Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Sexuality in society
Human sexuality : an anthropological view
Human sexuality in the world today
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Sexuality in society
1942 Skinner v. Oklahoma states that procreation is a fundamental constitutional right. In 2008 judge Charlie Baird sentenced Felicia Salazar to a probationary term of ten years for injury to her 19-month-old child. After the child’s father beat the adolescent Felicia failed to seek medical attention for her child which greatly disturbed the judge. This led to the judge adding a strange condition to the probationary conditions. Judge Baird told her she was not allowed to conceive or bear a child during her probationary sentence. In 2012 Judge Tim Boyle ordered 44-year-old Corey Curtis to stop procreating until he could support his nine children which were fathered by six different women. Owing $90,000 in child support he was conditioned to a three-year probationary judgement. The questions that surfaced from this controversial topic are; did judges Baird and Boyle’s …show more content…
So that being said, I believe that Salazar and Curtis’s constitutional rights were broken and they should be able to procreate when or with anyone they want if consensual. To be human is to love, and some would say to love you have to procreate. It is a human need to be close to someone and to have sex. Even with birth control we cannot allows prevent pregnancy’s. So therefore, these judges were demanding these people not to partake in intercourse which is against our rights as Americans. NYU press stated, “without sex, the human race cannot endure. The survival of the United States, in particular, depends upon sex.” (Sex and the Constitution, Page 1). If we are to enforce judgments we need to make for everyone to follow. Those judges took away their rights to create life, therefore took away their rights to be human. I believe the judgement for Salazar should have been that she is not allowed to be the guardian for her child. I believe that Curtis should have been forced to be put on a payment plan to support his
1. Case name: Geringer v. Wildhorn Ranch, Inc., 706 F. Supp. 1442 - Dist. Court, D. Colorado 1988
In the controversial court case, McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall’s verdict gave Congress the implied powers to carry out any laws they deemed to be “necessary and proper” to the state of the Union. In this 1819 court case, the state of Maryland tried to sue James McCulloch, a cashier at the Second Bank of the United States, for opening a branch in Baltimore. McCulloch refused to pay the tax and therefore the issue was brought before the courts; the decision would therefore change the way Americans viewed the Constitution to this day.
Procedural History The Supreme Court, Appellate, second division modified the the judgment and ordered that the custody of the youngest child remain with the mother. Husband appealed. The Court of Appeals, Jasen,J; held that after the custody of the two older children had been awarded to the husband, it was appropriate for special term to award of the youngest child to the husband in the light of the younger child’s ambivalence as to which of her parents she would prefer to live with and her strong preference to live with two older
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.
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.
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
Case Facts: The sheriff’s department in Humboldt County, Nevada, responded to a 911 call that reported an assault. The 911 caller reported witnessing a man assaulting a woman while driving a GMC truck on a local road. The sheriff’s department responded by sending Deputy Sheriff Lee Dove to investigate. The deputy arrived to the reported area and found the truck parked on the side of the road with a man standing next to it. The deputy approached the truck and explained to the man that he was investigating a 911 call. The deputy then asked the man for any identification and the man refused to provide the deputy any form of identification. The deputy asked the man a total of 11 times to provide his identification and refused each time. The deputy then warned the man that he was going to arrest him if he did not comply. The deputy proceeded to arrest the man and later found out the man was named Larry D. Hiibel. He was charged with "willfully resist[ing], delay[ing], or obstruct[ing] a public officer in discharging or attempting to discharge any legal duty of his office" which is a Nevada statute that is referred to as a "stop and identify" statute. Hiibel was convicted of the crime in the Justice Court of Union Township and fined $250. Hiibel then appealed his conviction to the Sixth Judicial District Court, the Supreme Court of Nevada, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Abortion is a topic that many don’t want to discuss. It’s a very personal decision that many women have to make each day, but in certain states, getting an abortion was becoming an even more difficult process. Not only did women have to decide to get an abortion that alone is a difficult choice, they now had to wait 24 hours, minors had to get consent, and/or inform the father of the child. But after all of this process, what if a woman couldn’t receive all of this? Would she be denied her right to get an abortion? The Supreme Court case, Planned Parenthood of PA v. Casey, wasn’t known for what it did, but mainly for what it did not do, which was not overruling Roe v. Wade, but reaffirming a woman’s right to an abortion; it questioned a state’s right to impose or place an “undue burden” on women.
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 which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
Overall, the ruling in this case was a perfect interpretation of the Constitution. Despite opposition claiming that it is not addressed in the Constitution, too few rights are ever addressed in the Constitution of the United States. That is why there is a thing called Judicial Review. By utilizing judicial review, the interpreters of the law –Supreme Court, may make changes to policies and laws. Abortion, medicinal marijuana, and marriage fall under the umbrella of Equal Protection since they correspond to the rights and liberties of US citizens.
One of the most relevant compromises during the years leading up to the Civil War was the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Various other compromises were made to keep all the states content and amiable as well.The Kansas-Nebraska act was still one of the most important compromises because it pushed the states over the edge of their arguments; they turned to violence to solve their problems. This ruined all of the government's attempts at keeping the peace. The first major conflict was in Kansas from 1854-1861. It was called “Bleeding Kansas”. Eventually, the violence in Kansas grew even more, and it eventually turned into the Civil War.
The Employment Division of Oregon V. Smith was a case brought about to the Supreme Court. The case was brought to answer whether, illegal drugs for religious purposes was okay. It would also to solve the question whether a state can deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using prohibited drugs for religious purposes.
In 1973, in what has become a landmark ruling for women’s rights, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a woman’s right to an abortion. Ever since, individual states have adopted, altered, and/or mutilated the edict to fit their agendas – Texas included. However, the decision made by the justices in Roe v. Wade didn’t set clear cut, inarguable demarcation lines, which has allowed the fiery debate to consume the nation. Rather than establishing a legal ruling of what life is, or is not, the Supreme Court has remained silent on the issue.
The state government should be committed to the well being of their citizens. Their main concerns should entail the people’s rights, health and happiness not being transgressed. After several failed attempts, the vote in Oklahoma was almost unanimous. However, this decision was clearly not for the greater good of the state. Moreover, it undoubtedly reflects the state reps values and not the people; having previously stated, “he believes the destruction of human embryos amounts to murder and should be illegal.” He even knew “[t]he legislation [was] opposed by by many doctors and business groups.” If the state were to step out of personal biases and attempt to understand what is best for its’ citizens, they would then be able to make the most suitable
...ade decided that a woman’s privacy, entailed in the fourteenth amendment, made it acceptable for woman to have more discretion on the status of their pregnancy and whether or not to have an abortion. However, abortions were only acceptable when it involved “defending prenatal life and protecting the health of the mother” (Roe v. Wade, Morality and Moral Controversies, 209). Although this case took a step in the right direction by giving women some direction with abortion, I feel it could have done a better job by making abortion legal under all circumstances seeing how it is morally justifiable from every aspect from the motivations to the process itself.