Background:
    In 1993 Christopher Simmons was sentenced to death but he was still a minor and after 9 years of appeals he finally was admitted into the Missouri Supreme Court. Because of the U.S. Supreme court case's decision in Atkins V. Virginia regarding the execution of the mentally Ill The Missouri Supreme Court decided to review Simmons  case. Using the Atkins case as precedent the Missouri court overturned the conviction and the case went to the supreme court.

Issue:
   Does the execution of minors violate the cruel and unusual prong of the eith amendment and should it be incorporated throughout the states?

Decision:
   In a 5 V. 4 decision the supreme court decided that Simmons was not allowed to be executed provided that it does infringe on the Cruel and Unusual Amendment.
   M: Kennedy,Souter,Ginsburg,Breyer
   C:Stevens, Ginsburg
   D: Scalia and O'connor. Rehinquist and Thomas joined both

Opinion:
  I agree with the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. Because of the ever changing society, I believe that the constitution could not be literal or else it would have to change every frequently in order to evolve with society. The standards of decency could change very quickly given the circumstances and the constitution should consider what is normal at that time. Also according to Atkins V. Virginia executing the mentally ill is unconstitutional so why would executing minors be constitutional?

                                                                 Gideon V Wainwright

Background:

Gideon was charged by the Florida state court with breaking and entering, because he didn’t have the resources to employ a lawyer in his defence he asked one to be appointed for him. The court refused this request because it only applied in federal cases. So, Gideon defended himself and was convicted for 5 years in a state prison.

Issue:

                Does the refusal to appoint an attourney to Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process which is protected by his Sixth and Fourteeenth Amendments?

Decision:

In a 9v0 vote the Supreme court sided with Gideon proposing that it was unfair that he was not appointed a lawyer.

Opinion was unanimous

Opinion:

For this case I completely agree with the Supreme Court. The fact that the amendment only applied to federal cases is ridiculous. All people should be allowed a lawyer if they want one. It is not fair if one side has a educated lawyer and one side does not. That violates the idea of a fair trial. I completely believe that for one side not to have a lawyer because they cannot afford one is totally absurd and unfair.

	Like Justice Black said "lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."

Kyllo V US

Background:

Danny Kyllo was suspected of growing marijuana in his triplex. a department of the interior agent used a thermal imaging device to look for hot-spots in the home made by high intensity lamps that are usually used for indoor marijuana growth. The scan showed that these hot-spots were present. Based on informants utility bills and the thermal imaging a judge issued a warrant and he was convicted  on a federal drug charge and after he tried to cover up  the evidence he was seized and entered a conditional guilty plea.

Issue:

Does the use of thermal scanning and imaging of the interior of someone's home violate the Fourth Amendment right?

Decision:

5V4 in favor of Kylo

M: Scalia

D: Stevens

The use of thermal scanning in homes was a violation of the Fourth Amendment right according to the Supreme Court

Opinion:

I agree with the Supreme Court's decision. Although the thermal imaging only showed globs of heat and nothing really personal it still is an intrusion of the person's privacy. Just like in Silverman V. U.S. in which a mic was put near a heating duct so that they could hear, It is the same thing. The mic did not show any personal things but it was steal ruled as unconstitutional. Just like how the thermal imaging was. Additionally if this were to be constitutional that would mean that the government can just look into anybody's house using thermal imaging.

District of Columbia V. Heller

Background:

              After the District of Columbia enacted a gun control law banning all handguns and all other guns at home must be unloaded and disassembled. Dick Heller along with five other D.C. residents claimed that they needed these handguns to protect their homes from danger. They did not oppose gun registrations or want to take them out of their house, they solely wanted to keep them in their house for protection.

Issue:

              Does the D.C. gun control law violate the Second Amendment rights of people who are not in any state-regulated militia, yet want to have handguns at home?

Decision:

              District of Columbia's ban on handguns was taken down in a 5v4 decision.
              Majority: Scalia
              Dissent: Stevens
           

Opinion:

            I agree with this decision because according to U.S. V. Miller an act limiting guns that do not posses any real defense value was outlawed. Because of the fact that a handgun's primary purpose is to defend the wielder rather than attack multiple people, the Supreme Court ruled that an act restricting handguns was unconstitutional. Also because Heller only wanted to use the gun for defense was also another factor because he was not looking to take the gun out of his home. Additionally another reason I support this decision because I believe that the Second Amendment was written to ensure that all people will have self-protection if wanted.