Abstract
In this article the writer examines the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage. The writer reports on the analytic framework at issue in a case litigating constitutionality of an issue of this nature, and reports on decisions in recent cases from courts in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California. The writer concludes that there have been differing interpretations on this issue, but the majority of courts have ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, so that the ban on same-sex marriage is not unconstitutional.

From the Paper
"On the other hand, if the right does not affect a fundamental right, and is based on a non-suspect classification, it will be upheld so long as it reflects a "rational classification." Fundamental rights include those in the bill of rights. Suspect class is generally limited to race."
"Thus: is the right to marry a same-sex partner fundamental? The Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), called marriage a fundamental right -- for a heterosexual couple.
"State courts to date have reached different conclusions. Massachusetts ruled marriage is a fundamental right, upholding same-sex marriage under the state constitution in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health (2003). (Grossman; Burge) In that case, a trial court ruled that the purpose of marriage was procreation."

Tags:spouses, gay, rights, couple

Abstract
The paper argues that the wire-tapping program presently being operated by the United States government is, while dubious in some respects, nonetheless necessary in a contemporary world bedeviled by global terrorism. With that in mind, the paper argues that a plausible solution to government wire-tapping is for a constitutional amendment to be passed authorizing its use - but only if specific criteria are satisfied. To facilitate the argument at the heart of the paper and to contextualize an admittedly complex topic, the paper researches the provisions of the United States Constitution that are affected by wire-tapping and which, depending upon how they are interpreted by the courts, can bring an end to it. Further, the paper looks at any pertinent federal statutes that are relevant to this matter and how they are so. Proceeding further, the paper looks briefly at previous decisions of the United States Supreme Court vis-a-vis government wire-tapping and the manner in which they impact the topic. Finally, the paper presents this writer's solution for the topic as well as the social policy implications and reasons why a constitutional amendment is the best way to go. In the final analysis, the United States Constitution was never intended to act as a sort of suicide pact - and efforts to constrain the ability of the United States government to protect private citizens through wire-tapping are efforts that present a serious threat to national security and must be aggressively cross-examined.

From the Paper
"The following paper will argue that the wire-tapping program presently being operated by the United States government is, while dubious in some respects, nonetheless necessary in a contemporary world bedeviled by global terrorism. With that in mind, the next several pages will argue that a plausible solution to government wire-tapping is for a constitutional amendment to be passed authorizing its use - but only if specific criteria (such as the size or level of a threat to national security and the perceived immediacy of the threat) are satisfied."

Tags:criminal, justice, surveillance

Abstract
Conscription is often believed in principle to be either wrong, unnecessary, or both, or necessary under certain circumstances and therefore morally permissible due to them. There has also been extensive argument over the question of how exactly the clauses of the Constitution that relate to military powers and their foundations in the branches of government should be interpreted. The paper shows that this question logically leads to the examination and assessment of the intentions of those men who actually conceived of and wrote these clauses. At first, one might assume that the Framers never considered the prospect of a military draft in the United States, since its first instance in this country occurred over 70 years after the ratification of the Constitution. The paper argues that although we will never know for sure the true original meaning of the Constitution's language, there is an abundance of evidence that strongly suggests that the Framers never intended to institute a general conscription of ordinary citizens, and even that they were expressly opposed to and made efforts to guard against the implementation of conscription. The paper further argues that by using the evidence we possess of the Framers' intentions to interpret the Constitution's clauses concerning the military, as well as supporting background evidence from the time period, only one conclusion can be reasonably drawn: By applying a standard which focuses on the original meaning of the Constitution as the Framers intended it, the United States military draft cannot be considered constitutional.

From the Paper
"It appears, then, that Holzer would also likely agree that underlying the formation of American political thought in the independence and post-independence era is the philosophy of John Locke and his social contract. This contract is made possible by citizens who voluntarily give up some of their natural rights in order to enjoy an even better set of rights in a political community. These concepts are themes that we see in both the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, which provide for the government protection of life, liberty and property that Locke advocated. This fact becomes important to the question of the constitutionality of conscription when we consider that the draft "contradicts this element of liberal democracy by demanding the possible sacrifice of one's life for one's country.""

Tags:draft, framers, tenth, amendment, Federalist

Abstract
This paper will seek to understand the idea of just exercise of political power in the ancient Greek, Roman, Aristotelian, and English constitutionalism. By revealing these traits of 'republican' constitutions, we can see clear examples of this form of law.

Abstract
This paper examines and analyzes the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage. It further reports on the analytic framework at issue in a case litigating constitutional of an issue of this nature, and reports on decisions in recent cases from courts in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California. It concludes that the ban on same-sex marriages is not unconstitutional.

From the Paper
"This paper examines the constitutionality of bans on same-sex marriage. It reports on the analytic framework at issue in a case litigating constitutional of an issue of this nature, and reports on decisions in recent cases from courts in Vermont, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and California. It concludes that the ban on same-sex marriages is not unconstitutional. IS THE DENIAL OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Is the denial of the right of a same-sex couple to marry unconstitutional? To hold a ban unconstitutional, it must violate the equal protection..."

Tags:constitutionality, same, sex marriage, gay

Abstract
The paper answers questions regarding the constitutionality of President Obama's speech on education to school children and corporate sponsored reward membership cards.

From the Paper
"On Tuesday, September ..., President Barack Obama delivered a controversial speech to school aged children in their classrooms after evoking a storm of criticism and questions about the constitutionality of his actions. Shown live on C-SPAN and via the White House Web site, the speech was intended to be an opportunity for the president to connect with school students, persuading them to remain in school and to consider the importance of education in planning their futures. At the same time,..."

Tags:President Obama, reward cards, constitutionality

Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses that in 2007, the New York Police department announced that after any incident in which a uniformed officer discharged a firearm, killing or wounding a person, the officer discharging his firearm would be subject to mandatory testing to determine if alcohol was involved. This essay examines the constitutionality of such mandatory tests finding that under current law, they are permissible.

From the Paper
"On December 7, 2006, New York City police officer fired 50 shots into a car driven by Sean Bell, killing Bell and wounding two others. In the wake of this incident, the New York City Police Department issued Interim Order 52, under which any officer who discharges a firearm killing or injuring a person must forthwith submit to a breathalyzer test (Interim Order 52). Responding, the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association filed suit to enjoin enforcement of this Order as violating constitutional rights of police ..."

Tags:constitution, breathalyzer, search

Abstract
In this article, the writer discusses the constitutionality of same-sex marriage and the Civil Marriage Act of 2005. The writer looks at this controversial issue and studies the laws in this regard in Canada.

From the Paper
"The controversial issue of same-sex marriage has dominated both floors of the Canadian Parliament for nearly a decade. While legislators were decidedly split on the issue during its first inception into legislative committees, the Canadian citizenry pleaded with their legislators to push for the legalization of same-sex marriages. Effective July 20, 2005, the Civil Marriage Act took full effect (Parliament of Canada, 2005). However, many of the bill's opponents vowed to rescind the bill once the balance of power shifted. Although there were dissenting voices within the federal Cabinet (with one member resigning), the legislation upheld ..."

Tags:civil, marriage, act, same, sex, marriage

Abstract
This essay provides a thorough discussion of the history of Colorado's rape shield legislation, as well as related federal rules of evidence, and how it has held up to multiple challenges throughout the years. The paper also includes references to case law that has played a substantial role in maintaining this very important piece of legislation. Lastly, the paper describes the legal battle that ensued when Kobe Bryant's attorneys attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the statute and, ultimately, lost.

From the Paper
"Most Americans acknowledge the shame and embarrassment felt by rape victims who must testify against their accusers in court. It is already known that a substantial majority of rape cases go unreported in America each year, presumably due to the risk of humiliation of sexual assault victims. Nearly every state in the country, under pressure from feminist groups, attorneys, and legislators, has enacted rape shield legislation to ease the emotional suffering of rape victims and encourage more victims to come forward in the absence of having their sexual past exposed."

Tags:amendment, Martinez, McKenna

Abstract
.Involved Levels of the Judiciary
The Constitutionality of the Line Item veto was decided on a federal level. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said the law, centering on its violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, violates the Constitution's requirement that the president sign or veto bills in their entirety. Judge Hogan said that the line item veto bill also gave the President part of Congress' lawmaking role (Biskupic and Barr, 1998).
Judge Hogan pointed out two sets of challengers with
standing. In New York City, two hospital associations and other
related groups objected to Clinton's cancellation of a budget provision. This brought objections at the state and federal level. At the trial and appellate level The other case, Idaho potato..."

From the Paper
"Discussion of Clinton v. State of New York
1.Involved Levels of the Judiciary
The Constitutionality of the Line Item veto was decided on a federal level. U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan said the law, centering on its violation of Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, violates the Constitution's requirement that the president sign or veto bills in their entirety. Judge Hogan said that the line item veto bill also gave the President part of Congress' lawmaking role (Biskupic and Barr, 1998).
Judge Hogan pointed out two sets of challengers with
standing. In New York City, two hospital associations and other
related groups objected to Clinton's cancellation of a budget provision. This brought objections at the state and federal level. At the trial and appellate level The other case, Idaho potato..."