Same-sex marriage, Pius XII, Vatican II A SOUND DECISION As one of the "self-described Catholics [who are] more accepting of homosexuality than members of many other religious groups," and as an academic who has taught constitutional law for three decades, I found the June 20 editorial ("Marriage, California Style") deeply disappointing. While the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe rests not on a clear constitutional premise but on a judicially constructed "right of privacy," the marriage case in California has solid underpinning in the equal-protection clause of the state Constitution.
For decades, groups like the ACLU and Lambda have taken an incremental approach to fighting for gay rights in court, concentrating on establishing legal precedents and popular support in states before going federal. Perry v. Schwarzenegger indeed asks the "ultimate question" of whether gays have a federal right to marry, but because the case is alleging that Prop. 8 violated the equal-protection clause of the U.S. Constitution, the federal court decision will have implications for gay Americans in nearly every arena of public life, from housing to parenting to military service.
C. 2921.34, proscribing the offense of Escape, is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to a parolee who fails to keep appointments to meet with his parole officer. Defendant has not demonstrated selective prosecution in violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Affirmed.
The question in both cases was whether public school officials could use race-conscious student assignment plans without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment. In 2003, the Supreme Court ruled in a case involving the University of Michigan that the Equal Protection Clause did not prohibit the university's use of race-conscious admissions criteria to promote student body diversity.
On April 15, 2008, Iowa became the thirtieth state to enact a statewide smoking ban when Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed into law the Smokefree Air Act, which prohibits smoking in nearly all public places, including restaurants and bars. The Act, however, differs from other recently enacted smoking bans in Montana and Illinois—both of which prohibit smoking in workplaces, restaurants, bars, and casinos—by exempting casino gaming floors from its reach. Now in place for over a year, the Act's gaming-floor exemption continues to raise questions about the constitutionality of a smoking ban that tolerates unequal results: certain employees continue to face serious harm while nearly all others are protected, and certain industries continue to prosper as if no ban existed while ...
... the country and exhibits the lack of protection that several state smoking bans afford to casino e... of the Act's exemption in a state equal-protection challenge, this Note illustrates an Iow... arising under the state's equal-protection clause. Additionally, Part IV focuses on two non-Iowa dec...
SB 1094 gave the parents, or a state-appointed guardian, the right to sue to protect the child's rights, and SB 1095 simply said a baby alive after "complete expulsion or extraction from its mother" would be considered a '"person, 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'" The bills dealt exclusively with born children. No. 1, said Obama, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements of the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a - a child, a nine-month-old-child that was delivered to term.
Criminal law — Judicial release — R.C. 2929.20(B)(3), as in effect until March 23, 2000, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
A 69-year-old Baltimore Circuit Court judge is taking the state to court, charging the mandatory judicial retirement age of 70 is unconstitutional. Judge Charles G. Bernstein filed suit in U.S. District Court in Baltimore. The action charges that the mandatory judicial retirement approved by Maryland voters in 1932 violates the federal constitution's Equal Protection Clause.
The Constitution's Equal Protection Clause provides that no State shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The Supreme Court's equal protection jurisprudence designates all legislation identifying race-based categories for differential treatment as "suspect" and subject to "strict scrutiny." Similarly, legislative differentiation based on national-origin classification is also subject to this strict scrutiny standard. Although the Court has established that legislative national-origin classification is suspect and subject to strict scrutiny, the Court has yet to articulate a comprehensive method of analysis reflecting national origin-based discrimination in the United States. Equal protection challenges to the categorization of Latinos in affirm...
...Article IV, Section 2: The Extradition Clause B. Amendment V: The Grand Jury Clause C. Article I...(1) The main federal constitutional decision on the subject is Richardson v. Ramirez, ... based on such varied authorities as the Equal Protection Clause, (6) the Eighth Amendment, (7) t...
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
ver las páginas en versión mobile | web
© Copyright 2012, vLex. All Rights Reserved.
Contents in vLex United States
Explore vLex
For Professionals
For Partners
Company
Other interesting searches:
Pero Acebes | corvette inc moore pro sales team v | tax incentives | Weingeroff Enterprises, Inc. | credit cards for bad credit | Zona residencial | voriconazolo | simonetta rottin | ejercicio soberanía venezuela | incompatibilidad de sangre
