I'll post my answers as I write them, and then edit them in; I won't be able to post any replies for the next 12 hours due to Time Zones and since I'm getting a train back to uni tomorrow morning. 1.) I largely agree with
Pintz v U.S, as I said in my last hearing in regards to flag burning it's one of the cases where the political aim (Gun Control) should not be seen as the main factor; but rather the legal case. Whilst of course the actual practical issues matter (in terms of what the legislation deals with) being on the court should be primarily about the constitutional foundation of the case, precedent etc.
The issue of how the federal, and regional governments interact with my understanding is one that has undergone changes since the 1980s, with
New York v United States, which said that the federal government couldn't force states to make policy in relation to the storing of nuclear waste.
In reference to
Pintz, I'd agree with O'Connor concurrent opinion, that the federal government may tie federal funds to certain conditions (in the conditions of
South Dakota v Dole, but it can't simply deputize state or regional law enforcement to carry out federal policy without their consent.
I'd agree with this quote below from a law article I found The article points out that paradoxically, this means that a large federal bureaucracy would be needed to process background checks (rather than local law officials) but this ins't a legal concern. I'm happy to expand my viewpoint; but in other situations involving federal law such as
Gonzales v Reich I'm minded to agree with the dissent that it was overbearing upon the states. I have a similar view about the recent RL events of ICE agents being able to demand that local police keep people in jail without charge for up to 48 hours. Of course though, my ruling would be dependent on the specifics of any case.
2.) My understanding is that the 9th amendment was adopted because there was concern that rights that existed, but that weren't explicit could be lost. Likewise the 9th amendment was relatively obscure until it was used in
Griswold in Douglas opinion. I'd of course agree with the Griswold decision, and likewise with Justice Douglas that there is a right to privacy in the constitution; which comes from both the 4th and 5th amendment. I haven't done a lot of reading on the 9th amendment (and currently have a journal article open) but I'm minded to understand it deals with the expansion of rights. Namely because it dealt with the future rights, and there was of course a much more limited view on certain rights.
Again this may sound a bit confusing as my response is going off what I've read on the 9th amendment, but I'd follow the interpenetration that the 9th amendment, by being applied to the right to privacy, in terms allows for certain reforms in terms of sexual politics, protected the right to contraception, the right for unmarried couples to have access to contraception, the rights of homosexuals to engage in private sexual acts and so on. It's basically the idea that we should appreciate, and understand changes in society (to a certain degree)
3.) The question is referring to Civil Forfeiture I assume; something that we've reformed heavily in Atlasia, but one that the RL court haven't ruled on in recent years.
I don't think the current system practiced in the US at large is compatible (I think two states have reformed the law) with the 4th or 5th amendment. In both cases it allows the police to deprive people of their property without either a warrant, or due process. There's numerous cases such as a college student having his life savings seized because his bag smelled of marijuana, a women having money from her house sale seized and christian rock band having all their concert profits taken.
I've actually got two concerns with civil forfeiture; firstly it gives disproportionate power to the police over property which they would never have over people. My understanding is that you can use much weaker (and in some cases virtually no) evidence to seize property from people; and as Thomas points out in his concurrent opinion in
Leonard v Texas, these people are disproportionately the less well off in society. It's actually something which I think happens a lot in government; a tool that was re-introduced, as civil forfeiture was in the 1970s, which has rather laudable goals; namely to seize the assets relating from the Drug Cartels. However in recent years we've seen this power mismanaged, and abused by the police.
I read Thomas concurrent opinion in
Leonard v Texas, and it reassured me that I could find a case where I agreed with every Justice on the court. He outlines how the practice has been abused, has morphed over times and is one where hopefully the court will rule (although he joined in rejecting the case on a technical detail)
Secondly I'd actually go further than Thomas, and say that the practice of forfeiture is questionable even when criminal actives have emerged; as discussed in
Bennis v Michigan, where a woman's car which she owned with her husband was seized as he was caught having sex with a prostitute in the car. I'd struggle to see how this car was crucial to the crime, and how this either prevented the crime from being committed in the future. I could write a lot more on the subject as it's one that fascinates me; but the basic element of my argument is yes, the 4th and 5th (and also I believe the 8th amendment, as outlined in
Austin v United States under the excessive fines clause) amendment mean that there's areas of dispute should a case come to court.
4.) The point of concern/debate for me is where the line between state actors is; I looked at the case
Edmonson v Leesville, which whilst about racial objections in civil trials, expanded the definition of state actions. I read both Kennedy's opinion, and Scalia's dissent, and found myself more sympathetic to Kennedy, and would use the three rules to establish what a state actor is...
There was also mentioning of the 'Nexus test', which requires you to look at the relationship between the state, and the private individual; and of course
Burton v Wilmington Parking Authority, where I'd be supportive of the majority decision that renting space from a government owned building, makes you a state actor, as there was a mutual relationship.
One thing of interest is that as I did more research into this, I realized that I was more sympathetic to the view that forums such as school newspapers, should be considered state actors; an issue that has came up in both Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier, and Tinker v Des Moines. Although one issue raised in a law review article was that 1st amendment concerns should be on equal footing with racial concerns (under the 14th amendment) The article pointed out that it's rather paradoxical that a schools newspaper would be seen as a state actor if it refused an African-American a position on their editorial board based on race, but would not be seen as state actor if it refused to publish an advert.
I'm aware that I've gone off topic slightly (as school newspapers where the topic where I found the most interesting literature) but I hope that it demonstrated my thinking on the matter, namely that I'd take a more expansive definition of what consists as a state action.
6.) I'd pick Breyer out of the three. I considered picking White because I could talk about his lack weird quasi-resistance to some elements of the Warren Court, and his support for President Kennedy in 1960 endeared him to me but him dissenting in
Miranda v Arizona was a serious red flag; especially his claim that overtly aggressive policing protects the rights of law abiding citizens, and thus should be allowed (or words to that affect).
So I'll talk about Breyer, specifically his dissent in
Glossip v Gross, which was a very engaging one, and one that I found myself agreeing with in regards to the constitutionality of the death penalty; specifically on the failures that have been seen in the implementation of the Death Penalty. He's certainly correct that the court should see that the issues it mentioned in
Gregg v Georgia, have not been resolved. The issue of unreliability, arbitrariness and the excessive delays in implementing capital punishment.
I also appreciate Breyer saying that justices should see the consequences of their interpretations and decisions; and is one of the main reasons that I've had a skeptical view of certain law enforcement powers that the court has reaffirmed in
Utah v Strief,f without considering the wider implications
7.) I'd admit that all three are areas that I'm not that enthusiastic about but admirably law poses the most interest for me, namely because I'm always fascinated by the example that the Titanic's owners rushed to Federal Court after the sinking to limit their liability to the the value of the tickets+the remaining lifeboats. I believe that similar actions were taken by BP during the horizon oil spill, with the argument being in both cases that it was necessary as the disaster was out of their hands (although without looking at the cases, I'd say that both companies made certain errors)
