翻訳と辞書
Words near each other
・ United States v. Gementera
・ United States v. General Dynamics Corp.
・ United States v. General Electric Co.
・ United States v. Georgia
・ United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Co.
・ United States v. Gilmore
・ United States v. Glaxo Group Ltd.
・ United States v. GlaxoSmithKline
・ United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez
・ United States v. Google Inc.
・ United States v. Gotcher
・ United States v. Gouveia
・ United States v. Graham
・ United States v. Grimaud
・ United States v. Grubbs
United States v. Guest
・ United States v. Haggar Apparel Co.
・ United States v. Hamilton
・ United States v. Handley
・ United States v. Harris
・ United States v. Harris (tax case)
・ United States v. Harriss
・ United States v. Hasan K. Akbar
・ United States v. Hatch
・ United States v. Hatter
・ United States v. Hayes
・ United States v. Heirs of De Haro
・ United States v. Holmes
・ United States v. Hooe
・ United States v. Hubbard


Dictionary Lists
翻訳と辞書 辞書検索 [ 開発暫定版 ]
スポンサード リンク

United States v. Guest : ウィキペディア英語版
United States v. Guest

''United States v. Guest'' 383 U.S. 745 (1966) is a United States Supreme Court opinion, authored by Justice Potter Stewart, in which the court extended the protection of the 14th Amendment to citizens who suffer rights deprivations at the hands of private conspiracies, where there is minimal state participation in the conspiracy. The Court also held that there is Constitutional right to travel from state to state.
Justice Stewart, writing for the majority, held that "there now can be no doubt that the specific language of §5 empowers the Congress to enact laws punishing all conspiracies - with or without state action - that interfere with 14th Amendment rights," wrote Justice Tom C. Clark in a concurring opinion. Justice Hugo Black and Justice Abe Fortas joined Clark's concurrence. Both opinions assume generally that 14th amendment rights are rights against the states, according to Stanford University Prof. Kathleen Sullivan's textbook Constitutional Law, 16th Edition.
==Background==

The case arose out of the killing of Lemuel Penn, an American reserve officer who was returning from active duty to Washington, D.C., where he was a school teacher. He was traveling north with several friends in a car when he was shot on a bridge, just nine days after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 passed.
The murder happened in Madison County, Georgia, and the alleged killers were charged but acquitted there by an all-white jury. The federal indictment in question arose after the acquittal. In District Court, the six defendants successfully "moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that it did not charge an offense under the laws of the United States," according to the case. The Supreme Court reversed.
The argument revolved around whether or not Congress intended to apply equal protection rights of the 14th Amendment to citizens deprived of said rights on public facilities—i.e. roads and bridges or interstate commerce facilities—by private actors with the collusion of public actors, in this case police who responded to the murderers' false reports that Penn and his cohorts had committed crimes.

抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア(Wikipedia)
ウィキペディアで「United States v. Guest」の詳細全文を読む



スポンサード リンク
翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース

Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.