100%(3)3 out of 3 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 10 - 13 out of 19 pages.
acceptable for courts to interfere in the family sphere. Parker v Levy (1974)- Parker an army physician, was convicted for disobeying orders to set up a training program for special forces and violatingArticles 133&134 for public statements against the special forces and urging Af-Am enlisted men to refuse orders to go to Vietnam. He countered that the articles were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the
5th Amendment, and it was found that they did not violate the 5th Amendment and that carrying out his statements would have constituted participation in a war crime. Goldman v Weinberger (1986)- Goldman challenged an Air Force regulation prohibiting the wearing of headgear while indoors that was used against him when he testified at a court-martial while wearing his yarmulke claiming that it violated his rights to religious freedom under the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. It was found that the regulation did not violate his religious freedom.Chappell v Wallace (1983)- 5 Naval officers charged their commanding officer with racial discrimination when meting out discipline, assigning shipboard duties and compiling performance evaluations, it was found that the enlisted men are not permitted to sue on alleged violations of their civil rights because congress had not specifically authorized such lawsuits.The Feres Doctrine(includes Feres case, Jefferson case and Griggs case)- Thethree cases all had actions arising under the Federal Tort Claims Act(FTCA, permits private parties to sue the US in a federal court for most civil wrongs committed by ppl acting on behalf of the US), it was found that the US is not liable under the FCTA for injuries to members of the armed forces sustained while on active duty and not on furlough and resulting from the negligence ofothers in the armed forces, effectively excluding the military from the FCTA. All three of the aforementioned military cases show a consistent exemption of the military from constitutional judgements, resulting in a space of law thatthe military inhabits outside of the requirements of the constitution. Kelo v City of New London (2005)- The government has a right to seize property from individuals in order to repurpose it for the common good, under this guise- citing job creation- the city of New London seized the property of Kelo and gave it to a private corporation. This illustrates Marx’s point that the legal system is skewed in the favor of the rich, by literally taking from the poor and giving to the rich and using government statutes designed to help the poor to do it,Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission(2010)- the McCain and
Feinberg act preventing the ability of corporations to donate money to political campaigns was challenged by Citizens United, and the court ruled intheir favor, citing that the act encroached on their right to free speech and thatcorporations should be classified as people and given the same rights. This also illustrates Marx’s point of the rich using statutes designed to help the poor to further their own goals. By classifying corporations as people, the