George Mason's Polygamy

Recently, in the year 2013, there was a case brought to the Supreme Court’s attention that was first trialed in the district court. That case’s name was Fisher vs. University of Texas. It was in this case that the plaintiff, Abigail N. Fisher filed suit against the University of Texas with the claim that the University had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 13th Amendment. The main question that arose in the question was, “does the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment permit the consideration of race in undergraduate admissions decisions”. The overall decision of the Supreme Court was that the University of Texas hadn’t violated the Equal Protection Clause, and in fact that they were permitted to consider race in the admissions process. I do agree with the Supreme Court’s decision. I agree with said decision because the argument made by the plaintiff Fisher was weak, and the rights of life and liberty weren’t in any way tampered with in the admissions process that the University of Texas was going through in the situation suited.

Chief Justice Roberts made a principal dissent, claiming that in just one day, the court has transformed the societal institution of marriage that has banded humanity together for millennia. Roberts made clear that no consensus is worth a decision he feels completely overstepped the Supreme Court’s constitutional bonds, stating “Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner…but do not celebrate the constitution”. Roberts repeatedly insists that history and tradition must be drawn on to come to a conclusion, and judges ought not to rely on his or her own moral judgement concerning the morality of whether denying the fundamental rights would be unjust in light of the constitution. Although Roberts’ does agree that same-sex couples who have previously challenged state laws excluding them from marriage “make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness” , he ultimately believes that the Constitution cannot decide what is fair and what is just.

Stephen Breyer 's viewpoint is strictly democratic. “Literalism has a tendency to undermine the Constitution’s efforts to create a framework for democratic government” (510) is a quote that explains Breyer 's view very well. Breyer looks at the constitutional purposes and consequences saying that they need to first look at what the original law was intended to do and prevent. On the other side of that, they also want to look at the punishments that went along with each policy. Breyer argues that any question you have about the original text can be answered by looking at what the original law was intended for. He said this, “A focus on purpose seeks to promote active liberty by insisting on interpretations, statutory as well as constitutional, that are consistent with the people 's will (514).” If you are going to resolve the problems that arise in a governmental setting, you must have a better grasp on democratic objective. You need to understand original democracy and why the laws were put in place, in order to understand the textual meeting of the original constitution. He believes that the original text is not enough to go off of if you do not have an understanding of the context

One of the major results of the case Marbury v. Madison was this term called judicial review. Judicial review, today, is a task that the Judiciary Branch of the government performs on legislative acts that are passed to determine whether or not the acts are considered Constitutional. One of the biggest changes made not too long ago by the Judges in the Judiciary Branch, using judicial review, was the ruling that restricting same-sex marriage is considered unConstitutional and they made same-sex marriage legal in all fifty states. This would not have been possible if William Marbury did not sue Secretary of State James Madison. In this essay I will be explaining what the third article states in the Constitution and what the duties of the

Should the accused be acquitted, under the First Amendment's freedom of religion, if he married the second time, because he believed it to be his religious duty?

In contemporary American society, Biblical principles have been eradicated. President Obama began his unconstitutional journey to obliterate the sanctity of marriage between man and woman by ordering to Department of Justice to halt its defense of the Defensive Marriage Act. Enacted by President Clinton, by overwhelming public and Congressional support, this act defined marriage as between male and female only. Despite the states refusal to usurp the will of the people ban on gay marriage, Obama used federal law to violate the I Amendment, Art.1 sect. 7, to override state law. The case of Obergefell v. Hodges led final stage of stripping the moral fibers from the country. Ruling in favor of Mr. Obergefell to have his marriage to a man recognized by the state of Ohio, the Supreme Court’s five to four decision succeeded in re-interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to include sexual–orientation in the definition of a marriage union. Justice Scalia made certain to publicize the fact that the Fourteenth Amendment interpretation was in direct conflict with what the founders intended; "Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had

Upon entering the legal battle that would decide who had the right to preside over her reproductive decision, Carrie Buck knew that the outcome of the case would not only have an effect on her future but that of thousands of others who were having their rights brought into question as well. Beyond merely giving the go ahead for her own sterilization, the loss of the case would bring about a new set of legal justifications for the systematic, controlled extinction of those who were not considered of the ideal genetic makeup. This wasnt just a fight for an individuals freedom, it was a fight for equality as promised by legislature that even then threatened to strip away what it had promised in its governing documents.

I chose to review the article Goodridge v. Department of Public Health by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall. In this article, Marshall examines the issue of same-sex marriage by reviewing both sides of the argument, and she comes to the conclusion that not allowing this union is unconstitutional. In a good argument, both propositions must be taken into account and premises from each side should be studied prior to making a final conclusion. Most of the premises used in her argument were prescriptive, or based on personal values (Boss, 2014, p. 199). Chief Justice Marshall mentioned that she had given full deference to the other side of the argument, but found, based on her strong premises, that not allowing same-sex marriage is against a person’s civil rights.

All in all, the dynamic court view suggests that none of these constraints: doctrinal, institutional, or cultural, are present. Meanwhile, the constrained court view suggests that at least one of these constraints is present in order to ensure the promise of the courts to solve disputes while also respecting public opinion, the other branches of government, and doctrine. On balance, the case of Obergefell v Hodges illustrates the constrained court view, suggesting that the Supreme Court is likely to be constrained when at least one of the constraints mentioned above is in tact. A doctrinal constraint can be met through specific laws, an institutional constraint can be met through inactive or ineffective legislative backlash, and finally, a cultural constraint can be met through the court’s adherence to cultural trends.

In order to better understand Justice Antonin Scalia’s approach towards judicial interpretation it is essential that we first distinguish the difference between common law and statutory law. Common law according to Scalia is judge made law where precedents are established and used to decide future cases. On the other hand, statutory law is written law that is set down by legislators. Scalia makes the argument in which he explains that judges abuse their power by interpreting statutory text in the way a common-law judge would interpret common law. In turn Justice Antonin Scalia offers his judicial interpretation approaches as solutions to constrain judges who abuse their power. Justice Antonin Scalia was an originalist and a textualist

Justice Scalia opened his dissent by claiming he had no personal opinion of the concept of gay marriage, rather he felt he had to write his own dissent in order to “call attention to the Court’s threat to American democracy.” In almost every sentence of his dissent he derides his colleagues, using expressions such as, “ludicrous, absurd, irrational and preposterous.” His opinions were nasty, and personal even though he states same-sex marriage isn't a personal matter to him. Scalia blames the Court for creating a fundamental right that does not exist, yet the Constitution does not state specific fundamental rights. The dissent was written with such hatred towards not only the ruling, but also the Justices who made up the decision. Whether

The Supreme Court also felt that the donation spirit was also compromised by using it for polygamy. The Church of the Latter-Day Saints had to drop polygamy in order to maintain the land or be continually rejected from the society the Church of the Latter Day Saints wanted to join. The reason this case ended polygamy was because the church would lose the donated lands they practiced their religion on. The loss of these lands would mean the end of the Church of the Latter Day Saint community because the church would be left without a place to practice. One of the ways the Church of the Latter Day Saints would be able to keep land to practice on was to end polygamy, which would end the spread of polygamy. This Supreme Court ruling was based on

While I find the Originalist view of constitutional interpretation to be compelling and considered very carefully, I do not think it is enough to say that the Obergefell decision was incorrect because of the lack of democratic opportunity this issue was given prior to this case. I also think that Gallagher, Girgis, George, and Anderson all have valid points to why marriage should be between a man and a women with that it is better for children and it is not natural, there are issues to their argument that I must address.

ABSTRACT: Developing ideas first put forth in my Abortion Rights as Religious Freedom, I argue against Ronald Dworkin's liberal view of constitutional interpretation while rejecting the originalism of Justices Scalia and Bork. I champion the view that Justice Black presents in his dissent in Griswold v. Connecticut.

There seems to be two prevailing theories of interpretation in the Supreme Court the first being originalism which has been used most famously by both Justice Black as well as Justice Scalia although both reached their decisions by different methods. Justice Hugo Black and Justice Antonin Scalia were both originalist although they did differ in their methods. Originalism has a few main beliefs one being that judicial power should be constrained to exactly what is the original meaning of the Constitution. Some primary methods for the interpretation of the Constitution in regards to originalism are intent, that is what the framers and ratifiers intent was when the Constitution was written, textualism which can also be plain meaning like Scalia as well as the literal words in the Constitution and original public meaning being the “original conventional semantic meaning.” The other prominent theory is that of the living constitution or sometimes called non-originalism as well as evolutionism. The theory of the living constitution has the basic premise that the Constitution was not meant to be static or frozen but to evolve as we progressed as a nation and has sometimes been referred to as the workable government approach as it was called in United States v. Nixon in an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Burger.