(Ivers, p.33) A legal team lead by Thomas Emerson represented Griswold and Buxton in this case. Emerson argued that the “liberty” part of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was too broad to encompass the right to privacy that allowed married couples to get information and use birth control. The court struck down the Connecticut law saying that it violated the right of privacy protected by the US Constitution. (Ivers, p.33) According to the 53-32 of the General Statutes of Connecticut provided that "Any person who uses any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception shall be fined not less than fifty dollars or imprisoned not less than sixty days nor more than one year or be both fined and imprisoned." and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut states “Any person who assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another to commit any offense may be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender."
DOMA: Bringing Back Minority Discrimination The Defense of Marriage Act, commonly known as DOMA, is a United States federal government law that defines the term “marriage” as “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.” The law prevents married couples of the same-sex from obtaining the federal benefits given to married couples of the opposite sex and excuses states from recognizing same-sex marriages legalized in other states. The DOMA law is a bad law because the means of its existence violates amendment rights, promotes minority discrimination, and contradicts the federal government’s promise of equal protection under the law. In 1996 Congress enacted the DOMA law in response to the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling of 1993 in Baehr v. Lewin that same-sex couples might be entitled to marry in the state. This ruling, however, initiated uproar of horror from religious and social conservatives who believed it to be “…an attack on what they refer to as ‘traditional marriage’ or ‘historical marriage,’ that is marriage reserved as a special privilege for opposite-sex couples” (Robinson).
Analysis of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Decision. The Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision was the most controversy Supreme Court case of the 21st century. According to the decision, corporation's funding candidate protected is under the First Amendment's free speech principle- that government cannot regulate political speech. The ruling of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission classify corporation as people, "donation" to candidate as political speech, and election as a way of expression. Hence, suppressing the "speech" of "people” is unconstitutional.
Proposition 8 was a 2008 California ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriage. It undid a decision by the state Supreme Court from earlier that year that found an earlier ban to be illegal. Since its passage, Proposition 8 has been the subject of court actions and has continued to be one of the central battlefields in the fight over same-sex marriage in the United States. In August 2011, a federal district judge found that Proposition 8 — passed by California voters by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent — violated the equal protection rights of two same-sex couples that brought the suit. The proposition placed a specific prohibition in the State Constitution against marriage between two people of the same sex.
What Good is Assimilation? “No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like.” Mr. Obama emphasized his concern that the intact Arizona’s immigration law, “show me your papers”, could lead to racial profiling on June25, 2012 after announcing the Supreme Court’s decision. Immigration is one of the highly controversial issues in the U.S. Some people claim that immigrant assimilation is not occurring and that instead most immigrants are a burden on in the U.S. society. However, before the society requires assimilation and criticized the lack of immigrant assimilation into the U.S., any requirement for assimilating should be based on the true understanding of immigrants.
Others feel that Engel v. Vitale should be overturned on the basis of the unconstitutionality of the “Separation of Church and State.” Although it is now commonplace in court rulings, in 1878, the Supreme Court cited the letter by Thomas Jefferson where the phrase “Separation of Church and State” is found and stated that it meant Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere religious opinions (Reynolds v. United States). It wasn’t until 1947 that the Supreme Court cited the 8 words “a wall of separation between Church and State” without the context of the letter and sought a separation of basic religious principles from public life (Everson v. Board of Education). Whether for or against religious activities in the public school system, demonstration is readily available of the drastic change in moral life of the American
Paying the same tuition as illegal immigrants pay takes away citizens’ right to exclusively obtain American education for one they or their parents are taxpayer to fund the school, and two illegal immigrants are in the United States illegally. Furthermore, higher education is a federal public benefit because colleges and universities receive federal funding, and illegal immigrants aren’t eligible for federal benefits (Trevizo 2). A report on June 28, 2011, that the Maryland version of the Dream Act which awards college tuition benefits to illegal aliens was in peril of repeal due to the frustration of Marylanders with illegal immigration (Walsh 2). It is essential that the state policy allows verification on who qualifies for in-state tuition and who doesn’t in order to prevent undocumented students taking seats away from legal residents (Trevizo 4). If illegal aliens are allowed to attend public higher education, higher tuition price is a must.
Charmaine English 101 Professor Clara Blenis 12 February 2015 “The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage” Pg. 82 Question#1 This essay challenges my assumptions on about conservative perspectives on marriage equality by fighting for it first off. I was so shocked to read the writers arguments about why banding same-sex marriages goes against everything America stands for. Conservatives are quick to say they have nothing wrong with same-sex couples. Then turn around a make prop 8 that tells them they are not worthy of the same rights they have.
In our country’s constitution, there are amendments that would make one question the legality of single-sex education. The Supreme Court has had to solve a large number of cases that involve single sex education. The plaintiffs in all these cases argued that their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment were violated. According to Pennsylvania State University Law, one such case was United States v. Virginia. Penn State lawyers said, “the Court held that Virginia Military Institute’s male-only admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby calling into question the validity of single-sex public education opportunities.
On March 6, 1996, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Compassion in Dying v. Washington held that preventing a competent adult from seeking physician assistance in committing suicide interfered with an individual's liberty interest and, therefore, violates an individual's substantive due process rights. Less than a month later in a similar case, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in Quill v. Vacco held that the New York statute criminalizing assisted suicide violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that the state has no rational or legitimate interest in preventing a mentally competent terminally ill patient in the final stage of his or her illness from taking a lethal dose of a physician-prescribed medication. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned both decisions; the Washington case became known as Washington v. Glucksberg. On June 27, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that a state's ban on suicide is rationally related to a legitimate government interest and therefore there is no constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide; however, states are free to decide for themselves whether to allow physician-assisted suicide.