what were the following supreme court cases?
Wednesday, March 31st, 2010Marbury v. madison
mcCulloch v maryland
gibbons v ogden
worcester v. georgia
scott v. sandford
munn v. illinois
wabash v. illinois
plessy v. ferguson.
standard oil v. united states
schenck v. us
Us v. Butler
Korematsu v. Us
Brown vs board of ed
Roe v. wade
I’ve got info on a lot of these cases, but I don’t even recognize a few of them… Here’s what I have:
Marbury v. Madison
Summary: Marbury and several others were appointed to government posts created by Congress in the last days of John Adams’s presidency, but these last-minute appointments were never fully finalized. The disgruntled appointees invoked an act of Congress and sued for their jobs in the Supreme Court.
Decision: He was entitled to his job because of an act of Congress. The justices also held, however, through Marshall’s forceful argument, that on the last issue the Constitution was "the fundamental and paramount law of the nation" and that "an act of the legislature repugnant to the constitution is void." This case establishes the Supreme Court’s power of judicial review.
McCulloch v. Maryland
Summary: Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States, and Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.
Decision: In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers.
Gibbons v. Ogden
Summary: A New York state law gave two individuals the exclusive right to operate steamboats on waters within state jurisdiction. In this case a steamboat owner who did business between New York and New Jersey challenged the monopoly that New York had granted, which forced him to obtain a special operating permit from the state to navigate on its waters.
Decision: The Court found that New York’s licensing requirement for out-of-state operators was inconsistent with a congressional act regulating the coasting trade. The New York law was invalid by virtue of the Supremacy Clause. Regulation of navigation by steamboat operators and others for purposes of conducting interstate commerce was a power reserved to and exercised by the Congress. / Also gave meaning to the phrase "among the several states" in the Commerce Clause of Article I and applied it to states using the 10th Amendment.
Plessy v. Ferguson
Summary: The state of Louisiana enacted a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Adolph Plessy–who was seven-eighths Caucasian–took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train. He refused to move to the car reserved for blacks and was arrested.
Question: Is Louisiana’s law mandating racial segregation on its trains an unconstitutional infringement on both the privileges and immunities and the equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Decision: No, the state law is within constitutional boundaries. The majority, in an opinion authored by Justice Henry Billings Brown, upheld state-imposed racial segregation. The justices based their decision on the separate-but-equal doctrine, that separate facilities for blacks and whites satisfied the Fourteenth Amendment so long as they were equal. (The phrase, "separate but equal" was not part of the opinion.) Justice Brown conceded that the 14th amendment intended to establish absolute equality for the races before the law. But Brown noted that "in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races unsatisfactory to either." In short, segregation does not in itself constitute unlawful discrimination.
Schenck v. United States
Case: Schenck mailed out notices urged people not to submit to the draft. He was then charged with conspiracy, violating the Espionage Act.
Question: Are Schenck’s actions (words, expression) protected by the free speech clause of the First Amendment?
Decision: Schenck is not protected in this situation. It established the “clear-and-present danger clause” to decide whether words were allowed.
Affected: The First Amendment’s provisions for free speech and free press.
Korematsu v. United States
Summary: During World War II, Presidential Executive Order 9066 and congressional statutes gave the military authority to exclude citizens of Japanese ancestry from areas deemed critical to national defense and potentially vulnerable to espionage. Korematsu remained in San Leandro, California and violated Civilian Exclusion Order No. 34 of the U.S. Army.
Question: Did the President and Congress go beyond their war powers by implementing exclusion and restricting the rights of Americans of Japanese descent?
Decision: The Court sided with the government and held that the need to protect against espionage outweighed Korematsu’s rights. Justice Black argued that compulsory exclusion, though constitutionally suspect, is justified during circumstances of "emergency and peril."
Brown v. Board of Education I
Summary: Black children were denied admission to public schools attended by white children under laws requiring or permitting segregation according to the races. The white and black schools approached equality in terms of buildings, curricula, qualifications, and teacher salaries.
Decision: The segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives the minority children of the” equal protection of the law” guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. (Overturned Plessy v. Ferguson)
Brown v. Board of Education II
Summary: Established what means should be used to implement the principles announced in the case of Brown I.
Chief Justice Warren urged localities to act on the new principles promptly and to move toward full compliance with them "with all deliberate speed."
Roe v. Wade
Summary: Roe, a Texas resident, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman’s life. After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. The first time, Roe’s attorney — Sarah Weddington — could not locate the constitutional hook of her argument for Justice Potter Stewart. Her opponent — Jay Floyd — misfired from the start. Weddington sharpened her constitutional argument in the second round. Her new opponent — Robert Flowers — came under strong questioning from Justices Potter Stewart and Thurgood Marshall.
Question: Does the Constitution embrace a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?
Decision: The Court held that a woman’s right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court’s ruling.
Hope this info helps you out. 
BABY JAY 
Gov. Rod Blagojevich was convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office Thursday, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat. (Jan. 29)