1 / 12

Constitutional Law: Class 36

Constitutional Law: Class 36. Fundamental Rights of Family Autonomy April 11, 2008. Framework for Analyzing Fundamental Rights. i. Is there a fundamental right? ii. Is the fundamental right infringed? If answer to both is yes, then strict scrutiny is applied.

emmett
Download Presentation

Constitutional Law: Class 36

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Constitutional Law: Class 36 Fundamental Rights of Family Autonomy April 11, 2008

  2. Framework for Analyzing Fundamental Rights • i. Is there a fundamental right? • ii. Is the fundamental right infringed? • If answer to both is yes, then strict scrutiny is applied

  3. Loving v. Virginia (1967) [C p. 821] • Unanimous • Opinion of the Court by Warren • Concurrence by Stewart

  4. Zablocki v. Redhail (1978) [C . 822] • Majority by: MarshallJoined by: Burger, Brennan, White, BlackmunConcurrence by: BurgerConcurrence by: Stewart (in the judgment)Concurrence by: Powell (in the judgment)Concurrence by: Stevens (in the judgment)Dissent by: Rehnquist

  5. Scope of Fundamental Right of Marriage: Does it include polygamy?

  6. Stanley v. Illinois (1972) [C p. 827] • Opinion of the Court by White, joined by Brennan, Stewart and Marshall and, as to Parts I and II, by Douglas • Dissent by Burger, joined by Blackmun • Powell and Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

  7. Michael H. v. Gerald D. (1989) [C p. 829] • 5-4 • Majority opinion by Scalia, joined by Rehnquist and, as to all but fn 6 by O’Connor and Kennedy • Concurrence by O’Connor joined by Kennedy • Dissent by Brennan, joined by Marshall and Blackmun • Concurrence as to judgment by Stevens

  8. Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1977) [C p. 835] • Plurality opinion by Powell, joined by Brennan, Marshall, and Blackmun • Concurrence by Brennan, joined by Marshall • Concurrence in the judgment by Stevens • Dissent by Burger • Dissent by Stewart, joined by Rehnquist • Dissent by White

  9. Village of Belle Terre . Boraas (1974) [C p. 838] • Majority by Douglas, joined by Burger, White, Blackmun, Rehnquist, Stewart, Powell • Dissent by Brennan • Dissent by Marshall

  10. Meyer v. Nebraska (1923) [C p. 839] • Majority by: McReynoldsJoined by: Taft, McKenna, Van Devanter, Brandeis, Butler, SanfordDissent by: HolmesDissent by: Sutherland

  11. Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925) [C p. 840] • Unanimous • Opinion of the Court by McReynolds • Below is his law clerk, John Knox: See The Forgotten Memoir of John Knox

  12. Troxel v. Granville (2000) [C p. 842] • 5-4 • Plurality opinoin by O’Connor, joined by Rehnquist, Ginsburg and Breyer • Concurrences in the judgment by Souter and Thomas • Dissents by Stevens, Scalia, and Kennedy

More Related