Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
What are the parts of the three pronged test created by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman?
Provide examples of each.
What historical argument do pro-gun interests use to support their argument that the 2nd
Amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms?
How did the Clinton administration along with the Court make it more difficult to
challenge the death penalty?
Explain the two different interpretations of the second Amendment. Which has the
Court (seemingly) adhered to? Why?
What were the main arguments Chief Justice Rehnquist used to justify his decision
against Falwell in Hustler v. Falwell? Are they persuasive?
How does Seibert strengthen Miranda?
How did Harlan (II) and Stewart's view of incorporation differ from the position
advocated by Murphy, Black, and Douglas? Which do you think is the more logical
view? Why?
Answer:
*a. varies
How has Williams changed the Court's original analysis about child pornography set in
Ferber?
Why did the Court uphold the partial birth abortion restrictions in Gonzalez?
What was the chief concern of Justice White in his Miranda dissent?
Why do you think the Court adheres to the Rule of 4?
Answer:
*a. varies
After Butts and Walker, how far did the definition of a public figure stretch?
Why is it so difficult for the Court do decide Hate Speech cases?
Given the Court's ruling in Twining v. New Jersey when should rights be incorporated?
Is this a workable definition?
Answer:
*a. varies
How do U.S. regulations on Internet pornography compare to regulations in other
nations?
I cannot agree that either the length of time a majority has held its convictions or the
passions with which it defends them can withdraw legislation from this Court's scrutiny.
This case involves no real interference with the rights of others, for the mere knowledge
that other individuals do not adhere to one's value system cannot be a legally cognizable
interest.
Lawrence v. Texas (2003)
Relevant Case Facts:
After receiving a phone call about a possible weapons disturbance, Houston police
officers entered the apartment of Lawrence, where they observed him and another man
engaged in a sexual act. The two men were arrested and convicted of violating a Texas
law making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sodomy. This law
only applied to participants of the same sex.
Legal Question: Does a law that criminalizes homosexual activity violate the 14th
Amendment equal protection clause and a person's fundamental liberty in the due
process clause of the 14th Amendment.
Holding: Yes. By a vote of 6-3 the Court ruled in favor of Lawrence.
Reasoning:
1/ After Griswold it was established that the right to make certain decisions regarding
sexual conduct extends beyond the marital relationship. In Roe we recognized that the
protection of liberty under the due process clause has a substantive dimension of
fundamental significance in defining the rights of the person. This was the state of the
law prior to Bowers.
2/ To say that the issue in Bowers was simply the right to engage in certain sexual
conduct demeans the claim the individual put forward, just as it would demean a
married couple were it to be said marriage is simply the right to have sexual
intercourse. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another
person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring.
The liberty protected by the constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make
this choice.
3/ It should be noted that there is no longstanding history in this country of laws
directed at homosexual conduct as a distinct matter. In fact, sodomy was not thought of
as a separate category from like conduct between heterosexual persons. In short, the
historical grounds relied on in Bowers are more complex than the majority in that case
indicate. Their premises are not without doubt, and at the very least are overstated.
4/ The foundations of Bowers have sustained serious erosion from our recent decisions
in Casey and Romer. When our precedent has been thus weakened, criticism from other
sources is of greater significance. In the U.S. this criticism has been substantial and
continuing...
5/ The doctrine of stare decisis is essential to the respect accorded to the judgments of
the Court and to the stability of the law. It is not, however, an inexorable command.
Here, Bowers was not correct when it was decided, and it is not correct today. It ought
not remain binding precedent, and it is now overruled.
Concurring in the Judgment (O"Connor):
I base my conclusion on the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Moral
disapproval of this group, like the bare desire to harm the group, is an interest that is
insufficient to satisfy rational basis review under the Equal Protection Clause.
Dissenting (Scalia, Rehnquist, and Thomas):
Having decided that it need not adhere to stare decisis from Bowers, the Court still must
establish that Bowers was wrongly decided and that the Texas statute, as applied here, is
unconstitutional. The Texas law undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. But there is
no right to liberty under the due process clause. This part of the 14th amendment
expressly allows states to deprive citizens of liberty so long as due process of law is
provided. I have nothing against homosexuals, or of any other groups, promoting their
agenda through normal democratic means. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one
thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something
else.
Dissenting (Thomas):
If I were in the Texas legislature I would have voted against this law. But as a judge, I
am not empowered to help petitioners and others similarly situated. My sole duty is to
decide cases agreeably to the constitution and laws of the U.S.
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)
Relevant Case Facts:
Cruzan was in car accident and remained in a persistent vegetative state which required
feeding tubes and hydration for her to survive. Her parents asked doctors to remove the
feeding tubes, and they refused to do so. The Cruzans argued that someone in their
daughter's state had "a fundamental right to refuse or direct the withdrawal of "death
prolonging procedures."" As evidence that this is what she wanted, they showed that
she had told a friend that she would not want to live in such a condition.
Leal Question: Does a citizen have a right to require a hospital to withdraw
life-sustaining treatment when someone is a persistent vegetative state?
What special roles does the Chief Justice have in the agenda setting process?
Answer:
*a. varies
What happens to rights if the Court does not incorporate them? Is this acceptable?
Answer:
*a. varies
