Book Creator

Miller v. United States

by Kayden Pisani & Dylan


Miller Vs United States
Introductory Page
Judicial review permits the U.S. Supreme Court to determine whether a national or state law is constitutional. It also gives the Supreme Court the authority to rule whether the president's actions are constitutional. If the Court determines a law or an action unconstitutional, that law or action may not be enforced. 
This ties into the Rights of the Accused because with the Supreme Court being able to infer the law that there can only be a search and seizure with a warrant. Without this law people would have no freedom or liberty.
Federalism is a division of powers between different levels of government. The first government of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, gave too little power to the federal government. Its successor, the Constitution, gave more power to the federal government.
This ties into the Rights of the Accused because with the new government, the government was able to create the Bill of Rights which had insisted on protecting citizens freedom or in example of our EBC´s, had created the 4th Amendment.
Without The Bill of Rights, the Constitution or the Amendments, we would have a lot more worse of a government and a country as a whole. These three things shaped America into being such an amazing country. The constitution had first originated from the Articles of the Confederation and made its way to the Federal which is what we have today. It had created America's national government, its laws, and the rights for the citizens. The Bill of Rights were 10 rights given to the citizens to help them be free in the country. Amendments were single laws or acts given to the US citizens to provide support justice for all. It protects the freedom of speech, the press, assembly and the right to petition from the government.
These tie to the Rights of Accused EBC because with the Constitution we wouldn't be able to have the Federal government. With no Federal government, there would be no Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from freedom. However, in the EBC we had explained how the 4th Amendment had protected people from being illegally searched and seized without a warrant, and with no Amendments people were capable of being searched and seized without a warrant and even arrested without any reasoning.
Miller Vs United States Criminal Case Page
Jack Miller and Frank Layton were stopped by the police for transporting a sawed-off shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. The two were charged with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934. This was because the Federal government had made a new law stating that weapons needed to be registered in order to have a gun. A special circumstance that was dealt with in this case was that Miller and Layton had first pleaded guilty, but after looking at the 2nd Amendment, they had realized that their rights were being violated so they changed to not guilty. The constitutional issue was that the Firearms Act of 1934 was Unconstitutional and that it took away the men's 2nd Amendment rights.
Page 4
Supreme Court Page
 When Miller and Layton had stated that their 2nd Amendment right was violated, a lower court agreed with Miller and Layton, however the U.S. prosecutor was not happy with the court and appealed the case to the supreme court. The Supreme court had agreed with the Prosecutor stating the 2nd Amendment did not violate their rights. The Supreme court had stated that the Amendment only went to the Federal court, however nothing in the 2nd Amendment prevented State and local governments from creating gun control laws. The cause of the case was because when Miller and Layton had realized that their 2nd Amendment was violated, the two stated that they weren't guilty which had a lower court agreed with them however the US Prosecutor did not agree with the court or men so he ended up bringing it to the Supreme Court. The effect of this was that the Supreme Court had fully informed that State and Local governments were able to create gun control laws.

Page 5
Impact page
The central idea of the Court´s decision was right because they had stated that the National Firearms act of 1934 was Constitutional and you have to have a registration in order to own a gun. It was a positive decision because many people needed to know that even though you need a registration in order to own a gun, people also needed to know that States and local governments were able to make laws on gun control.
Page 6