Acceptable for courts to interfere in the family

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 fordisobeying orders to set up a training program for special forces and violatingArticles 133&134 for public statements against the special forces and urgingAf-Am enlisted men to refuse orders to go to Vietnam. He countered that thearticles were unconstitutionally vague under the Due Process Clause of the
5th Amendment, and it was found that they did not violate the 5thAmendment and that carrying out his statements would have constitutedparticipation in a war crime.Goldman v Weinberger (1986)- Goldman challenged an Air Force regulationprohibiting the wearing of headgear while indoors that was used against himwhen he testified at a court-martial while wearing his yarmulke claiming thatit violated his rights to religious freedom under the Free Exercise Clause ofthe 1st Amendment. It was found that the regulation did not violate hisreligious freedom.Chappell v Wallace (1983)- 5 Naval officers charged their commandingofficer with racial discrimination when meting out discipline, assigningshipboard duties and compiling performance evaluations, it was found thatthe enlisted men are not permitted to sue on alleged violations of their civilrights 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 wrongscommitted by ppl acting on behalf of the US), it was found that the US is notliable under the FCTA for injuries to members of the armed forces sustainedwhile 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 exemptionof 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 seizeproperty from individuals in order to repurpose it for the common good,under this guise- citing job creation- the city of New London seized theproperty of Kelo and gave it to a private corporation. This illustrates Marx’spoint that the legal system is skewed in the favor of the rich, by literallytaking from the poor and giving to the rich and using government statutesdesigned 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 topolitical 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. Thisalso illustrates Marx’s point of the rich using statutes designed to help the

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

End of preview. Want to read all 19 pages?

Upload your study docs or become a

Course Hero member to access this document

Term
Spring
Professor
Holmes

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture