Oklahoma Municipal Power Authority Amendment To Power: Fill & Download for Free

The same as it has been since the beginning of the nation, the Second Amendment is intended to keep the government (federal and state) from interfering with the People’s right to keep and bear arms.There’s a post which says, “There is relatively little ambiguity about the modern interpretation. Prior to about 1960, the Second Amendment was interpreted in journals of law as guaranteeing the ability of states to raise and maintain armed militias, and of the people to participate without being penalized for the possession of firearms” and it’s completely fallacious.The People in the Second Amendment are the same “people” as mentioned in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments, the people of the United States of America. As to whether the states intended that the right is an individual right or some sort of “collective right” is also totally unambiguous, all one need to is read the words of the State Constitutions on the matter:Alabama Constitution Article I, Section 26: - That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. - Article I, Alabama Constitution - BallotpediaAlaska Constitution Article I, Section 19: - A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. [Amended 1994] - Article I, Alaska Constitution - BallotpediaArizona Constitution, Article 2, Section 26: - The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. - Article 2, Arizona Constitution - BallotpediaArkansas Constitution Article 2, Section 5: - The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. - Article 2, Arkansas Constitution - BallotpediaColorado Constitution Article II, Section 13: - The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. - Article II, Colorado Constitution - BallotpediaConnecticut Constitution Article I, Section 15: - Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. - Article I, Connecticut Constitution - BallotpediaDelaware Constitution Article I, Section 20: - A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. (1776) - Article I, Delaware Constitution - BallotpediaFlorida Constitution Article I, Section 8(a): - The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law. - Article I, Florida Constitution - BallotpediaGeorgia Constitution Article I, Section 1, Paragraph VIII: - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. - Article I, Georgia Constitution - BallotpediaHawaii Constitution Article I, Section 17: - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Article I, Hawaii Constitution - BallotpediaIdaho Constitution Article I, Section 11: - The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. - Article I, Idaho Constitution - BallotpediaIlinois Constitution Article I, Section 22: - Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Article I, Illinois Constitution - BallotpediaIndiana Constitution Article I, Section 32: - The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. - Article 1, Indiana Constitution - BallotpediaKansas Constitution, Bill of Rights, Section 4: - The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. - Bill of Rights, Kansas Constitution - BallotpediaKentucky Constitution, Bill of Rights, Section 1, Seventh: - All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: … Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. - Bill of Rights, Kentucky Constitution - BallotpediaLouisiana Constitution Article I, Section 11: - The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny. - Declaration of RightsMaine Constitution Article 1, Section 16: - Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. - Article I, Maine Constitution - BallotpediaMassachusetts Constitution Part The First, Article XVII: - The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. - Part the First, Massachusetts Constitution - BallotpediaMichigan Constitution Article I, Section 6: - Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. - Article I, Michigan Constitution - BallotpediaMississippi Constitution Article III, Section 12: - The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. - Article III, Mississippi Constitution - BallotpediaMissouri Constitution Article I, Section 23: - That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction. - Article I, Missouri Constitution - BallotpediaMontana Constitution Article II, Section 12: - The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. - Article II, Montana Constitution - BallotpediaNebraska Constitution I-1: - All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. To secure these rights, and the protection of property, governments are instituted among people, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. - Nebraska LegislatureNevada Constitution Article 1, Section 11 (1): - Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. - Article 1, Nevada Constitution - BallotpediaNew Hampshire Constitution Part 1, Article 2-a: - All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. - Part First, New Hampshire Constitution - BallotpediaNew Mexico Constitution Article II, Section 6: - No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. - Article II, New Mexico Constitution - BallotpediaNew York Civil Rights Law, Article 2, Section 4: - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed. - New York Civil Rights LawNorth Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 30: - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty. They shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. - Article I, North Carolina Constitution - BallotpediaNorth Dakota Constitution Article I, Section 1: - All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. - Article I, North Dakota Constitution - BallotpediaOhio Constitution Article I, Section 4: - The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. - Article I, Ohio Constitution - BallotpediaOklahoma Constitution Article II, Section 26: - The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. - Article II, Oklahoma Constitution - BallotpediaOregon Constitution Article I, Section 27: - The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. - Article I, Oregon Constitution - BallotpediaPennsylvania Constitution Article I, Section 21: - The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. (September 28, 1776) - Article I, Pennsylvania Constitution - BallotpediaRhode Island Constitution Article I, Section 22: - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - Article I, Rhode Island Constitution - BallotpediaSouth Carolina Constitution Article I, Section 20: - A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law. - Article I, South Carolina Constitution - BallotpediaSouth Dakota Constitution Article 6, Section 24: - The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. - Article VI, South Dakota Constitution - BallotpediaTennessee Constitution Article I, Section 26: - That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. - Article I, Tennessee Constitution - BallotpediaTexas Constitution Article I, Section 23: - Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. - Article 1, Texas Constitution - BallotpediaUtah Constitution Article I, Section 6: - The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the Legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. - Article I, Utah Constitution - BallotpediaVermont Constitution Chapter 1, Article 16: - That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. - Chapter I, Vermont Constitution - BallotpediaVirginia Constitution Article I, Section 13: - That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. - Article I, Virginia Constitution - BallotpediaWashington Constitution Article I, Section 24: - The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. - Article I, Washington State Constitution - BallotpediaWest Virginia Constitution Article III, Section 22: - A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. - Article III, West Virginia Constitution - BallotpediaWisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25: - The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. - Article I, Wisconsin Constitution - BallotpediaWyoming Constitution Article I, Section 24: - The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. - Article 1, Wyoming Constitution - Ballotpedia

In the US, there are three major independent power grids. One of them is basically for Texas.That is the Texas Interconnection Grid - ERCOTERCOT was formed in 1970, in the wake of a major blackout in the Northeast in November 1965, and it was tasked with managing grid reliability in accordance with national standards. The agency assumed additional responsibilities following electric deregulation in Texas a decade ago. The ERCOT grid remains beyond the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which succeeded the Federal Power Commission and regulates interstate electric transmission.Historically, the Texas grid's independence has been violated a few times. Once was during World War II, when special provisions were made to link Texas to other grids, according to Cudahy. Another episode occurred in 1976 after a Texas utility, for reasons relating to its own regulatory needs, deliberately flipped a switch and sent power to Oklahoma for a few hours. This event, known as the "Midnight Connection," set off a major legal battle that could have brought Texas under the jurisdiction of federal regulators, but it was ultimately resolved in favor of continued Texan independence.Even today, ERCOT is also not completely isolated from other grids — as was evident last week when the state imported some power from Mexico during the rolling blackouts. ERCOT has three ties to Mexico and — as an outcome of the "Midnight Connection" battle — it also has two ties to the eastern U.S. grid, though they do not trigger federal regulation for ERCOT. All can move power commercially as well as be used in emergencies, according to ERCOT spokeswoman Dottie Roark. A possible sixth interconnection project, in Rusk County, is being studied, and another ambitious proposal, called Tres Amigas, would link the three big U.S. grids together in New Mexico, though Texas' top utility regulator has shown little enthusiasm for participating.The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) manages the flow of electric power to 24 million Texas customers - representing about 90 percent of the state's electric load. As the independent system operator for the region, ERCOT schedules power on an electric grid that connects more than 43,000 miles of transmission lines and 550 generation units. ERCOT also performs financial settlement for the competitive wholesale bulk-power market and administers retail switching for 7 million premises in competitive choice areas. ERCOT is a membership-based 501(c)(4) nonprofit corporation, governed by a board of directors and subject to oversight by the Public Utility Commission of Texas and the Texas Legislature. ERCOT's members include consumers, cooperatives, generators, power marketers, retail electric providers, investor-owned electric utilities (transmission and distribution providers,) and municipal-owned electric utilities.The NPCC runs the Eastern Interconnection: Northeast Power Coordinating CouncilAbout NPCCNortheast Power Coordinating Council, Inc. (NPCC) is a 501(c) (6) not-for-profit corporation in the state of New York responsible for promoting and enhancing the reliability of the international, interconnected bulk power system in Northeastern North America. NPCC carries out its mission through (i) the development of regional reliability standards and compliance assessment and enforcement of continent-wide and regional reliability standards, coordination of system planning, design and operations, and assessment of reliability, (collectively, “regional entity activities”), and (ii) the establishment of regionally-specific criteria, and monitoring and enforcement of compliance with such criteria (collectively, “criteria services activities”). NPCC provides the functions and services for Northeastern North America of a cross-border regional entity through its regional entity division, as well as regionally-specific criteria services for Northeastern North America through its criteria services division.The NPCC geographic region includes the State of New York and the six New England states as well as the Canadian provinces of Ontario, Québec and the Maritime provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Overall, NPCC covers an area of nearly 1.2 million square miles, populated by more than 55 million people. In total, from a net energy for load perspective, NPCC is approximately 45% U.S. and 55% Canadian. With regard to Canada, approximately 70% of Canadian net energy for load is within the NPCC Region.NPCC’s regional entity division operates under a delegation agreement with the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC). This agreement recognizes that NPCC meets the qualifications for delegation of certain roles, responsibilities and authorities of a cross-border regional entity as defined by Section 215 of the Federal Power Act in the U.S. and through Canadian provincial regulatory and/or governmental Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) or Agreements.NPCC’s Amended and Restated Bylaws provide for open, inclusive membership and fair and non-discriminatory governance with the corporation's activities directed by a balanced stakeholder Board of Directors.The Western Interconnection is run by the WECC. Western Electricity Coordinating CouncilWECC is governed by a nine-member Independent Board of Directors and the Chief Executive Officer. The nine Directors are independent of any Registered Entity in the Western Interconnection either by employment or affiliation. The WECC Board is elected by the WECC membership and the Directors are compensated for their time.WECC membership is open to any person or entity that has an interest in the reliable operation of the Bulk Electric System in the Western Interconnection. WECC membership is not a requirement for participation in the WECC Standards development process. WECC’s membership is divided into five member classes:Class 1 – Large Transmission OwnersClass 2 – Small Transmission OwnersClass 3 – Transmission Dependent Energy Service ProvidersClass 4 – End UsersClass 5 – Representatives of State and Provincial Governments

Oh, good God, how long do you have?Do you want just Supreme Court blockbusters that are well-known, or do you want subtle cases in arbitration and administrative law that are virtually unknown outside of specific legal areas but that have a massive influence on how state and federal government is run? Are circuit court opinions all right? State court? I mean, we could really be here a while depending on how broadly you want to go.Here’s just some highlights from law school. I could go on like this for days. Months. I am not being facetious here. I promise I’m not going to just dump my law school outlines. That could get really long. Just my Constitutional Law outline was 40 pages.Constitutional Law - PowersJudicial ReviewMarbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Establishes the concept of judicial review as part of the United States judicial powers.Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816). Extends judicial review to being able to overrule state decisions if they conflict with the Federal Constitution.Enumerated PowersNecessary and Proper ClauseMcCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819). Defines the scope of the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution to essentially turbocharge all enumerated Federal powers. “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.”The Commerce ClauseGibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824). The Federal government has the plenary power under the Commerce Clause to regulate “channels of commerce,” including waterways, roads, and railroads.Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905), decides that the freedom to contract is a fundamental right that the Federal government may not infringe upon by petty regulations like prohibiting bakeries from forcing bakers to work more than 60 hours a week or 10 hours a day.Hammer v. Dagenhart, (I’m getting lazy and I’m going to stop putting in the Bluebook cites,) (1918) key case of the “Lochner Era,” where the Court viewed itself as a sort of super-legislature and overrode Congress frequently where they didn’t think Congress made good policy. The Court decided that manufacturing is not “commerce” and struck down child labor laws.Carter v. Carter Coal (1936), decides manufacturing and labor rights are local issues, strikes down labor laws as an invalid exercise of the tax and spend clause.West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937), generally accepted as the end of the Lochner Era. Upheld a minimum wage requirement in Washington.Wickard v. Filburn (1942), upholds New Deal price controls on wheat, establishes the concept that economic activity can be viewed in the aggregate to see if there is a “substantial impact” on interstate commerce, which gives Congress the power to regulate activity under the Commerce Clause. The Court will not strike down another Congressional act based on the Commerce Clause for more than fifty years.Heart of Atlanta v. United States (1964), held that the movement of people is always considered commerce; upholds nondiscrimination laws barring segregation.Katzenbach v. McClung (1964), holds that refusing to serve black people at a restaurant has a substantial effect on interstate commerce because it’s connected to interstate commerce through interstate interactions - suppliers bring in things from out of state. Viewed in the aggregate, this has a substantial effect on interstate commerce and so Congress can regulate it.Lopez v. United States (1994), strikes down federal gun-free school zones because Congress did not sufficiently research or articulate how guns in schools are related to commerce. First time the Court strikes down a law passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause since before Filburn.United States v. Morrison (2000), after Lopez, Congress does a LOT of fact-finding when making laws pursuant to the commerce clause. Makes a ton of factual findings when passing the Violence Against Women Act about how violence against women impacts commerce in the aggregate; women who aren’t safe don’t buy things, have jobs, and so forth. The Court looks at it and goes, “ehhhhhhhh… ok, new rule - if it’s not inherently economic activity, then you can’t aggregate it.” They decide that individual violence against women isn’t economic activity, so it can’t be aggregated, and therefore, can’t be regulated under the Commerce Clause.Gonzales v. Raich (2005), decides that things that could end up in the marketplace (any commodity and the manufacture or growing of such commodity) is economic activity, can be regulated, and upholds the use of the Controlled Substances Act to slap a California grandmother growing small amounts of marijuana in her basement for personal use with a Federal crime.Sibelius v. NFIB (2012) Part I: The Attack of the Roberts Court, holds that non-participation in the market is not commerce and can’t be regulated; people cannot be forced into the marketplace.The Tax and Spend ClauseSouth Dakota v. Dole (1987) held that it’s perfectly fine to spend federal funds to dictate policy to the States, so long as it’s an unambiguous national interest (here, preventing drunk driving accidents on the federal interstate highway system,) and it’s not coercive (can’t compel the state to adopt the policy). Withholding federal highway funds from any state that didn’t raise the drinking age to 21 was not coercive enough.Sibelius v. NFIB, Part II: The Revenge of the Tax and Spend Clause; Roberts decides that the mandatory ACA Medicare expansion was coercive because it would have taken away all Medicare funding from any non-complying state, but also holds that the individual mandate was OK under the tax and spend clause, because the penalty for not having health insurance was a tax, collected by the IRS, and spent on paying off the assholes who show up at the ER without insurance and no money that the rest of us pay for through our premiums.Treaty PowersMissouri v. Holland (1920). Height of the Lochner Era, mass extinction-level hunting of migratory birds going on. The Court keeps striking down all sorts of Federal regulations on migratory birds under the Commerce Clause; birds and hunting are not commerce according to the Court. But, Woodrow Wilson got Canada to sign on to a treaty regarding migratory birds in 1916. The Court finds that valid, and regulations passed pursuant to that treaty are valid under the Necessary and Proper Clause.Executive AuthorityYoungstown Sheet and Tube (1952); Truman’s attempt to seize steel mills and nationalize the steel industry failed because Congress told him no, you can’t do that. Special concurrence by Justice Jackson establishes various “zones” of presidential powers.Constitutional Law - LibertiesFundamental Rights - Substantive Due ProcessBarron v. Baltimore (1833), decides that the Federal Constitution and particularly the Bill of Rights doesn’t apply to the states unless it explicitly says so. States and municipalities can seize property without compensation to their hearts’ delights.Lochner v. New York (1905) - decides that there is a fundamental right to contract, and that the more important a right is that is infringed upon, the more the Court should insist upon a close fit between the means of governmental intrusion and the ends.Palko v. Connecticut (1937) establishes that to find a fundamental right, it must be “deeply rooted in the traditional conscience,” and “essential to our notions of ordered liberty.” Fundamental if no potential system of justice would be complete without it.United States v. Carolene Products (1938), “magic footnote four” establishes the idea that infringement upon certain rights should be granted a higher level of scrutiny, significantly clarifies the notion laid out in Lochner.Duncan v. Louisiana (1968) refines Palko, must be necessary specifically to American scheme of justice. Starts the road of “incorporation,” which applies the Constitution to the States through the 14th Amendment. Starts with “strong selective” incorporation, generally assuming that the Bill of Rights applies, but still only on a case-by-case basis.Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), fundamental right to parent your children as you see fit, no legitimate end in prohibiting teaching of German language.Buck v. Bell (1927), Oliver Wendell Holmes decides that forced sterilization of mentally ill patients is just fine because, and I quote, “three generations of imbeciles is enough.” This has never been overruled.Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel Williamson (1942), strikes down forced sterilization of prison inmates and establishes the concept of bodily autonomy and integrity for the first time in U.S. jurisprudence. Recognizes that there may be fundamental rights to marriage and procreation.Rochin v. California (1952), strikes down conviction for drugs after police forcibly pumped the man’s stomach to retrieve them; upholds idea of bodily integrity.Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), finds a fundamental right to personal medical privacy under the “penumbra” of the Bill of Rights; strikes down Connecticut statute prohibiting contraception or aiding someone in obtaining it. Establishes the idea that government does not belong in the bedroom, sets the stage for a huge abortion fight that will last at least the next 55 years.Loving v. Virginia (1967); holds that marriage is a fundamental right and strikes down anti-miscegenation laws nationwide.Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972), finds that the right to choose whether to procreate or not is fundamental, covering married people using contraception only in this case. Applies strict scrutiny; while preventing adultery is a legitimate governmental interest, it is not served here. If the right to sexual privacy is to mean anything, the Court reasons, it must be an individual one.Roe v. Wade (1973). Probably the biggest landmark decision affecting U.S. politics as a matter of fundamental rights ever. The Court applied the lines of cases stretching back to the beginning of fundamental rights, bodily integrity, sexual and medical privacy, and found that the right to an abortion falls under these rights. The Court holds that a fetus is not a person by definition of the Constitution.Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) found that there was no specific right to engage in sodomy in the Constitution.Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992) ditches the rigid trimester framework that Roe came up with in favor of the “undue burden standard” and drawing the line when government can fully regulate or ban abortion at viability (then generally accepted at 24 weeks.)Also established a framework for when to overrule precedence, requiring balancing four factors: 1) how unworkable the previous standard has become, 2) the amount of reliance on the previous decision there has been, 3) whether the previous decision has been undermined or evolved, and 4) factual developments since the previous decision. This has a great deal of impact on our politics by providing lawmakers the criteria needed to undermine prior decisions and develop a factual basis to overrule prior cases.Lawrence v. Texas (2003), while there is no specific right to homosexual sodomy in the Constitution, consensual sex in the privacy of one’s own home is a fundamental right and discrimination against homosexuals is not a legitimate state interest.Obergefell v. Hodges (2015); extended fundamental right to marry found in Loving to same-sex marriages.Whole Women’s Health v. Hellerstadt (2016); struck down admitting privileges and other various TRAP laws as violating the undue burden standard laid out in Casey; reaffirmed Casey and Roe’s essential holdings.Equal ProtectionFrontiero v. Richardson (1973). Laid out the criteria for finding suspect classifications under the Equal Protection Clause. Suspect classifications get strict scrutiny. These are politically protected classes of people.Korematsu v. United States (1944). One of the most infamous decisions of the 20th century; established national security as a compelling state interest, allows facially racial discrimination. (Overruled since.)Brown v. Board of Education (1954), struck down racially segregated schools as a matter of equal protection. Overruled Plessy v Ferguson (1896) that upheld Jim Crow laws as “separate but equal”.Fisher v. University of Texas (2013, 2016), upheld affirmative action programs on a narrow basis, so long as race is only one factor among others and there is no other race-neutral alternative to achieve diversity.Also, states themselves can prohibit affirmative action programs after Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action (2014). This is affecting US politics on a state level as legislatures are pushing to ban affirmative action programs.Voting RightsBaker v. Carr (1962). Allowed the Court to intervene in redistricting at all; it had generally been viewed as a political question outside of judicial review prior to this.This case literally broke two justices. Justice Frankfurter had a stroke because of it and was forced to retire, and led to a psychological breakdown of Justice Whittaker, who never recovered and retired from the Court without a decision on Carr.Reynolds v. Sims (1964), established the “one person, one vote” principle.Kramer v. Union Free School District (1969), the right to vote is a fundamental right and requires strict scrutiny review. This is still impacting politics today as various politicians try to find ways around it, notably felon disenfranchisement.Nixon and his cabinet were furious about this decision and it was a piece of the reason for the War on Drugs; if they couldn’t simply undo the voting rights act and couldn’t restore Jim Crow, they’d basically have to find a way to criminalize being black. The War on Drugs specifically targeted drugs favored by the black community with greater enforcement. This is still a problem today.Bush v. Gore (2000), held that the right to a uniform process outweighed the individual’s right to have their vote counted because the electoral college operated on a deadline. This decision gave the election to George W. Bush.Evenwel v. Abbot (2015), after a naked attempt by Texas to reduce the influence of districts with a high population of non-citizen immigrants, the Court decided that districts should be drawn based on total population, not just eligible voters. The Court noted that this was explicitly debated and considered in the drafting of the Constitution and the people who wrote it explicitly went with total population.This is currently impacting the 2020 Census as the Trump Administration has been actively trying to get a citizenship question on the census for the first time in 70+ years for the purpose of trying to get undocumented immigrants not to answer the census, thus undercounting the number of people in those areas and decreasing representation for those districts.Free SpeechNew York Times v. United States (1971), ruling that even where the government has a compelling interest to restrict speech as a prior restraint (prevent someone from speaking,) it can’t be a pretense and the Court will really look at whether that compelling interest is real or not.Buckley v. Valeo (1976), held that money is the same as speech and struck down spending limits by campaigns. Upheld individual contribution limits.Central Hudson Gas and Electric v. Public Service Commission (1980). Held that commercial speech (advertising) is able to be regulated by law with a lesser degree of scrutiny.Texas v. Johnson (1989), burning the U.S. flag is protected by the First Amendment, and conservatives have been fucking pissed about this ruling ever since, including proposing actual constitutional amendments to overrule the Court.Citizens United v. FEC (2009). Struck down corporate contribution limits to campaigns, allows disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but severely weakened the FEC’s ability to regulate electioneering. Allows corporations to donate unlimited amounts of money to campaigns.McCutcheon v. FEC (2014), struck down aggregate limits on contributions as impermissible abridgement of First Amendment rights. People can now donate up to the individual limits to every candidate they want, and if you’re the Koch Brothers, you can now use corporations to get around individual limits.This also severely restricted the definition of quid-pro-quo corruption to require basically an explicit bribe-for-performance.Free PressBranzburg v. Hayes (1972), can try to protect your sources all you want, but if a grand jury calls you up, reporters get no special exemption. If they ask you and you refuse, that’s contempt.Florida Star v. B.J.F. (1989); you can publish information gathered illegally by others so long as you didn’t gather it illegally yourself. And you can publish public records all you’d like.So, if someone wants to send a copy of the Mueller Report on over to the Times…Freedom of Religion and Establishment ClauseReynolds v. United States (1878), the government has no right to compel you to believe anything or punish your religious beliefs. Congress cannot do anything about your “mere opinion.”Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe (2000), a prayer before sporting events, even if the students are the ones who brought it up and led it, is an impermissible government endorsement of religion.Again, conservatives have been losing their shit about this every since, and it’s become something of a hidden litmus test for Supreme Court nominees for conservatives ever since, even though the case was decided with a conservative-dominated Court.Burwell v. Hobby Lobby (2014), held that closely held corporations (such as a family-owned business,) have religious free exercise rights.This has been a political hot button lately with the ACA.ArbitrationYou have no idea how much these cases affect everything you do, including your politics.Southland Corp. v. Keating (1984). The Federal Arbitration Act pre-empts damned near everything. State laws trying to get around it are null and void.Mitsubishi Motors Corp. v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc. (1987), even if you have a statutory claim that would let you bring a case in open court, if you signed an arbitration agreement, say, in the process of buying car, you get stuck in arbitration.Buckeye Check Cashing (2006). Even if the entire contract is illegal, the arbitrator gets to decide whether or not it’s valid.Hall Street v. Mattel (2008). The only grounds to get an arbitration award vacated is in the FAA, and it more or less requires “manifest disregard” of the law. The arbitrator can make “silly, even improvident” findings of fact or conclusions of law, but as long as the arbitrator doesn’t say, “Well, I know that law says that, but I’m ignoring it!” you are stuck with whatever the arbitrator decides.AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion (2014); even if a company is cheating millions of people out of small amounts of money such that they make billions of dollars and nobody would bother going to arbitration individually over $30 when if they lose, they could be forced to pay for the entire arbitration, class action waivers in “adhesion contracts,” (think, clicking “I agree” on your phone to literally anything,) class action waivers are enforceable.Administrative LawChevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of a statute if it’s at all ambiguous and so long as it’s not arbitrary and capricious.The conservative-dominated Supreme Court developed this deference during the Reagan Administration. During the Obama Administration, when the President starting using agency action because Congress preferred to sit on its hands and do jack shit nothing just to spite him, suddenly the still-conservative-dominated Supreme Court had a change of heart, as will be discussed momentarily.Ironically, folks irritated with the sudden lack of deference to the executive should be hoping for the Court to continue that lack of deference right now.Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe (1971). Agencies can change course or undertake rulemaking actions, so long as they aren’t arbitrary and capricious.The Trump administration can’t seem to either hire a lawyer that understands this or just plain won’t listen to them, which is why a metric shit ton of their attempts to create or undo various administrative agency rules keep getting rejected by the courts.Bowles v. Seminole Rock and Sand Co. (1945). Courts should defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own regulations if there’s a dispute over it.Auer v. Robbins (1987). Courts should really, really defer to an agency’s interpretation of its own rules if there’s a dispute over it.Kisor v. Wilkie (2019). Not yet decided, but conservatives who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Obama and liberals who suddenly got really itchy all over about agency deference under Trump are suddenly really hoping that the Supreme Court will ditch Seminole Rock and Auer and stop letting agencies have their way.Criminal Law and ProcedureMapp v. Ohio (1961) established the exclusionary rule; if police violate your constitutional rights, the evidence they gain from that can be excluded.This impacts our politics still today, because in the push to be “tough on crime” and for “law and order,” especially in a post-9/11 world, police are more and more frequently using tools that massively invade on personal privacy. Add to it that we now basically carry much of our essential information, our “papers” if you will, on a little slab in our pockets.Miranda v. Arizona (1966). This was an enormous shift in how police had to treat suspects, and it still affects our politics today.TortsYou think civil suits can’t affect public policy? Think again! Products liability has had a huge impact on our politics over the years.MacPherson v. Buick (1916). A wheel fell off a guy’s car, and for the first time, the court allowed the victim to sue the manufacturer and not just the retailer, for a manufacturing defect rather than just faulty installation.Leichtamer v. AMC (Ohio 1982). While the manufacturers aren’t on the hook to design totally crash-proof cars, unreasonably dangerous product designs or defective designs can still make them liable even where the victims were idiots.Knitz v. Minster Machine Co. (Ohio 1982). Safety features shouldn’t be optional add-ons. *Ahem, cough, Boeing, cough, cough.*New York Times v. Sullivan (1964). This case raises the bar for recovery for public figures; they have to show that a false statement was published with “actual malice.” This is the reason that Trump doesn’t actually sue anyone for defamation.Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants (1994). This is the infamous “hot coffee” case. Stella Liebeck was a) not driving, b) in a car that had pulled into a parking stall, c) did not suffer little tiny burns from some spilled coffee, but third degree burns over pretty much her entire downstairs region, d) after McDonald’s had been repeatedly cited for storing their coffee as much as 30 degrees above the maximum safe limit and settled literally hundreds of cases where people had suffered serious burns from this practice, and e) Liebeck was only trying to get McDonald’s to cover her medical bills after they offered her $800 to just go away.It was the jury that imposed a 2.5 million fine on the company as punitive damages for actions that “shocked the conscience.” That number is equivalent to two days’ worth of coffee sales to the corporation.Business lobbies have been trying to make this into a frivolous case ever since by reducing it to “woman burned with hot coffee, duh.” This case has been the front case for 25 years by these pro-business lobbies to enact tort reform to try to block suits like this, even though it was completely legitimate.It is still repeatedly brought up by politicians trying to make cases sound frivolous by comparing a case to Liebeck’s.I could go on like this forever. We haven’t even touched on contract law, civil procedure, or secured transactions. These are just highlights. There are literally thousands of cases, big and small, that continue to have large impacts on our national and local level politics.You read all the way this far, and deserve a reward. Here’s a kitten.Thanks for the A2A.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. I’m ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.