The Act was ruled unconstitutional because it requires federal estate tax to be paid by folks in same-sex marriages. Currently if the spouse in an opposite-sex marriage dies, no federal estate tax needs to be paid. The court also stated that the Act discriminates based on sexual orientation and violates equal protection under the Constitution. Republicans are contesting a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which ruled the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates based on the denial of health benefits to same-sex spouses. In defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, Republicans claim the goals are to “maintain consistency in allocating federal benefits and encourage relationships “that most frequently result in the begetting and raising of children.”” NYTIMES.
The Respondents argument was that people have a liberty interest which is protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause and it should extend to terminally ill patients who are mentally competent and wish to take part in doctor assisted suicide. The US District Court using the rulings in both Planned Parenthood v. Casey and Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health determined that the law did violate the Constitution because it “places and undue burden on the exercise of [that] constitutionally protected liberty interest.” (1) The District Court went further by determining that the law also violated the requirement in the Equal Protection Clause that requires that all people “similarly situated” should be treated I the same manner. The case was appealed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and a panel of judges from that court heard the case and
Is Senator Gravel’s alleged arrangement with Beacon Press protected by the Speech and Debate Clause? No Opinion of the Court (White) The Speech and Debate clause of the U.S. Constitution was intended to protect members of Congress from any prosecution that disrupts the legislative process. Therefore, Gravel is justified in his claim that he is protected under it. The aides of a member of Congress are perceived by the Court to be “alter egos” of the member itself. Thus, the Court holds that, by the indistinguishable nature of the characteristics and duties of the members and their aides, the protection provided by the Speech and Debate Clause should be extended to the aides.
Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) Facts: Griswold and Dr. Buxton operated a Planned Parenthood facility in New Haven, Connecticut. Buxton, a licensed physician and professor at the Yale Medical School, served as the facility’s Medical Director. Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. On November 10, 1961, both were arrested for giving information, instruction, and medical advice to married persons as to the means of preventing conception. They had violated statutes 53-22 and 54-196 of the General Statutes of Connecticut (1958 rev).
Mildred and Richard moved to Washington D.C. and with the help of the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) they filled to have the sentence set aside on the ground that it violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Virginia Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the law and affirmed the convictions. Issues: 1. Does Virginia’s anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Holding: A vote of (9-0) in favor of Loving 1.
Cheet Sheet: Jenkins v. Florida AppellantJenkins 1974 Federal Privacy Act -Restricts access to medical information and records Jaffee v Redmond 518 US 1 - Supreme Court 1996 Background: Mary Lu Redmond, a former police officer, received extensive counseling from a licensed clinical social worker after she shot and killed Ricky Allen. Carrie Jaffee, special administrator for Allen, filed suit in federal District Court alleging that Redmond had violated Allen's constitutional rights by using excessive force in the encounter. During the trial, Jaffee sought access to the notes from Redmond's counseling. Redmond's counsel resisted asserting the conversations were protected against involuntary disclosure by a psychotherapist-patient privilege. The District Court judge rejected the argument, but the notes were not released.
1 Vacco v. Quill 521 U.S. 793 Frank J. Head Jr. Ashford University POL 303 Instructor Kelli Callahan September 13, 2011 2 Dr. Timothy Quill, along with other doctors, argued that the New York state ban of physician-assisted suicide violated the Equal Protection Clause under the Fourteenth Amendment, which states that “no state would be allowed to abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens”. Although more than one physician had ties to this case the main parties involved were the attorney general of New York against Dr.Timothy E. Quill, Samuel C. Klagsbrun, and Howard A. Grossman. In 1997 New York law stated that it was a crime for physicians to euthanize patients; however the law allowed patients to refuse lifesaving treatment. After much deliberation ultimately the Supreme Court unanimously voted 9-0 that euthanasia in fact did not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
These two court cases are the same by dealing with the Fourteenth Amendment. On the case of Loving & Virginia, they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying the freedom of choice to marry and not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations; the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the state. Virginia violated the Equal Protection and the Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the Goodridge v. Department of Public Health case, the Court affirmed that the core concept of common human dignity protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution precludes government intrusion into the deeply personal realms of consensual adult expressions of intimacy and one's choice of an intimate partner. Another similarity was that they both had to deal with marriages.
Goodridge v. Department of Public Health In Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 440 Mass. 309 (2003), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that it was unconstitutional to forbid people to marry someone of the same sex in Massachusetts. The Court decided that the Commonwealth could not deny a couple the benefits and stability of a civil marriage simply because the petitioners were of the same sex. Similarly, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), The Supreme Court held that a Virginia statute outlawing marriage by two people of different races violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In Loving, the court affirmed that marriage is a fundamental civil right to free persons and stated that, “[t]he Fourteenth
Reflections on the First Amendment HIS301 United States Constitution Reflections on the First Amendment The First Amendment; what is the significance of the three provisions the rights and responsibilities it gives the American people. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. The first Amendment gives cause for many court cases with the dealing of separation of religion and state freedom of speech you would think that one case would be more than enough to cover it but form looking at the cases it maybe rather