Con Law - Fall 2002 - Shiffrin - Constitutional Law,...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutional Law, Strategic Shortline Fall 2002 Prof. Shiffrin Rights I. Due Process: A Is there a fundamental due process liberty right? 1. Economic v. social. (Why treat different, legislative expert., const. view Holmes Lochner dissent) 2. Substantive Due Process Rights protected (Some of) first eight amendments Strict Scrutiny Privacy/contraception/bedroom, Griswald , Eisenstadt broadens: “free from intrusion into matters so fundamental affecting decisions to bear/beget children”) Strict Scrutiny Abortion (Roe, Casey ) Strict Scrutiny, law cannot be “undue burden” (parental consent OK, 24-hour wait a “particular burden” to out of state women not “undue,” spousal notification not OK) Family. childrearing? (Pierce (private schools) and Meyer (German teaching), Troxel (protection from visitation) mid-level “fundamental right for care, custody and control of children… special weight to parent’s determinations.” Quillon v. Walcott step-family included if in best interests, concur: “full recognition to family unit in exist.”) Marriage, Loving v. VA , Zobloki v. Rehail – laws need “sufficiently important state interests” but if not “significantly interfere” no need for scrutiny. Califano v. Jobst (upholds SS benefit denial, doesn’t interfere w/marriage right but Boddie v. CT inv. state refusal of divorce w/out $60 fee). Living with relatives, Moore v. East Cleveland . “important to legitimate interest” 3. Not fundamental rights Living with non-relatives (Belle Terre v. Boraas ) Gay sex (Bowers v. Hardwick ) Right to Die (Glucksberg , but O’Connor concur: maybe right to refuse med. treatment, Cruzan ,) privacy (“no grievous threat to privacy” Whalen v. Roe ) 4. New fundamental right? deeply-rooted in the nations traditions and a careful description (Glucksberg ) Is it historically deeply rooted traditions? Evolving traditions? laws on the books in 1868? current practice? common law, legal traditions? Level of abstraction of “tradition” (Scalia, Michael H. “most specific level of the relevant tradition either denying or protecting”) and “careful description,” (Glucksberg ) construe narrowly or broadly as justices see fit. (Bowers “homosexual sodomy” v. Glucksberg “suicide right” not “terminate end of life.”) (Casey argues against “most specific level,”) Hesitation to discover rights that might “place the matter outside of the arena of public debate and legislative action.” Glucksberg Implicit with enumerated right, penumbras (not explicitly used since Griswald ) Autonomy – “choices central to human dignity and autonomy” Casey , Glucksberg /Cruzan Alternative reasoning – reasoned judgment (Casey ), Souter weighing of interests (Glucksberg ), importance in peoples lives (Marshall dissent Dandridge ) importance, institutional concerns, political considerations (not enunciated)
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/26/2008 for the course LAW conlaw taught by Professor Meyler during the Fall '05 term at Cornell University (Engineering School).

Page1 / 7

Con Law - Fall 2002 - Shiffrin - Constitutional Law,...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online