The fourteenth amendment states in the equal protection clause that states may not discriminate against any citizen for any reason, and must allow the same privileges, rights, and conservation. Hogan was on a mission to gain relief as well as compensation for the damages caused. The case was argued on March 22, 1982. The argument from Joe Hogan was proposed by advocate, Wilbur Colom. The petitioner’s side was presented by Hunter M. Gholson, in representation for Mississippi University for Women.
Transcript of Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Civil Liberties & the Civil Rights Court Cases Assignment Gideon v Wainright Dates: Argued January 15, 1963 Decided March 18, 1963 Background: Charged in a Florida State Court with a non capital felony, petitioner appeared without funds and without counsel and asked the Court to appoint counsel for him, but this was denied on the ground that the state law permitted appointment of counsel for indigent defendants in capital cases only. Mapp v. Ohio Dates : Argued March 29, 1961
Since the 1970’s people have been going to court to ask the government to legalize gay marriage. From the cases in 1970’s like Loving v. Virginia and the more recent cases like United States v. Edith Windsor. In this case, Windsor and Thea were a same sex couple who were married in Canada, but they lived in New York which recognized their marriage. After Thea passed away, the estate was left with Windsor. Under federal law their marriage was not recognized, so Windsor was asked to pay taxes on the estate.
Obergefell v. Hodges is most popularly referred to as the Supreme Court case for same-sex marriage. It is one of the many cases related to the topic of same-sex marriage being a constitutional right. In this specific case James Obergefell and John Arthur filed a lawsuit against the state of Ohio to allow the state to recognize their marriage on death certificates. Obergefell and Arthur were married on the tarmac of the Baltimore-Washington International Airport in Maryland by Arthur’s aunt, Paulette Roberts, on July 11, 2013. Sadly, Arthur died from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) just months into their marriage on October 22, 2013.
oshua Haas October 6, 2014 Intro to Criminal Justice Miller Vs. Alabama On June 25, 2012 the Supreme Court had rule 5 to 4 that Miller was guilty to committing murder and was sentence to life in prison without the possibility of parole. On that day in June the court had struck down all of the statues that was requires for a child under the age of 18 to be sentenced life in prison.
Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State (Loving v. Virginia).” Many previous rulings of the court aided in the ruling in the Loving case. One such case was McLaughlin v. Florida which was used to reinforce the idea that race classifications cannot affect the criminality of an act or the severity of the punishment and was the basis of Justice Stewart’s concurring opinion about the Loving case (Loving v. Virginia). Likewise Hirabayashi v. United States was utilized to state that distinctions between citizens due to ancestry is unjust. The ruling of Brown v. Board was used to apply the sentiment that separate but equal is never equal even when it comes to marriage (Loving v. Virginia).
In the majority opinion written on the Obergefell et al. v. Hodges Supreme Court case on June 26, 2015, the court decided that states were required to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples as well as recognize such licenses from other states on the basis of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision held wide ramifications for policy implementation throughout the nation, especially in those states that had not already legalized same-sex marriage. This unilateral action by the federal government created a complicated responsibility for state and local governments to integrate the broad new legal proceedings effectively. The problems that arise in the local governments following such federal decisions challenge the nation’s federalist system,
The role of the people in same sex marriage is to vote, express their concerns, and to rally together to get changes made. In the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, the people voted in
For example, the 1964 Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and the 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court cases. In the Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States Supreme Court case, “the owner of the motel argued that the federal government overstepped its authority and violated the 5th amendment. the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government can force businesses to abide by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 through the Interstate Commerce Clause in the Constitution” (Civil Rights Act of 1964 Explained). In addition, the 2009 Ricci v. DeStefano Supreme Court case used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as evidence. “The case consisted of a group of firefighters, who brought suit against the city of New Haven, Connecticut for invalidating a test that would have earned them promotions.
This couldn't have been made any clearer. All powers not expressly given to the government (and those necessary for it to carry out its duties) rest in the hands of the states and the people. What the Supreme Court has done today is over step its boundaries and directly violate the tenth amendment to the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is federal government given the power to dictate the terms and legality of marriage, yet that is exactly what they have done by forcing the legality of gay marriage in all states, and forcing all states to recognize the validity of gay marriage. This was a decision that should have rested in the hands of the states and the people to decide for themselves, but instead the supreme court decided to completely ignore the tenth amendment and deliver its own ruling, which is as good as law.
Hodges (2015): In Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court was asked to rule on whether the Fourteenth Amendment requires states and their departments to recognize Same-Sex marriage. In a 5-4 ruling, the court found that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry since it is one of the protected fundamental liberties. Additionally, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right of same-sex couples to marry. The Court also held that the First Amendment protects the rights of religious organizations to adhere to their principles, but it does not allow states to deny same-sex couples the right to
Huckabee stated, “This ruling is not about marriage equality, it’s about marriage redefinition. This irrational, unconstitutional rejection of the expressed will of the people in over 30 states will prove to be one of the court’s most disastrous decisions, and they have had many” (“Mike Huckabee”). Former Arkansas Governor and Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee opposes same sex marriage and believes Americans must defend, protect and preserve traditional marriage (“Values”).
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
The four dissenting opinions in Obergefell give us a fairly good idea of what a majority opinion would look like if issued by a Supreme Court that still hears and orders its thinking based on foundationalism, objective truth and ordered reason. In other words, what the Obergefell decision would look like if written by justices who still hear the echo. It might look something like this: Marriage, as historically defined in our law and traditions since the founding of this nation and for all of recorded human history, has been understood by the people and supported by the laws of the States as a union between a man and a woman. Even in those cultures which allow polygamous marriage, the heterosexual character of the institution is assumed. Western
In 2015, the Obergefell v. Hodges case ended the “state bans on same-sex marriage”, therefore legalizing same-sex marriage (Important Supreme Court Cases). Now, “same-sex couples can now receive the benefits...of marriage that were largely exclusive to heterosexual couples” (Koch). The ruling has led to the modern fight for gay civil rights. Exposure to the LGBTQ+ community, the southern “Bathroom Bills”, and other fights for transgender rights, and the press for more LGBTQ+ representation in the media has erupted from this case. Both rulings had very big impacts on their respective communities.
