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
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.
They were married in Maryland, where same-sex marriage was legal, just three months before Arthur’s death. Because Ohio does not recognize same-sex marriages, Obergefell was not able to be named on Arthur’s death certificate as surviving spouse. The suit was filed in an attempt for Obergefell to be listed in this way.
We see multiple successes of voting equality attempted through amendments, however, the Supreme Court’s decision on Shelby County v. Holder has pushed back years and years of effort for voting rights. Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling was in Shelby County’s favor, stating that the Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional along with Section 5. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, who wrote the majority’s opinion, said that the power to regulate election was reserved to the states, not the federal government. As a result to the court’s decision, the federal government can no longer determine which voting law discriminates and can be passed. After the case, many states had freely passed new voting laws; the most common voting law states passed
Blake Shelton talked about his separation with Miranda Lambert on the “Bobby Bones Show” on Wednesday. The 39-year-old star finally opened up about his controversial summertime divorce with his wife of four years. "In Oklahoma, it happens so fast," the singer told the radio host. " Like, Miranda and I didn 't have any kids, and we had a prenuptial agreement, whatever we had. Once we filed for divorce, it was over in, like, I think it was like a nine- or 10-day waiting period," as cited by Us Weekly.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Atkins v. Virginia stated that it was unconstitutional to execute defendants with “mental retardation.” However, legal questions surrounding this issue remain unresolved. The Court in Atkins left the definition and method of determining intellectual disability up to individual states. It has been said that 46 known “mentally retarded” persons have been executed since 1976. Of these 46, two occurred after Atkins v. Virginia was decided.
These issues included whether Arizona’s Juvenile Code violated the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution, due to provisions regarding notice, the right to counsel, the right to confront witnesses and the privilege against self-incrimination (In re Gault,
The Supreme Court did not share Lincoln’s opinion. Especially, the Chief Justice Roger Taney who, in his role as the federal circuit judge, ruled that Lincoln’s suspension of Habeas Corpus was unconstitutional in a decision called Ex Parte Merryman. He did so after his recommendation for a trial of Merryman in order to determine if there were any legitimate reasons for his arrest met if refusal form Merryman captors. In the end, The President ignored Taney ruling, and Congress never contested Lincoln’s Habeas Corpus decision. Lincoln also met with strong resistance form the general public in regards to his executive order.
The petitioners in the Obergefell v. Hodges case took a stand against what they believed was discriminatory against them, and although it took a great amount of time, money, and patience, they ultimately won the victory. Of course there are those that would disagree, Rowan County Clerk as an example. Although the rights and liberties of same-sex couples has been justified, her morals and values are now being objected to. It brings to light the question, if the civil liberties for same-sex couples is justified, are those who oppose it now suffering a violation of their civil liberties under the first Amendment; “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 United States Supreme Court addressed part of this issue with their decision of Missouri v. Frye. In this case, the respondent’s attorney failed to inform him about two potential plea deals; a factor which the Court decided was a violation of Frye’s Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel (Missouri v. Frye, 2012). By making this decision, the Supreme Court is giving the defendants a significant amount of leverage. The Court’s decision opens the floodgates to an unprecedented amount of power on the part of the defense.
In the case of the United States versus Alvarez-Machain on 1992, the request that was made by the United States for him was overturned. Since federal district court lack jurisdiction to try him because his abduction violated the extradition treaty (Geoff). Even the Mexican government believed that the abduction was a violation of the extradition treaty between the two states (Geoff). The whole point of the agreement was to bring Mr. Alvarez to the United States for trial if the Mexican was to accept the request. After the kidnaping was done, it breaks the agreement they had because no one knew how he got to United States.
In the 1500’s early settlers in America based their domestic violence laws on old English common-law, which permitted wife beating for correctional purposes. Fast forward to 1824, a decision by Mississippi Supreme Court allowed a husband to administer only moderate chastisement in cases of emergency. Finally in 1871, Alabama became the first state to rescind the legal right for a man to beat his wife. Massachusetts also declared wife beating illegal this same year. By 1975, most U.S. states allowed a wife to bring criminal action against her husband for such beatings.
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.
Phillips VS. Martin Marietta This case is about a denied employment because of her sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1966 Martin Marietta Corp., informed Ida Phillips that it was not accepting job applications from women with preschool-age children, but they were employing men with preschool-age children.