Are both District of Columbia v. Heller and Glasser v. United States concerning the same amendment to the constitution?
13c8806f4b33249acbe9bd4042d91d61
District of Columbia v. Heller District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) , is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee. Due to Washington, D.C.'s special status as a federal district, the decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment's protections are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment against the states, which was addressed two years later by "McDonald v. City of Chicago" (2010) in which it was found that they are. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
fae09df854040e65bfa129121041ea43
Glasser v. United States Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60 (1942), is a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision on two issues of constitutional criminal procedure. "Glasser" was the first Supreme Court decision to hold that the Assistance of Counsel Clause of the Sixth Amendment required the reversal of a criminal defendant's conviction if his lawyer's representation of him was limited by a conflict of interest.
61977fbb32ea8d710e05ea9bd958480a
Carpenter v. United States Carpenter v. United States is a pending case before the United States Supreme Court and raises the question of whether the government violates the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution by accessing an individual’s historical cell phone locations records without a warrant. On June 5, 2017, the Court agreed to review this case when it granted Carpenter’s petition for writ of certiorari. This case is currently on the Court’s October 2017 term docket; however, the argument date is yet to be determined.
56f9e94583c1031b1b13a29f943fe5a8
Apprendi v. New Jersey Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000) , is a landmark United States Supreme Court decision with regard to aggravating factors in crimes. The Court ruled that the Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial, incorporated against the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibited judges from enhancing criminal sentences beyond statutory maxima based on facts other than those decided by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision has been a cornerstone in the modern resurgence in jury trial rights. As Justice Scalia noted in his concurring opinion, the jury-trial right "has never been efficient; but it has always been free."
567bdcd0f7db100ade640678c349d653
Stoner v. California Stoner v. California, 376 U.S. 483 (1964) , is a United States Supreme Court decision involving the Fourth Amendment. It was a criminal case appealed from the California Courts of Appeal after the California Supreme Court denied review. The case extended the situations under which search warrants are required as they reversed a robbery conviction made on the basis of evidence obtained in violation of the holding.
4f7f7b313ed0760eb6914e4d7892d576
United States v. Watson "For United States v. Watson, District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 501 A.2d 791 (1985), see United States v. Watson (DCCA 1985)"
b7493f9860159f40d17512f6f160b848
Ball v. United States Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (1896), is one of the earliest United States Supreme Court case interpreting the Double Jeopardy Clause.
726949d807fdf2a21d34d838a9ed1523
United States v. Freed United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held the National Firearms Act's registration requirements do not violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Additionally, the Court held that the Act's restrictions against a person's "receiv[ing] or possess[ing] a firearm which is not registered to him," did not require the recipient to have the specific intent to possess an unregistered firearm. Consequently, the Court ruled that the buyer of unregistered hand grenades was subject to criminal liability, despite a lack of a requirement that the defendant have had a "specific intent or knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered."
f68f9945a61c7252e7b738e969e48976
Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier Hazelwood School District et al. v. Kuhlmeier et al., 484 U.S. 260 (1988) , was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that held that public school curricular student newspapers that have not been established as forums for student expression are subject to a lower level of First Amendment protection than independent student expression or newspapers established (by policy or practice) as forums for student expression.
c890e655a111f3cbfd25242bda502742
United States v. Rybar United States of America v. Raymond Rybar, Jr., 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), is a case which was argued before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals on September 13, 1995, and decided on December 30, 1996. The appeal addressed the constitutionality of a provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 under the Commerce Clause and the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
180ca187f92be2f0107e9ae3f7846760
Wisconsin v. City of New York Wisconsin v. City of New York, 517 U.S. 1 (1996) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held that under the Constitution's Census Clause, Congress is granted with the authority to conduct an "actual enumeration" of the American society, chiefly for the purpose of allocating congressional representation among the states.
ca44025bcffa5686a89cbc11010e3c32
United States v. Miller United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) , was a Supreme Court case that involved a Second Amendment challenge to the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). "Miller" is often cited in the ongoing American gun politics debate, as both sides claim that it supports their position.
74a9c5a883749ebdbe30b5a0e854accb
United States v. Payner United States v. Payner, 447 U.S. 727 (1980), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court reversed a district court's suppression of evidence in the criminal prosecution of an Ohio businessman charged with tax evasion. The case concerned both issues of criminal procedure and the application of the exclusionary rule derived from the Fourth Amendment. By a 6–3 margin the Court both reaffirmed its earlier rulings' holding that only the party whose Fourth Amendment protections may have been violated has standing to challenge the evidence seized in the search, and barred lower courts from exercising their supervisory power to exclude such evidence at the trial of third parties.
8198559a8eaedf6380ee99648125d1ac
District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. District of Columbia v. John R. Thompson Co. Inc., 346 U.S. 100 (1953), is a United States Supreme Court case which began on April 30, 1953 over the validity of the local Washington Acts of 1872 and 1873. The Acts prohibited segregation in public places within the District. With the court’s support, the legal ramifications of the 1872 and 1873 Acts could once again be enforced. The case transpired during growing racial tension in the nation’s capital. Throughout Washington, the black community had grown tired of unfair treatment regarding housing, businesses, and education. But, change came soon enough through the courts. On June 8, 1953, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the segregating policies practiced by Thompson’s Cafeteria were illegal, marking a huge victory for the national black community.
257ab2832399f43fa2d7b464c36053f4
United States v. Williams (1951) United States v. Williams, 341 U.S. 70 (1951) , is a decision by the United States Supreme Court that provides that (protecting US citizens' Fourteenth Amendment rights from individuals sworn to uphold laws) may only be applied to federal cases and is not available to the state governments.
632af477305002520b07ab61bc3ea8f0
United States v. Morrison United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000) , is a United States Supreme Court decision which held that parts of the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 were unconstitutional because they exceeded congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution
05167a5e02e79e7e708384f326aef4ec
Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia
ee0546b4550d8817e94d31d469cf2703
Arizona v. California Arizona v. California is a set of United States Supreme Court cases, all dealing with disputes over water distribution from the Colorado River between the states of Arizona and California. It also covers the amount of water that the State of Nevada receives from the river as well.
4be50154310aad6c7c5d0fb9488e5fde
Hodgson v. Bowerbank Hodgson and Thompson v. Bowerbank, 9 U.S. 303 (1809) , was a United States Supreme Court case that held part of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional. The invalidated portion conferred federal courts jurisdiction to try cases between aliens.
3e6ab06c96b6af8dd8fdfb487a6e72b0
Government of the District of Columbia The Government of the District of Columbia operates under Article One of the United States Constitution and the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, which devolves certain powers of the United States Congress to the Mayor and thirteen-member Council. However, Congress retains the right to review and overturn laws created by the council and intervene in local affairs. The District Government is within the Legislative branch of Federal government, which makes the municipal government a Federal agency.
a57c88e0d7be07837c4798f424b52d38
Heath v. Alabama Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82 (1985), is a case in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that, because of the doctrine of "dual sovereignty" (the concept that the United States and each state possess sovereignty – a consequence of federalism), the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution does not prohibit one state from prosecuting and punishing somebody for an act of which he had already been convicted of and sentenced for in another state.
3c8c4ed6587ae7c01d8fa9354af7952a
United States v. Stewart (2003) United States v. Stewart, 348 F.3d 1132 (9th Cir. 2003) and 451 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2006), is a Ninth Circuit case involving a challenge to the constitutionality of (o) under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found against the defendant, ruling that possession of homemade machine guns can be constitutionally regulated by the United States Congress under the Commerce Clause.