Case Analysis : Craig V. Boren

Craig v. Boren was the first case in which a majority of the United States Supreme Court determined that statutory or administrative sex classifications were subject to intermediate examination under the Equal Protection Clause which is part of the Fourteenth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court established a new standard of judicial review for laws with gender-based classifications. What happened that brought this case to the Supreme Court was a law in Oklahoma that prohibited the sale of beer with 3.2% alcohol content to males under the age of 21 years old, but females who were under 21 but over 18 could also buy the alcohol. Craig v. Boren ruled that the gender classification violated the Equal Protection Clause of the

Based on the research of Justice Alito, he was appointed by former president Gorge W. Bush as one of the Supreme Court Justices on January 31, 2006 and is currently a Republican Party federal justice. His approaches to things are very unpredictable and distinctive from what he is viewed as. However, his conservative standpoint is still a part of his image. This paper will include: the background of the justice, the judicial philosophy he approaches, and his opinion on a dispute.

Justice Marshall’s decision, Marshall spends a substantial amount of time setting up the foundation that the Court’s decision is built upon. He introduces several principles that answer the question of “whether an act, repugnant to the constitution, can become the law of the land.” (Lockard 12) Marshall also uses thought experiments to help readers see the reasoning behind the Court’s decision. This strategy is complex is because the reader has to be able to distinguish which choice is correct and then follow that reasoning. If the reader is even slightly unsure they cannot follow Marshall’s reasoning adequately.

When a closer look is taken at the five Supreme Court cases and their outcomes, some people may think that under John Marshall's leadership, the Supreme Court may have gone too far. On the other hand, some think that they were in their perimeters to make those heavy decisions. The second opinion is what this essay will agree with. The Supreme Court was within their boundaries to place their federal power on these cases.

This case expanded the power of Congress to use the Commerce Clause to regulate moral wrongs that occur in interstate commerce. While I agree with the opinion of the majority and the reasoning therein, I am hesitant to accept that this decision will allow Congress too much authority to regulate interstate commerce and infringe on the sovereignty of states, subverting the Tenth Amendment in the

The strength of this paper is that Rosenberg is well organized and he transitions into each paragraph smoothly while relating it to what the reader has just taken in. He also fully explains each view throughout the article, giving the reader the chance to create their own opinion before coming to his own thoughts in the conclusion. I agree with Rosenberg in that the Constrained Court

Toobin’s book not only provides a vivid narrative history of the court’s recent history but also gives the reader an intimate look at individual justices, showing how personality, judicial philosophy and personal alliances can inform decisions that have huge consequences for the entire country. Toobin discuss a case that shows a division among the supreme Justices which I think is a great example of decisions that have huge impact on Justices stare decisis, precedent, and protection of individuals rights when he mentioned in his book the discussion on considerable detail Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A 1992 case in which Justices O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy wrote the controlling opinion. The opinion did not overrule Roe v. Wade, but did substitute an “undue burden” analysis in place of “strict scrutiny” when reviewing any abortion

Both articles deal with contemporary issues that are subject to much controversy in our era. The supreme court ruling of both cases show just how a constitutional government works and how judicial review is practiced. Although all parties may not agree with the outcomes of the cases, it is safe to say that the final verdict serves to protect the interest of the people; the main principle for our distant, yet recent revolution, and the creation of a nation destined to serve as a model for the rest of the world.

Here, we prove that the contract in question should stand. On January 18th, 2016 the plaintiffs’ agent, Clayton Morrow, emailed the defendant’s agent with an offer for 277 Knapp Rd. The next day, January 19th, the defendant’s agent replied, stating that they were together on a ski trip. On January 20th, the defendant’s agent replied with a counter offer signed ‘G.T. per T.S’. When the plaintiffs’ agent contacted the defendant’s agent to notify her of the acceptance, she said, “She was jumping for joy next to me when I put the paperwork together…” This statement proves that the defendant was aware of the process and wanted to go forward with the contract. Therefore, it should be immaterial that the agent signed for the

Not only does Dworkin reject Scalia’s account, but advances a fidelity system of interpreting the text. When comparing semantic intent and expectation intent, both he and Scalia place Scalia’s Constitution jurisprudence in the former. Dworkin also asserts that Scalia is reading into the Constitution under new text when including the time restriction on the abstract moral principles. Dworkin further analyzes that a text free of time dating qualifications cannot be interpreted to include time dating. Therefore, the question asked should not be, “what was cruel and unusual punishment in 1791,” but instead, “what is cruel and unusual punishment?” Dworkin further explains in his analysis that judges must ask themselves whether punishments that the framers themselves would not have seen as cruel, and whether discriminations the framers themselves believed to be consistent with equal citizenship (school segregation as an example) are a denial of equal protection of the

This scene has always impressed upon me the reluctance and recalcitrance of well-established judges refusing to not only embrace difficult cases to the fullest of their ability and potential, but who also willfully and knowingly avoid cases that stand to challenge established legal precedent, or stare decisis, in the pursuit of justice.

In this essay I will define what is judiciary and be discussing the statement that “there is a strong case for more diverse judiciary. Not only should there be equality of opportunity for those entitled to apply”. I will discuss about the judiciary that reflect the diversity and legal profession as whole, make reference to the role of the judiciary, their selection, and training.

The judiciary plays a very important role in the system. It helps in establishing the rule of the law in the state and in the country. In United States of America no one is above Law and rule of Law is supreme, so it becomes very important to make the process of selection of judges who plays the key role in maintaining the rule of law to make transparent and fair (Goldman, S. 1999). The methods of selection of the judicial sector have varied substantially in the United States. As long as there has been existence of the judiciary, there has been much debate on the best way of selecting judges who are accountable and equally independent. There exists five main methods applied to select state judges, these are:

During the court observation, the hierarchal system in relation to the judge and the ordinary people is recognised as it follows a strict procedural model from the spacing and placement of the people and the general guidelines that is followed. This enables the formation of control, effectively enforcing the power through accentuating the right behavioral code and courtroom proceedings in aid of legal representation and reasoning. The use of intellectual language different from the client, accentuates the mental separation and physical lack of power the client has in a courtroom. Combining the language barrier and the strategic placement of the judge, it emphasizes the traditional power relationship between the courtroom and the people inside. This result allows the questioning of whether the hierarchal system of the judge’s position allows for an equal final judgment in accordance to justice being

The United States likes to think of itself as a highly evolved nation and that its judicial process is one of the fairest and least corrupt in the world. That might in fact be true but it by no means makes the American judicial system perfect by any stretch of the imagination. Part of the flawed aspects of the court systems and legislative systems in America has to do with the fact that so much is open to interpretation. Atkins v. Virginia is a case which is classically controversial. Some view it as a shining example where the highest court in the land was able to rule with a sense of humanity and rightness which reflected the greater morality at stake. Others viewed it as a failure on all count and a complete absence of justice. This paper will examine the two sides of this coin, demonstrating how this case makes a huge influence on the eternal debate of the connection between morality and the law.