Stanley v. Illinois Nature of Case: The plaintiff is Peter Stanley. He said that his rights to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment have been violated. He believes that the Illinois law that makes children of unwed father’s wards of the state upon death of the mother violated his rights. Facts: Joan and Peter Stanley lived intermittently together for 18 years, in which they had 3 children. When Joan Stanley died, Stanley’s children were declared wards of the state and placed with court appointed guardians after a dependency hearing by the State of Illinois. Stanley claimed that he had never been shown to be an unfit parent. He believed that since married fathers and unwed mothers could not be deprived of their children without proving this, neither should he. The Illinois Supreme Court accepted the fact that Peter Stanley’s unfitness had not been proven but rejected that he was deprived of his rights under the 14th amendment. Issue: Did the State of Illinois violate the Equal Protection Clause when it denied Peter Stanley a hearing on his fitness to keep his children? Holding: Yes, a hearing is guaranteed by equal protection under the law, for both married fathers and unwed mothers & unwed fathers. Rule: 1. Justice White, speaking for the majority believes that the decision in this case is similar to Bell v. Burson, in which held that the state could not deprive a person of there drivers license pertaining to a speeding violation without a hearing. He stated: "The states interest in caring for Stanley’s children is de minimis if Stanley is shown to be a fit father. It insists on presuming rather than proving Stanley’s unfitness solely because it is more convenient to presume than to prove. 2. They concluded that all Illinois parents are constitutionally entitled to a hearing on their fitness before their children are removed from their custody. Denying such a hearing to Stanley and those like him while granting it to other Illinois parents is inescapably contrary to the Equal Protection Clause. 3. The rule of law that justifies the holding of the case is: "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state may neither supply nor hinder" (Prince v. Mass.). 4. "The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment.
The evidence presented to myself and the other juror’s proves that Tyrone Washburn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the murder of his wife, Elena Washburn. On March 12, 1979 Elena Washburn was strangled in the living room of her family’s home. Her body was then dragged to the garage, leaving a trail of blood from the living room to the place it was found. Her husband, Tyrone Washburn, found her in the family’s garage on March 13, 1979 at 1:45 A.M. When officer Dale Chambers arrived at the scene he found her lying face down in a pool of blood. The solid evidence in this case proves only one person, Tyrone Washburn, is guilty of murder.
According to many the custody of a child should be determined with the best interest of the child in mind. However, it is not easy for a judge to make such an important decision in such a short amount of time with limited information. Smith (2004) stated that, the simple fact of being a mother does not indicate a willingness or capacity to render a quality of care different than that which a father can provide. Some might argue that what Reynolds (2004) calls deadbeat dads, or in other words fathers who refuse to pay their child support, are often times confused with Turnips, who are ex-spouses who can not afford to pay child support. One example of a turnip is a father who is in prison; he is obviously not making money while he is on the inside. Now an example of a deadbeat dad is when the father is enjoying all the finer things in life and he cannot reach far enough into his...
Adair v. U.S. and Coppage v. Kansas became two defining cases in the Lochner era, a period defined after the Supreme Court’s decision in Lochner v New York, where the court adopted a broad understanding of the due process clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment. In these cases the court used the substantive due process principle to determine whether a state statute or state’s policing power violated an individual’s freedom of contract. To gain a better understanding of the court’s reasoning it is essential to understand what they disregarded and how the rulings relate to the rulings in Plessy v. Ferguson, Lochner v. New York and Muller v. Oregon.
Robert Duffley, a high school senior at Trinity High School, had withdrawn from his sophomore year early in the first semester after falling ill. Anticipating problems with his eligibility to participate in high-school sports during his senior year under certain NHIAA rules, Duffley’s principal sought a ruling from the NHIAA granting such eligibility. The NHIAA decided to allow Duffley to participate only during the first semester of his senior year. No reason was given for denying Duffley eligibility for the second semester. After unsuccessful appeals to the NHIAA executive council, Duffley filed a petition in the Superior Court, seeking equitable and injunctive relief. Duffley alleged "violation of his due process rights” and that the defendant had acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in arriving at its decision, which was “unreasonable and unlawful."
Established in 1968, the medical school at the University of California implemented a special admissions program to increase the representation of minorities in each entering class. There was one underlying problem with their special admissions program that was not addressed until 1973 when Allan Bakke submitted his application to the University of California.
In the 1996 Supreme Court case Romer v. Evans, the voters of the state of Colorado approved a second amendment to their state Constitution through a referendum, in order to prevent homosexuals from becoming a protected minority. Before the referendum occurred, many of the major cities in Colorado passed laws prohibiting people to be discriminated against based on their sexuality, including whether or not they are homosexual. The citizens of Colorado who disapprove of homosexuality then created a petition to put the second amendment to a vote, and won with a majority of 53% of the votes. Richard Evans, with the support of many others, took the amendment to court claiming it was unconstitutional, and should be removed from the constitution, going on to win in the Colorado Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court.
On June 7th 1965, married couples in the State of Connecticut received the right to acquire and benefit from contraceptive devises. In a majority decision by the United States Supreme Court, seven out of the nine judges believed that sections 53-32 and 54-196 of the General Statues of Connecticut , violated the right of privacy guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The case set precedence by establishing marital (and later constitutional) privacy, and had notable influence on three later controversial ruling=s in Roe v. Wade (1973), Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) and Planned Parenthood of S.E. Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) . The issue at hand was, and is still, one that still causes debate, wether a state has the authority to restrict the use and sale of contraceptives. Though it is not contraceptives, anymore, that is at the heart of the abortion debate, this ruling was the first step to the expectation of constitutional privacy.
2. Was the Chicago ordinance, as defined in this case, unconstitutional in its contents because it failed to provide support for the First Amendment?
Lawrence v. Texas In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults who were acting in privacy.
The goal of Juvenile Courts and the Child Welfare Agencies is to protect and make decision in the best interest of children. The ASFA law was signed by President Bill Clinton. On November 19, 1997 after it was approved by the United States Congress earlier in the month. The law was the most significant piece of legislation dealing with child welfare in twenty years. States decided to interpret the law as requiring biological families to be kept together no matter what, but the law shifted emphasis towards children health and safety concerns and away from a policy of reuniting children with their birth parents without regards to their prior abuse. ASFA lead sponsor, Republican Senator John H. Chafee of Rhode Island said, “We will not continue the current system of always putting the needs and rights of biological parents first … It’s time we recognize that some families simply cannot and should not be kept together.” This phil...
One of the issues in this case was that the Court must decide whether section 377.60, subdivision (b) contemplates a subjective or objective standard of good faith for putative spouse status. Ceja v. Rudolph & Sletten, Inc., 56 Cal. 4th 1113, 158 Cal. Rptr. 3d 21, 302 P.3d 211 (2013).
The Schenck court case of 1919 developed out of opposition to U.S. involvement in World War I (1914-1918). Antiwar sentiment in the United States was particularly strong among socialists, German Americans, and religious groups that traditionally supported antiviolence. In response to this outlook, Congress passed the Espionage Act of 1917. This law provided heavy fines and jail terms for interfering with U.S. military operations or for causing or attempting to cause insubordination or disloyalty in the military. In addition, the act made it illegal to obstruct recruitment efforts of the U.S. armed forces.
The plaintiff is Jane Roe and the defendant is the district attorney of Dallas County. Jane Roe says that denying her the right for having an abortion violates the right of privacy guaranteed in the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments. The district attorney of Dallas refuses to let her have abortion unless her life is in jeopardy. ...
"The Constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act in the Wake of Romer v. Evans ." New
"Romer v. Evans." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. 2005. Retrieved February 21, 2011 from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3437703853.html