Orden V. Perry: A Case Study

The role of the Judicial Branch of the United States has been the most dynamic throughout the Nation’s history. By adopting the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, the Supreme Court established its position as being arguably the most powerful branch of Federal Government. However, this also made the Judiciary’s role the most controversial. Should the Court be required to interpret the constitution strictly through the language it contains? Does the Court have the right to overturn morals legislation? Through analyzing court cases like Lawrence v. Texas, one can gain insight on the role of the Supreme Court and how it fits within the confines of the United States Government.

Facts: In 2000, California voters adopted Proposition 22, defining marriage as a relationship only between a man and a woman. The California Supreme Court invalidated Proposition 22 and California began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The Proponents of Proposition 8, who opposed same-sex marriage, collected signatures and filed petitions to get Proposition 8 on the ballot. In November 2008, California voters approved Proposition 8, "which added language to the California Constitution that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman" (Santoro & Wirth, 2013). Two same-sex couples applied for marriage licenses and were denied, then brought suit under 42 U.S.C.S. ยง 1983, based on the idea that Proposition 8 violated equal protection. The State of California refused to argue in favor of Proposition 8 and the original proponents of Proposition 8 sought to defend the law. In May of 2009, Proposition 8 was ruled unconstitutional by a California District Court, which held that it violated both the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision. The case then came before the Supreme Court. However, the State of California is not defending Proposition 8; instead, a mix of private parties is defending the law. This has led to questions about standing as well as the constitutional issues in the case.

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Santa Fe Independent School District V. Doe (SFISD V. Doe) case, Chief Justice Rehnquist commented, “It [the ruling] bristles with hostility to all things religious in public life” (“United”). Separating religion and state has always been a matter of concern for the United States, as shown by the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment of our constitution. Although there have been many cases revolving around the relationship between the church and the state, SFISD V. Doe is among the most notable. By examining the background, reflecting on the decision, and analyzing the impact of the SFISD V. Doe case,

Perry v. New Hampshire 10-8974 US (2012). This case is before the Supreme Court of the United States of America following an appeal by the defendant, Barion Perry.

Up until this day, people with mental disorders are misunderstood which often leads them to being mishandled in the United States. So when the Perry v. Louisiana case was brought to the Supreme Court, it was clear, the decision would have lasting effects. Though many may find it easy to use people’s mental disorders as excuses to punish them, it is wrong in fact, as they are unaware of the harm being caused to others or themselves.

The Fourth Amendment protects the police from gaining exorbitant power. However, in Florida v. Bostick and Ohio v. Robinette, the Supreme Court granted the police disproportionate power by granting them the right to conduct warrantless seizures and searches without reason. The rulings of both cases were in emulation of the Fourth Amendment rights.

On January, 23 1906 a white woman named Nevada Taylor was dropped off the bus station in Chattanooga, Tennessee at 6:30 p.m. only two and half blocks from her home. Little did she know she was being followed? A man grabbed her by the neck and drug her ten feet before throwing her over a fence. She screamed and struggled as he put a leather strap around her neck and threatened to cut her throat. Taylor accounts waking up about ten minutes later in torn and dirty clothes covered in bruises. Her doctor later confirmed she had been raped. She claimed to have never of saw the face of the attacker but he had a soft voice of a black man. During this time of prejudice, segregation and hatred towards Negros was just a way of life for the

Van Orden, felt that the Ten Commandments displayed in front of the Texas Capitol building should be removed. Van Orden’s claim was that the monument should be removed based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, derivation of rights, and his rights granted by the First Amendment Establishment Clause. The monument was located at a site on the grounds that was among 17 monuments and 21 historical markers. The monument itself was a gift and was placed in its location by the recommendation of the capitol buildings grounds crew. The court decided the Commandments, while religious in nature, also represented historical value and could remain standing. Another deciding factor was the length of time the monument has been standing. In the 40 years that the monument had been in place, it was only now that there was a single issue raised by the petitioner. The judgement also concluded historical and cultural heritage. The public visiting the capitol grounds is more likely to have considered the religious aspect of the tablets’ message as part of what is a broader moral and historical message reflective of a cultural

The Police of Harris County was informed of a weapons disturbance in a private residency. The officers found two individuals of the same sex engaging in sexual, (sodomy), behavior. However, the way the police officers enter the premises, was not at all questioned.

The sixth and fourteenth amendment both protect rights having to do with due process and right to counsel.

This Court found that the wall between religion and government was substantially breached because “delegating a governmental power to religious institutions inescapably implicates the Establishment Clause.” Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 123 (1982).

McCreary County, one of two small counties in Kentucky involved with this case, displayed a copy of the Ten Commandments in their court house which was later deemed unconstitutional. A major factor is this dealing was an earlier case in which the "Lemon Law" was created setting the framework for any religious case thereafter. The counties claimed that the documents were merely in place to describe to civilians the effect that religion had on modern law and the constitution; however, the ACLU felt that this failed to pass the "Lemon Test" and acted accordingly. After losing the case, the county took the document down and later reposted the document along with several others such as, the Star Spangled banner and the Magna Carta, with the intent to maintain their secular position on the situation. This was, again, deemed unconstitutional and eventually taken to the Supreme Court where McCreary County was forced to remove any documents that had any religious affiliation whatsoever.

Reason:the texas monument is part of the nation’s tradition and recognized the ten commandments as historical

On June 26, 2003, a Supreme Court decision reserved a Texas law preventing consensual, special sexual activity between lesbians and guys. The Court ruled, in Lawrence v Texas. The court mentioned the essential right to confidentiality, and also the right of lesbians and gays have enjoy equal protection on the law. The opinion also reserved the disreputable 1986 resolution in the case of Hardwick v Bowers that the court had upheld a like Georgia homosexualism statute.

Here, again, we see exactly why the government sanctioned religious establishments of our day are hurriedly revising “certain articles” in their constitutions and administrations. Churches that have stopped being churches to become tax-exempt, nonprofit religious corporations have invited, nay, petitioned the wolves to oversee the sheep, thus giving the state consent to exert a legal force through their own policies. Now they must rewrite those policies before having something detestable legally forced up their aisles by the supreme judgment of their chosen shepherds.