whereby they obtain minimal freedom of speech. The situation today has, however, changed due to the inputs of the Warren courts. Burger and Rehnquist Courts saw the achievement of free speech and zealously guarded it. The Vinson Court, however, later began to be more sensitive on security issues, which was much related to free speech. The court also allowed religious practices whereby, in one of its cases, it allowed students to set aside time where they would receive spiritual teachings (Allan, 33). One of its most notable achievements is in its actions towards the treatment of people of color. Even though the issue of the bill of rights is mostly resolved at the high court, the Supreme Court also played a massive role in ensuring that it was upheld. The modern courts have picked up on and developed the laws that were first developed by the Vinson court. The Warren courts and the successors have also wiped out individual decisions made by Vinson court regarding civil liberty. They have established others that are more applicable to the modern world. Presumably, the view of Vinson’s Court about the constitution was and is still very strong. It, therefore, laid a strong foundation for its successors.
9/11 cases
September 11, 2001 marks a day when an Islamic terrorist group procured four attacks in the U.S. Approximately 3000 people died that day, which acted as a trigger for the U.S. to have a major initiative to combat terrorism. Presumably, this saw the development of 9/11 cases where some of them have taken a very long time to be resolved. The cases have resulted in the legal significance of civil liberties. Various constitutional changes have come as a result of the cases, for instance, the USA patriotic Act. The Act is meant to create a united and robust America through the provision of tools that are appropriate and effective in intercepting and obstructing terrorism. The Act of 2001 was enacted several weeks after the attack (Allan, 97). With the Act, the government had an expansion of its surveillance power and scope for some criminal laws. Criminal law, therefore, has changed significantly since the wake of the attack. Notably, this was done without much thought on the impact it has on civil liberties. The main goal was to protect against terrorism, and as a result, law enforcement officials focus on making early arrests. Being involved in terrorism results in being charged with conspiracy or supporting groups planning to participate in terrorism through materials. The supports are often through a tangible form like sending money, providing weapons that are directly linked to perpetrating violent acts.
There was also the development of Holder v. Humanitarian Law, which considered it a felony to make suggestions to use arbitration or any peaceful way of settling a dispute between terrorist groups and other nations. According to chief justice John G. Roberts, such claims were usually a pathway to offer material support hence regarded as a criminal activity without the consideration of being protected by the first amendments.
Another act developed as a result of the cases is the authorization of the use of military force against terrorists. It was developed a few days after the attack. The president was permitted to use any means necessary towards any person, agency, or nation that facilitated the execution of the terror attack. Notably, this was to curb any possibility of an act of terrorism against the U.S. in the future. The Act had no set expiry date. Due to the 9/11 cases, the law regarding crime has drastically grown. Efforts to protect the country require that any individual regarded as a terror suspect is handled as guilty until proven innocent. Any immigration law offenses are also used to hold any suspected terrorists in detention. The 9/11 cases drastically altered the presumptions of the legal systems. People mostly detained on immigration charges are required to prove their innocence since they are approached as guilty. Since the attack, the government has continuously shown distrust in some Muslim communities. Also, there have been instances where the government has been very aggressive in the use of informants. It is always being directed towards Muslims.
Another major significance of the 9/11 cases is that the government has realized the significant loopholes that result in terrorism. Countering terrorism is now a significant concern in the United States, which has obtained maximum support from congress, media, political parties, and American citizens. Many resources have been committed towards national security hence creating a history of a country that is quite prepared. Just like in the past, there has been continuous reflection and reevaluation. Besides the many laws that have been drafted, there have been agencies and programs that have been discarded. Some are being invented while others redesigned. The legal system no longer focuses on military action only in the fight against terrorism. Instead, there has been a significant focus in the use of legal enforcement, intelligence, economic policy, homeland defense, among other efforts. Legal requirements and knowledge have made it difficult for terrorists to find safe places where they can develop their organizations and make them flourish. Through thorough the examination of the 9/11 cases, various lessons have been learned that have added legal measures and also created a historical resource that can be used as a point of reference in the war against terrorism. America can face an attack in many different ways. Therefore creating a defense not only in the legal system but also in other societal measures will yield much success.
PART 2
Does the law shape or reflect American history?
Introduction
Every country is governed by the rule of law in almost all aspects of its governance. America is no exception. From time as old as it has existed, America has had laws that have governed its people’s conduct, speech and general behavior (Robert, 66). According to the 1891 Black's Law Dictionary, a law refers to anything that people have chosen, ordained and established to guide their behavior. In other terms, the American Supreme Law court, in United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co. v. Guenther, defined the law ‘as a figure of guidelines of action or behavior prescribed by regulatory expert, and having binding legal force.’ Through its times past, America has upheld the law. This is because the law has both shaped its history while at the same time being a result of occurrences in history. This paper analyzes how the law has shaped while at the same time reflecting the history of America.
Role of the Law in America
The law plays a very important role in the well-being of America.
1 Protection of people rights and freedom
The Bill of Rights in the American constitution contains the rights of the people of America as well as their liberties. It also provides protection of these rights against individuals, organizations and even the government when they try to breach them. For example, in the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, the law forbids the government from making laws that infringe the people’s freedom of speech (William, 480). It also goes ahead to clarify the cases when speech is considered free and when it is not.
2 Standard for Morality
The law in America acts as the framework from which all morals in the American society get derived. The law is generally meant to reflect the feelings of people about certain social matters such as cheating on taxes, stealing, murder, and corruption among other issues. This connection between morality and the law makes the latter to be of utmost importance in the country. The American law also performs these functions; though it does so in different ways. For example, the Federal Code of Regulations (FCR) provides guidelines that enable individuals and even business to make business transactions via banks (Allan, 163). The FCR does so by making rules as well as protections in matters relating to insurance, employment laws, taxations and commercial operations among others.
3 Conflict Resolution
The American law is the basis for all rules and regulations which the country uses to resolve conflicts between or among individuals. All American courts usually refer to the law so that they are able to pass just judgments as stipulated in the law, all over the country. In response, the citizens usually present their conflicts to these judicial bodies for solutions. The laws are located at every level of administration starting from the local up to the federal levels. Other than courts, there are Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) measures through which the citizens are able to solve their conflicts. These, similar to the courts, make reference to the law to discern who is on the wrong who is right.
4 Maintenance of order
This function is one of the most common roles that people know. Without the law to govern the conduct of individuals towards one another and other things such as institutions, there is likely to be too much chaos and confusion which cannot be contained. For example, Federal banking protections prevent people from breaking into banks to get the money which they may be lacking. Laws also spell out the consequences that should arise should anyone disobey them (Carolyn, 124). This feature brings a sense of security among the people thus, facilitating the creation of social organizational structures which are peaceful and harmonious.
Sources of Laws in America
The US has varied types of laws which have different sources as well. Some of these arose from American traditions, while others were created by administrators and legislators. Some of the laws also have their origin in the American judicial system which decides how cases are to be solved in specific situations, and also provides the correct interpretation of the law. The main sources of laws in America throughout its history have been the American constitution, administrative regulations, case laws and central and state statutes.
1 The US Constitution
The constitution of America was written and officially accepted as a rule of law during the declaration of the American independence on 17th September, 1787, at the Philadelphia Convention (Allan 97). It is basically an agreement that dictates how the government must rule. It is the greatest law in the American land so that other laws get derived from it. Its supreme authority makes it the ultimate source of law. In fact, its organization, revolutionary and content makes it to be internationally recognized all over the world. The constitution also spells out the rights and freedoms of the people and protect them. The Bill of Rights which consists of the first ten amendments is the one that offers protection to these rights and freedoms; while the first three articles state the power and roles of the government towards its people.
2 Statutory laws
These types of laws refer to those that the federal and the state governments make to govern the country at the two levels of jurisdiction respectively. The United States Congress is responsible for making federal laws, which apply to all 50 states. An example of such laws is the Clean Air Act which controls the amount and level of emissions that stationary and mobile sources in the entire country emit. On the other hand, State Legislature is responsible for enacting state laws and thus, are applicable only in the respective states of enactment (Robert 342). The legislators make these laws in a way that concurs with the federal laws so that a contrary activity gets averted. In fact, Clause 2 of Article VI of the constitution declares that other than the Constitution, the central law is also a supreme law in America to which all state laws must adhere.
3 Administrative Regulations (AR)
AR refers to the guidelines that state or federal organizations or organizations make. The Congress or state parliaments also give power, through their acts, for the respective agencies to exercise their authority of regulating and implementing the laws. An example of such a body is the Environmental Protection Agency which deals with matters pertaining to the conservation of the natural environment, while Internal Revenue Service enforces laws concerning income in the country. Federally, AR get published and updated every year. The agencies publish them in the Federal Register where they also give whole details about the regulations, the List of Sections Affected in which the agencies summarize the areas in the federal law that the regulations affect, and the Code of Federal Regulations, that is, the main source of regulatory laws. The two ways for making AR are usually informal, in which the agency submits its proposal for public comments which the agency uses to make the final law; and formal in which all the agency needs to make the laws is to meet the requirements that the Administrative Procedure Act spells out.
4 Case Law and Judicial Opinions
These laws are those that courts make in the process of making judgments. Normally, the courts make reference to the constitution, federal and statutory laws. However, there are times when the courts may encounter scenarios to which the other laws do not offer guidelines. In that case, the courts make reference to traditional rules, the major one being the Common Law, which is the law of England (William 28). The English law is what constitutes the case law. Similarly, the courts can choose to make judgments based on cases that it had dealt with previously, based on the principle of state decisis. Such cases are what lead to opinion laws. Nevertheless, it is notable that a court can only use the opinion law of either the Supreme Court or the court that is at a higher level than it and belonging to its own state; and not one from another state or a lower-leveled court.
The Law and the American History
First, the constitution has played a significant part in the shaping of the American History. The Americans, under the leadership of Alexander Hamilton, developed their constitution just after they attained their independence from the Great Britain. The constitution provided protection to the citizens’ basic rights and freedoms. In addition, it allowed for changes, an event that has been significant in the American history.
1 13th Amendment and the Abolition of slavery
America was a colony of Great Britain and as a result, it continued practicing slavery till 1865. When the pioneers of Independent America wrote the constitution, they did not include in it anything to do with slavery in spite of the fact that they greatly valued equality and liberty. In fact, slavery was legal and it continued to be so even after independence. In addition, most of these founders owned slaves and for that purpose, neglected the responsibility. Although Thomas Jefferson enacted a law to ban the ingress of slaves from Africa to America in 1807, slavery continued to prevail in the American land. During the 1861 Civil War, the Americans captured more than 4 million Blacks and forced them to be slaves in 15 of the American southern states. At that time, most of the leaders including President Abraham Lincoln considered slavery to be against social morals.
It was not until 1862 that Lincoln considered freeing the slaves as a means of defeating the rebellious Confederate and as...