• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Idaho to vote for a Constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage.

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Idaho will vote in November for a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage.....

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420AP_ID_XGR_Gay_Marriage.html

Wednesday, February 15, 2006 · Last updated 3:03 p.m. PT

Senate passes proposed gay marriage amendment

By ANNE WALLACE ALLEN
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

BOISE, Idaho -- A proposed constitutional amendment banning gay marriage in Idaho passed the state Senate on Wednesday and will go to voters this November.

A similar proposal fell short of the required two-thirds majority last year. Sen. Tom Gannon, one of five lawmakers who changed their votes to help the measure pass 26-9, said he was responding to pressure from his constituents.

"I've been told by some that if I vote against this bill, I'll never see this place again," said Gannon, R-Buhl, as he stood outside the Senate chambers. "Sometimes you've got to go with what your constituents are telling you."

The measure passed the House 53-17 last week and now needs only a simple majority vote from the public to become part of the constitution.

Sponsored by Sen. Robert Geddes, R-Soda Springs, it provides that "a marriage between a man and a woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized" in Idaho.

Opponents of the measure had argued it is not necessary because state law already defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. Supporters claimed the amendment would prevent judges from overturning that law and would protect children and families.



Senators debated the matter for two hours before they voted. Sen. John Goedde, R-Coeur d'Alene, stood up midway through the voting roll call to explain why he was changing his vote.

"Let's let the citizens vote, and the Supreme Court determine the law of the land," he said.

Sen. Richard Compton, R-Coeur d'Alene, told his colleagues he was changing his vote because many people in his district had told him they wanted a chance to vote on the matter themselves.

"When I vote in my district I will vote no," he said.

This year was the third in a row for gay marriage in the Idaho Legislature. A similar proposal passed a Senate committee last year but failed to win a two-thirds majority in the full Senate. The year before, the measure died in a Senate committee after it passed the House.

"This is an issue that is not going away," said Goedde after the vote. "Let's let the people vote on it, and then take the court challenges."

Similar discussions are going on all around the country. Eighteen states have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage. Massachusetts allows gay marriage, and Vermont and Connecticut allow same-sex civil unions that confer the same legal rights heterosexual married couples get.

As the Idaho Senate was preparing to vote Wednesday, New Jersey Supreme Court justices were questioning lawyers on the matter there. Seven same-sex couples have sued the state, saying it is violating its own constitution by denying them the right to marry.

It's cases like the one in New Jersey that require Idaho to change its constitution, said Geddes. He said the state statute alone cannot prevent a judge from forcing Idaho to accept gay marriage.

"Statutes are much easier to adjust or to change," he said "This measure, if added to our constitution, will preserve all rights currently available to the citizens of Idaho; it takes nothing away."

After the results of the roll call were read, someone in the crowded gallery above the Senate floor loudly screamed, "No!" Other than that cry, reaction was muted.

Kelly Groce, 38, president of the Southern Idaho Gay Lesbian Bisexual and Transgender Community Center in Twin Falls, said his group will immediately start organizing a campaign to persuade voters not to approve the amendment in November.

"We pay our taxes just like everyone else, and we don't deserve to be discriminated against by our own state constitution," Groce said.

Bryan Fischer is head of the Idaho Values Alliance, a group that formed this year with a mission of persuading lawmakers to vote for the constitutional amendment. Fischer's group expects the measure to pass with a 70 percent majority.

"The pro-family groups, we're going to sit down together at some point and talk together about the best way to give the electorate the information they need," Fischer said.
 

Binary_Digit

DP Veteran
Joined
May 21, 2005
Messages
4,397
Reaction score
1,916
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
The states and the Federal government both need to get the hell out of "marriage." Declare them both civil unions with identical legal benefits and let the churches argue over the stupid definition.
 

tumbleweed

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
341
Reaction score
130
Location
Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
"I've been told by some that if I vote against this bill, I'll never see this place again," said Gannon, R-Buhl, as he stood outside the Senate chambers. "Sometimes you've got to go with what your constituents are telling you."

The measure passed the House 53-17 last week and now needs only a simple majority vote from the public to become part of the constitution.

That tells me the people wanted the bill put to a vote, and it was passed by by rather decicive margin. If this is a trend across the country, gay marriage is in trouble.
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,419
Reaction score
12,668
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
"Sometimes you've got to go with what your constituents are telling you."
What a novel idea.:roll:

As the support for marijuana decriminalzation steadily increases by leaps and bounds (though still a minority) I wonder what his position will be when it topples the 50% mark?

As society favors liberty more and more each day, eventually the will of the constiuents will favor the gay. All roads are leading that way. But it will take some time for the old school oppressors die out. Does anyone think politicians will consider the will of the voters when that happens? Probably not, that's why they are pushing so hard now to slam the door shut on that possibility.

I also have to wonder how the civil rights act ever got passed considering what the constituants were saying back then.
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
"I've been told by some that if I vote against this bill, I'll never see this place again," said Gannon, R-Buhl, as he stood outside the Senate chambers. "Sometimes you've got to go with what your constituents are telling you."
Not trying to be a jerk but do you have a source for that?
 

FinnMacCool

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 23, 2005
Messages
2,272
Reaction score
153
Location
South Shore of Long Island.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Wow that guy has no balls. I guess its better just to vote to take people's rights aways as opposed to going against the system.
 

tumbleweed

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
341
Reaction score
130
Location
Maine
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
FinnMacCool said:
Not trying to be a jerk but do you have a source for that?
I read the link posted and took it from the printout of the article.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Binary_Digit said:
The states and the Federal government both need to get the hell out of "marriage." Declare them both civil unions with identical legal benefits and let the churches argue over the stupid definition.
If the only way you can protect the sanctity of marriage is with a state constitutional amendment then you have to do it......Most Americans are against gay marriage and they don't want activist judges making laws instead of interpreting them.....
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Captain America said:
What a novel idea.:roll:

As the support for marijuana decriminalzation steadily increases by leaps and bounds (though still a minority) I wonder what his position will be when it topples the 50% mark?

As society favors liberty more and more each day, eventually the will of the constiuents will favor the gay. All roads are leading that way. But it will take some time for the old school oppressors die out. Does anyone think politicians will consider the will of the voters when that happens? Probably not, that's why they are pushing so hard now to slam the door shut on that possibility.

I also have to wonder how the civil rights act ever got passed considering what the constituants were saying back then.
CA I don't know what world you live in but the states that have passed gay marriage bans have passed them by huge majorities........Americans might accept civil unions but you will never see gay marriage accepted in this country in your lifetime un;ess it is done by activist judges like in Mass........
 

Captain America

Jedi Master
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2006
Messages
22,419
Reaction score
12,668
Location
Wisconsin
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Navy Pride said:
CA I don't know what world you live in but the states that have passed gay marriage bans have passed them by huge majorities........Americans might accept civil unions but you will never see gay marriage accepted in this country in your lifetime un;ess it is done by activist judges like in Mass........
Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

But then again, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that my father never dreamed he'd see a black man and a white woman walking down the road holding hands either.

I bet his generation wishes they would have passed a state amandment against that way back when, had they thought about it. Shucks, I'd bet some even tried.

I know for a fact that people who favor gay equality are in the minority. No doubt. But my point being is those that do approve is somewhere in the 30 percentile. Twenty years ago, I would have said less that 10%. Would that be a fair assessment. do you think?

In twenty years, I predict 70 plus % of Americans could care less if they marry or not. But if the "conservatives" of today have their way, they won't give our future generations that option. It's bad enough that we're already spending their future, now we are wanting to decide it as well.

Well, at least those people haven't tied any to a fence and beat them to death lately. I suppose that's progress. I know how some people hate progress.:roll:
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
CA I don't know what world you live in but the states that have passed gay marriage bans have passed them by huge majorities........Americans might accept civil unions but you will never see gay marriage accepted in this country in your lifetime un;ess it is done by activist judges like in Mass........
Despite the fact that it's completely unconstitutional. They'll all get overturned in the near future. Maybe I'll take it up once I'm a lawyer.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Captain America said:
Oh, I don't doubt that for a second.

But then again, I'd bet a dollar to a donut that my father never dreamed he'd see a black man and a white woman walking down the road holding hands either.

I bet his generation wishes they would have passed a state amandment against that way back when, had they thought about it. Shucks, I'd bet some even tried.

I know for a fact that people who favor gay equality are in the minority. No doubt. But my point being is those that do approve is somewhere in the 30 percentile. Twenty years ago, I would have said less that 10%. Would that be a fair assessment. do you think?

In twenty years, I predict 70 plus % of Americans could care less if they marry or not. But if the "conservatives" of today have their way, they won't give our future generations that option. It's bad enough that we're already spending their future, now we are wanting to decide it as well.

Well, at least those people haven't tied any to a fence and beat them to death lately. I suppose that's progress. I know how some people hate progress.:roll:
People like to make the comparison of African Americans but personally I don't think it is the same thing......Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman an in the case of and African American and a Caucasion that fits the bill.........

More and more states are passing constitutional amendments banning gay marriage because they don't want what happened in Mass. to happen to their state.............Even a very liberal state like Oregon passed and amendment by a pretty wide margin.....

Oh nad that works both ways.I read awhile back about some gay guys that beat up and killed a straight guy.I believe it was in Alabama........
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Despite the fact that it's completely unconstitutional. They'll all get overturned in the near future. Maybe I'll take it up once I'm a lawyer.

Who will overturn them? Oh wait its not what the people want that counts with the left is it........

I think you will find it pretty damn hard to overturn a constitutional amendment kelzie.....That is why they are doing one so that activist judges can't overturn them and if they try the good old Conservative SCOTUS will not touch a states constituional amendment with a 10 foot pole........

Hope you get your law license though.......;) Maybe you can get a job with the ACLU.......
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Who will overturn them? Oh wait its not what the people want that counts with the left is it........

I think you will find it pretty damn hard to overturn a constitutional amendment kelzie.....That is why they are doing one so that activist judges can't overturn them and if they try the good old Conservative SCOTUS will not touch a states constituional amendment with a 10 foot pole........

Hope you get your law license though.......;) Maybe you can get a job with the ACLU.......
Have you not read the US constitution? It's a little thing that I like to call the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You'll find it in Article IV, Section I. It clearly states that:

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.
That would be marriage. Along with driver's license, debt, and a lot of other things that one state HAS to recognize when coming from another. The fact that Massachusetts has gay marriage makes it illegal for any other state to not recognize gay people that were married there.
 
Joined
Sep 10, 2005
Messages
845
Reaction score
305
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I really hate it when people talk about defending the "sanctity" of marriage by ammending constitutions.
Dictionary.com said:
sanc·ti·ty ( P ) Pronunciation Key (sngkt-t)
n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
Seeing as the United States isn't supposed to be a theocracy, our government has no place arbitrating what is or is not sacred or holy. Every time I hear someone blather on about defending the sanctity of marriage, I get the irrational urge to cram the first ammendment down their throat and smack them around with a dictionary opened up to the definition of hypocrit.
I completely agree with Binary_Digit, we need to replace all mention of "marriage" with "civil union." Let the state register pair-bonds, and let the churches quibble over what is sacred.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
Have you not read the US constitution? It's a little thing that I like to call the Full Faith and Credit Clause. You'll find it in Article IV, Section I. It clearly states that:



That would be marriage. Along with driver's license, debt, and a lot of other things that one state HAS to recognize when coming from another. The fact that Massachusetts has gay marriage makes it illegal for any other state to not recognize gay people that were married there.
Wrong, the only reason Mass. has gay marriage is because they did not have and amendment banning it and liberal activist judges made law instead of interpreting it.............The SCOTUS will never mess with and individual states amendment especially now that the court is growing more and more conservative...........Sorry kelzie, but you still can go to work for the ACLU....Maybe they will put you on that case where they are defending the pedophile organiztion called NAMBLA.......

Oh and one more thing a drivers license is not a right.........Its a privilege.......
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Befuddled_Stoner said:
I really hate it when people talk about defending the "sanctity" of marriage by ammending constitutions.

Seeing as the United States isn't supposed to be a theocracy, our government has no place arbitrating what is or is not sacred or holy. Every time I hear someone blather on about defending the sanctity of marriage, I get the irrational urge to cram the first ammendment down their throat and smack them around with a dictionary opened up to the definition of hypocrit.
I completely agree with Binary_Digit, we need to replace all mention of "marriage" with "civil union." Let the state register pair-bonds, and let the churches quibble over what is sacred.

After looking at your handle, why am I not surprised you feel that way..:roll: Have another snort, eat a few more brain cells my friend.......
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Wrong, the only reason Mass. has gay marriage is because they did not have and amendment banning it and liberal activist judges made law instead of interpreting it.............The SCOTUS will never mess with and individual states amendment especially now that the court is growing more and more conservative...........Sorry kelzie, but you still can go to work for the ACLU....Maybe they will put you on that case where they are defending the pedophile organiztion called NAMBLA.......

Oh and one more thing a drivers license is not a right.........Its a privilege.......
You really should pull out the constitution

Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, and Thing in the Constitution or Laws of and State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
See where it says "supreme law of the land"? That's right. The states cannot ignore the US constitution, even if their constitution says they can. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will have to be overturned. Or they will be abusing their powers. And the reason Mass. legalized it is irrelevant. If they want to, they can over turn it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh and one more thing. You should read more carefully. I never said a driver's license was a right.
 

Kandahar

Enemy Combatant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 20, 2005
Messages
20,688
Reaction score
7,320
Location
Washington, DC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
Wrong, the only reason Mass. has gay marriage is because they did not have and amendment banning it and liberal activist judges made law instead of interpreting it.
Equal rights for all citizens is explicitly stated in the 14th amendment. Recognizing such is not "making law." It's correctly interpreting it.

Why is this issue such a big deal to you? Has Massachusetts descended into anarchy since allowing gay marriage? Has the number of child molestations risen dramatically? Do people sodomize animals on the streets of Boston? No. So what exactly is your problem with gay marriage? It's obviously something more than opposition to "judicial activism," since you've written so approvingly of laws to explicitly ban it.
 

Navy Pride

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
39,883
Reaction score
3,070
Location
Pacific NW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
You really should pull out the constitution

Article VI:



See where it says "supreme law of the land"? That's right. The states cannot ignore the US constitution, even if their constitution says they can. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will have to be overturned. Or they will be abusing their powers. And the reason Mass. legalized it is irrelevant. If they want to, they can over turn it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh and one more thing. You should read more carefully. I never said a driver's license was a right.
And you know the bucket of worms it would cause if you allowed gays to marry......We have debated the ramifications a 100 times........Can tou say Polygamy, inner family marraige...........Dream on, not in my life time or yours but you still cab help those pedophiles if you get your law license.....:;)
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Navy Pride said:
And you know the bucket of worms it would cause if you allowed gays to marry......We have debated the ramifications a 100 times........Can tou say Polygamy, inner family marraige...........Dream on, not in my life time or yours but you still cab help those pedophiles if you get your law license.....:;)
So what you're really saying is you have absolutely nothing to rebut my argument with. That's okay, I didn't expect you to. Your life time? Maybe not, I don't know how old you are. But mine? Hate to break it to you, but over 50% of people my age actively support gay marriage.
 

Trajan Octavian Titus

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 17, 2005
Messages
20,915
Reaction score
546
Location
We can't stop here this is bat country!
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Kelzie said:
You really should pull out the constitution

Article VI:



See where it says "supreme law of the land"? That's right. The states cannot ignore the US constitution, even if their constitution says they can. If it goes to the Supreme Court, it will have to be overturned. Or they will be abusing their powers. And the reason Mass. legalized it is irrelevant. If they want to, they can over turn it. I wouldn't hold my breath.

Oh and one more thing. You should read more carefully. I never said a driver's license was a right.
The answer I gave on my midterm today:

The Bill of Rights is a set of laws originally intended to protect the liberties of the individual citizens and the individual states from the centralized federal government of the United States. The historical and theoretical basis for the Bill of Rights came from the inherent distrust of big government which was forged by the Colonists during the Revolutionary war of Independence against the British Empire. The Bill of Rights draws on a wide array of principles which can be found in the works of many of the great thinkers of the time starting with the spring of the enlightenment period, first we can begin with John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government which was the basis for everything which was going to follow, in fact some of Locke‘s exact phrases; such as, the guaranty to life, liberty, and property, can be found word for word directly in the 5th amendment of the Bill of Rights. Secondly, we have the Declaration of Independence; penned by Thomas Jefferson which specified the disputes the Colonists had against the tyrannical practices of the Crown of England against the right to self determination of the individual Colonies and the civil liberties of the Colonists; such as, taxation without representation on imports and exports, the rights to trade with whatever country they wished, and the suspension of Habeas Corpus and Due Process . We also have the Articles of the Confederation the precursor to the Constitution, the anti-Federalist papers and even the Federalist papers. Both the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, draw upon the concepts of individual liberty found in all of these works. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution as a compromise between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in order to ratify the Constitution.

As was specified in the aforementioned text, the Bill of Rights was at first only responsible for regulating the power of the Federal Government, because at the time the individual State Governments wanted to maintain much of their own autonomy and apply their own regulations and legislations on the rights of the individual, however, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th amendment, which was added to the Bill of Rights after the Civil War, has allowed for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights upon the state Governments through a series of Decisions regarding the Constitutionality of State Laws by the Supreme Court. -- Me

Supplementing material I used for my exam today:

The Four Competing views of incorporation of the Bill of Rights are:

Total Incorporation of all guarantees - Justice Halan’s Opinion, dissenting in Hurtado v. California. (1884)

Facts of the Case
The State of California tried and convicted Hurtado on an information for murder. An information is a written set of accusations made by a prosecutor. Hurtado maintained that California denied him an indictment by a grand jury. A grand jury indictment is based on majority vote of the grand jurors on presentation by the prosecutor.

Question Presented
Does a state criminal proceeding based on an information rather than a grand jury indictment violate the 14th Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion
No, this was not a violation of due process. Any legal proceeding that protects liberty and justice is due process. The majority opinion, authored by Matthews, reasoned that the Constitution cannot be locked into static conceptions bound by time and place. The Court also took the position that nothing in the Constitution is superfluous. Since the Fifth Amendment contains both a guarantee of grand jury proceedings and a guarantee of due process, the latter cannot embrace the former.


Selective Incorporation of Preferred “ freedoms” and those rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty” - Justice Banjamin Cadozo’s opinion in Palko V Connecticut. (1937)

Facts of the Case
Frank Palko had been charged with first-degree murder. He was convicted instead of second-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The state of Connecticut appealed and won a new trial; this time the court found Palko guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced him to death.

Question Presented
Does Palko's second conviction violate the protection against double jeopardy guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment because this protection applies to the states by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld Palko's second conviction. In his majority opinion, Cardozo formulated principles that were to direct the Court's actions for the next three decades. He noted that some Bill of Rights guarantees--such as freedom of thought and speech--are fundamental, and that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause absorbed these fundamental rights and applied them to the states. Protection against double jeopardy was not a fundamental right. Palko died in Connecticut's gas chamber in April 1938.


Fundamental Fairness and the selective application on a case by case basis - Justice Felix Frankfurter, concurring in Adamson V California. (1947)

Facts of the Case
Adamson was convicted in California of murder in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecutor, in accordance with a California law, made comments to the jury which highlighted Adamson's decision not to testify on his own behalf.

Question Presented
Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion
A divided Court found that the the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing past decisions such as Twining v. New Jersey (1908), which explicitly denied the application of the due process clause to the right against self-incrimination, and Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.


Total Incorporation Plus - other fundamental rights not expressly granted in the Bill of Rights - Justice Frank Murphy and Wile Rutledge dissenting in Adams V. California (1947) Facts of the Case
Adamson was convicted in California of murder in the first degree. During the trial, the prosecutor, in accordance with a California law, made comments to the jury which highlighted Adamson's decision not to testify on his own behalf.

Question Presented
Is a defendant's Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against himself applicable in state courts and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause?

Conclusion
A divided Court found that the the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause did not extend to defendants a Fifth Amendment right not to bear witness against themselves in state courts. Citing past decisions such as Twining v. New Jersey (1908), which explicitly denied the application of the due process clause to the right against self-incrimination, and Palko v. Connecticut (1937), Justice Reed argued that the Fourteenth Amendment did not extend carte blanche all of the immunities and privileges of the first ten amendments to individuals at the state level. In a lengthy dissent which included a deep investigation of the Fourteenth Amendment's history, Justice Black argued for the absolute and complete application of the Bill of Rights to the states.



Selective Incorporation plus - other fundamental rights not expressly granted in the Bill of Rights - Justices Arthur Goldberg, Chif Justice Earl Warren, and Justice William J. Brennan, concurring in Griswold V. Connecticut. (1965)

Facts of the Case
Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question Presented
Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Conclusion
Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.
 

Kelzie

The Almighty
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
13,534
Reaction score
1,000
Location
Denver, CO
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
Dude, I am not going to read that. Summerize please.
 
Top Bottom