Federal Judiciary
On Wednesday morning, right before the Supreme Court justices were about to begin their day, Justice Kennedy put a 24-hour hold on a Ninth Circuit Court mandate nullifying same sex marriage bans in the states of Nevada and Idaho (Denniston, 2014). The temporary stay on the Ninth Circuit's ruling is to allow ban opponents to present their side of the issue. This ruling surprised everyone because last year the Supreme Court ruled Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) unconstitutional because it violated the equal protection clause of the Fifth Amendment (United States v. Windsor, 2013). Since then several district and circuit judges have been ruling against same-sex marriage bans instituted by a number of states.
The Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Windsor (2013) hinged on DOMA usurping state's rights, in particular a state's right to define the act of marriage. New York State for example, sought to protect gay couples by conferring the same rights and privileges afforded to heterosexual couples under the laws of the state, but DOMA, according the majority opinion of Justice Kennedy, infringed upon this right by declaring that the federal government has the right to impose its definition of marriage on states. In doing so, the federal government was violating due process and equal protection rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit Court in Sevcik v. Sandoval (2014) and Latta v. Otter (2014) adopted the same argument used by the Supreme Court. In other words, state legislatures likewise cannot violate the equal protection and due process rights conferred by the Fifth Amendment, thereby rendering same-sex marriage bans unconstitutional. The direction the federal courts are moving on this issue is aligned with public sentiment...
In his joint article with Oleg Smirnov, "Drift, Draft, or Drag: How the Supremes React to New Members," Smith takes an even closer look at the Supreme Court and the history of its political (or interpretive) makeup. Specifically, these authors find that the Court counter-balances changes to its ideological makeup through the addition of new members by changes in the overall interpretative stances of opposing justices -- the addition of
growth and use of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the Constitution using the modern day criminal justice system. According to Webster's dictionary of Law, Judicial Activism is defined as: "The practice in the judiciary of protecting or expanding individual rights through decisions that depart from established precedent or are independent of or in opposition to supposed constitutional or legislative intent compare judicial restraint." Over the past
Federal CourtsThe United States judicial system is based on the federal courts structure as established in Article III of the Constitution. This system has been the subject of numerous studies and publications that seek to explain how it works. William A. Fletcher and James E. Pfander wrote a book, Gilbert Law Summaries on Federal Courts, which provides an outline of the federal court system in the U.S. The book provides
Education Advocacy Issues Massive institutional racism and structural inequalities still exist in the United States, especially in housing, public education and the criminal justice system in inner city areas. In every urban area, the quality of education available to poor and minority students is demonstrably worse by any measure than that of their white peers in the suburbs. This type of institutional discrimination is not caused by genetic or cultural deprivation
Does the Federal government have enough power?IntroductionBased on the American Constitution, the nation is under federalism type of government. Federalism was established after the independence of the thirteen states, as described in the Articles of Confederation. However, the Federal Government at the time was very weak, and the Founding Fathers decided to develop a new system of Government. Within the present Constitution of the United States, the Federal Government has
Federal Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentences and Their Impact on Recidivism There is much controversy regarding mandatory sentencing and its impact on the American society throughout recent times. In many ways, prisons are used as a means to control crime, to protect society from it, with criminals being deterred from continuing to commit illegalities as a direct result of the time they spend behind bars. Mandatory minimums were generally introduced with the
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now