Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) The Obergefell v. Hodges (2014) case involved the marriage of same sex couples. Groups of same sex couples sued their state agencies to challenge the constitutionality of them refusing to recognize legal same sex marriages. Plaintiffs argued that the states’ statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The federal judge in San Antonio, Texas, “ruled that Texas ' ban on same-sex marriage violates the U.S. Constitution and demeans the dignity of gay couples "for no legitimate reason." Judge Orlando Garcia then granted two plaintiff couples ' request for an injunction barring the state from enforcing the ban.” (Keen 1) One of the couples sought to be married in Texas while the other couple had already been married in Massachusetts, but desired to be recognized by the state of Texas. In Garcia’s ruling, he states that, “the Texas bans violate the guarantees of due process and equal protection of the U.S. Constitution.”
Thus, the law’s strongest protections have been rendered meaningless. Clearly they never heard of Tocqueville’s tyranny of the majority. The tyranny of the majority is when a dominant group uses its control of the government to abuse the rights of minority groups (Magstadt, p.78, 2015). Executing laws that place restrictions on minorities sounds all too familiar. Do some just turn a blind eye to what is written in our constitution?
The case looks to the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause to determine whether same-sex couples have the right to marry, and whether the right to same-sex marriage is a fundamental right. The case was decided and the judges ruled in a 5-4 majority that it is Unconstitutional for states to deny same-sex couples the right to marry, or to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages that were performed out-of-state. Justices that voted in favor of the decision are Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. The dissenting Justices are Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and
However, Justice Goldberg took a more refined approach than Justice Douglas, focusing solely on the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. He argued that the Connecticut statute infringed upon the un-enumerated yet fundamental right of privacy in marriage, directly opposing the Ninth Amendment. When the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted, states were prohibited from "abridging fundamental personal liberties" guaranteed by the Bill of Rights (Griswold v. Connecticut). Justice Goldberg asserted that these two amendments in conjunction were sufficient evidence of the unconstitutionality of the Connecticut statute. (Griswold v.
A divided New York Appellate Division affirmed on the ground that the statute was unconstitutional because it has the primary effect of advancing religion (Mercer Law Review, n.d). As the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” In this case the state of New York Legislature violated the Constitution.
Does the father have a say when it comes to abortion? It was ruled unconstitutional under the Supreme Court in Plan Parenthood v. Danforth under the reasoning that the husband’s refusal to consent would veto the women’s choice to terminate a pregnancy and considering that she is the one who is caring the pregnancy the court voted in favor of the mother. Which now prevents the father from vetoing the choice of the mother in the choice of abortion. If the father wants the mother to go through with abortion but she says no as a result the father will still have to pay child support. The father does not even have to be notified due to the Supreme Court decision on Plan Parenthood v. Casey.
In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
Huntington is an United Brethren affiliated university, and the United Brethren denomination has a stance against homosexuality, stating in their governing documents that state that they “will only recognize marriages between a genetic, biological man and a genetic, biological woman”. As a school following their beliefs, Huntington must also proclaim that this is a truth that they hold to be important, and therefore will not allow same-sex married couples to live in campus housing or to be faculty here. Obviously, this goes drastically against SB1146, which desires the power to prohibit Christian universities, like Huntington, the right to refuse housing to same-sex married
Connecticut is the landmark case that led to Roe v. Wade. The case argued that it was unconstitutional to outlaw contraceptives of any sort. “On June 7, 1965 the Supreme Court argued that the law which imposed criminal sanctions upon any person who uses any drug, medical article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception is unconstitutional” (Roraback). Also, the Supreme Court declared that the Connecticut law was unconstitutional because it restricted contraceptive use by married couples and this violates their right to privacy (Fein). “The decision spawned additional vexing ligation seeking expansion of the right to privacy to include possession of obscene materials in the home, personal reputation, abortion, confidentiality regarding drug use, and homosexual sodomy” (Fein).
“A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma). Basically what he’s saying is that issues that are not supported in the Constitution make it not a living document.
Spring Branch I.S.D. v. Stamos Supreme Court of Texas, 1985 695.S.W.2d 556 [27 Educ. L. Rep. 640] This case examined the constitutionality of the Texas Education Code 21.920 (b) “No Pass, No Play” rule: A student, other than a mentally retarded student, enrolled in a school district in this state shall be suspended from participation in any extracurricular activity sponsored or sanctioned by the school district during the grade reporting period after a grade reporting period in which the student received a grade lower than the equivalent of 70 on a scale of 100 in any academic class. The campus principal may remove this suspension if the class is an identified honors or advanced class. A student may not be suspended under this subsection
Brown v. Board of Education was a Supreme Court Case held in Topeka, Kansas, May 17th, 1954 declaring segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. It did end segregation in schools but problems followed shortly after including struggles with the Civil Rights laws, voting rights and bussing. The 15th amendment “grants all men the right to vote and shall not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. This was especially towards African American males in the South. Many Southern states tried to prevent them from voting by requiring that all male African Americans to pay a poll tax and take a literacy test which is a test of one’s ability to read and write.
We’ll start with the use of sales representatives and how this relates to potential tax liability. P.L. 86-272 allows the use of sales representatives relating to interstate commerce without generating any net income tax related to tangible personal property within certain restrictions. For the sale to be protected under P.L. 86-272, the work of the sales representatives must be limited to solicitation- a mere “implicit invitation to an order” or “activities that are entirely ancillary to request for an order”. In Wisconsin Department of Revenue V. William Wrigley Jr. Co., the United States Supreme Court emphasized the nature of activities that would be considered ancillary under P.L. 86-272, “Solicitation of orders covers only the actual requests for purchases, or, at most, the actions absolutely essential to making those requests”. The operations of your sales force seem to be following this model where 1) they do not have the authority to accept any orders, and 2) they send the orders back to Ely, MN for them to be accepted and shipped.
The Dred Scott vs. Sanford Supreme Court case has gone down in history as one of the most notorious cases and recognized as driving the country closer to civil war. The case became controversial in 1833, because Dr. John Emerson, purchased Dred Scott, and moved to the Wisconsin Territory. From the Missouri Compromise, slavery was banned in the Wisconsin Territory, therefore, making Scott a free man, right? After living there for a number of years Emerson moved to St. Louis and died in 1843 leaving Eliza Irene Sanford, Emerson’s wife, the owner of Scott and his family. When Scott asked for freedom, Stanford declined which lead to Scott suing the state court, where he won and was acknowledged as a free man.