Choose ONE of the statutory compilations linked below, locate the statute described, read it, then reply to this post by 9am Thursday, May 6, with a sentence or two explaining what it means, as best you understand it, in your own words. These are tough! Don’t be discouraged, just do your best. You may need to look up some words in a dictionary, I did. 🙂
- In the U.S. Code: Title 42, Chapter 21, Subchapter I, Section 1983.
- In the Consolidated Laws of New York: Civil Rights Law, Article 7, Section 70.
What I understood the statute to mean was every human being (of color especially) has full civil rights and can go for legal action if it is tested. However, if it is a judicial officer who tested their rights there are restrictions, though I’m not understanding the declaratory decree part and the restrictions
Terrific, Leilani! Great job deciphering some very tough material.
You definitely need to read these status a couple of times before it makes sense! I yelled at the computer a couple of times (Hahaha) §1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights after reading, I would say that in simple terms means that a person is in their right to sue or bring charges to another person if their constitution rights are violated primary based on color.
Thanks Daniella! Yes reading statutes can be quite infuriating. You figured it out!
I believe that this statute means that anytime a person’s civil rights have been tested they have the right to pursue litigation, the only time this differs is when the person that tested those civil rights is a judicial officer. I am unclear on the exact differences though, but I think it means that the court will basically do its own internal discipline on the judicial officer.
Great job Jasiyah! You could be a code-breaker. 🙂
From what I understood Civil Rights §50. Right of Privacy clearly states that whenever you are going to try and advertise a persons name, brand and etc you must first have a written consent and if you are dealing with minors you have to have the permission of their guardian or parents.
What I understood from reading §1983 Civil action for deprivation of rights was that it gives a person the right to sue or bring action against an officer or government employee if their civil rights have been violated.
Great Ariana, you figured it out! These statutes are tough.
The Consolidated Laws of New York: Civil Rights Law, Article 7, Section 70 starts off with the word vexatious which I immediately had to look up. From what I gathered reading this if a person has ill intentions when using another persons name in a suit without that persons consent or if its done to a person he/she doesn’t know they are subject to damages from the adverse party and can face litigation from the person who’s name was used. This can lead to misdemeanor charge that can lead up to 6 months of jail time.
Under the US Code, Title 3, chapter 1, and Section 2 whenever a state fails to make a choice after an election held for the purpose of choosing electors, it’s within the jurisdiction of Congress to make such decision on a subsequent day,
civil rights article 7 sec 70 – what I kind of understood is that if a person was commenced due to the threatening or harassment, the other party can do a counterclaim to recover damages.
Hmmm, you’re pretty close! These statutes are tough, “close” is often the best we can do. 🙂
From what I understood , I believe that the statutes means that at any moment that a person’s rightsare being violated they have the right to commence an actions.However rights change when action is brought against a judicial officer in which that case, actions are different.