"Power Through Precedence"
Assessing the Supreme Court's Power to Rule on Gay Marriage Through Precedent
The Supreme Court today usually “hears” about 60-65 cases per year, and one of the most important ones they finally “heard” this year involved a ruling verdict on gay marriage.
But how did it get to this? And how did the Court rule so "easily"? Using your understanding of the precedents established in previous cases, let’s see how, and why, the Court ruled the way they did…
But how did it get to this? And how did the Court rule so "easily"? Using your understanding of the precedents established in previous cases, let’s see how, and why, the Court ruled the way they did…
/cdn0.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3811990/same-sex%20marriage.gif)
Part I: Background of the Case
On June 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down states' same-sex marriage bans as unconstitutional, effectively bringing marriage equality to all 50 states. Although the cases dealt with laws in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee specifically, the court's decision encompassed the constitutionality of same-sex marriage bans across the nation.
The same-sex marriage battle had been decades in the making. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, in 2004.
By 2014, many states began to follow in Massachusetts' path because of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor, which cited the 14th Amendment to strike down the federal government's ban on same-sex marriages. Though originally passed as a racial law only, allowing black men the same freedoms as white men, the 14th Amendment "was designed to, really, perfect the promise of the Declaration of Independence," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said. "The purpose and the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to make clear that no state can take any group of citizens and make them second-class."
Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that individual states are acting in the public interest by encouraging heterosexual relationships through marriage policies, so voters and legislators in each state should be able to set their own laws. That's one of the reasons Colorado allowed gay marriage before it's national legalization; it was believed to be in the "best interest of Colorado citizens everywhere".
Regardless, the Court's decision to legalize gay marriage seems to harmonize with the feelings of the public.
The same-sex marriage battle had been decades in the making. In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in the state, making Massachusetts the first state in the country to allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, in 2004.
By 2014, many states began to follow in Massachusetts' path because of the Supreme Court's 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor, which cited the 14th Amendment to strike down the federal government's ban on same-sex marriages. Though originally passed as a racial law only, allowing black men the same freedoms as white men, the 14th Amendment "was designed to, really, perfect the promise of the Declaration of Independence," Judith Schaeffer, vice president of the Constitutional Accountability Center, said. "The purpose and the meaning of the 14th Amendment is to make clear that no state can take any group of citizens and make them second-class."
Opponents of same-sex marriage argued that individual states are acting in the public interest by encouraging heterosexual relationships through marriage policies, so voters and legislators in each state should be able to set their own laws. That's one of the reasons Colorado allowed gay marriage before it's national legalization; it was believed to be in the "best interest of Colorado citizens everywhere".
Regardless, the Court's decision to legalize gay marriage seems to harmonize with the feelings of the public.
Part II: "Power Through Precedence"
So...now that you know the background, how and why did the Judges "rule" the way they did? Remember, Judges don't rule based on their own opinion! Minersville v. Gobitis (1940) ruled that all kids, regardless of their personal beliefs, have to salute the flag if the School District makes them do it! Many Judges wrote that they didn't believe this should be the case, but since the School District had voted on this issue, then the Judges had to "sit back" and let that democratic vote be the law of the school! Hard decision, but proves that Judges can't allow their own opinions to interfere.
So, again...how and why did the Judges "rule" the way they did? It's all about precedence.
Below is a list of the major cases (and one Constitutional Amendment) that provided precedent for the Judges. For each case, click on the link provided, and summarize the precedent created.
So, again...how and why did the Judges "rule" the way they did? It's all about precedence.
Below is a list of the major cases (and one Constitutional Amendment) that provided precedent for the Judges. For each case, click on the link provided, and summarize the precedent created.
- Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution (1868)
- (NOTE: That this website is blocked at school because it contains the word "sex" in the website address. So, to access it, click on the Loving v. Virginia link below. You'll be directed to a "card stack"; Loving v. Virginia is "Card #4". To access the Fourteenth Amendment "Card", simply click forward, twice, to "Card #6". This is the original link site for the above weblink that didn't work...)
- Loving v. Virginia (1967)
- United States v. Windsor (2013)
- Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Part III: How'd They Vote?
As you know by now, the three (3) female Judges tend to vote liberal, and indeed they did this time: in favor of gay marriage. Liberal-leaning Stephen Breyer voted in favor as well, but it was a big deal when Anthony Kennedy, a moderate Judge, voted liberal as well!
So...it was decided...5-4 in favor of gay marriage.
But why? You already have your answers through "Power Through Precedence", but do your understanding of the precedents match what the Justices had to say? Click here to access a summary of the winning side's opinion, and fill in your worksheet accordingly.
...and if you get done, click here for a summary of how the current Republican Presidential Candidates responded to the ruling. It's just FYI...
So...it was decided...5-4 in favor of gay marriage.
But why? You already have your answers through "Power Through Precedence", but do your understanding of the precedents match what the Justices had to say? Click here to access a summary of the winning side's opinion, and fill in your worksheet accordingly.
...and if you get done, click here for a summary of how the current Republican Presidential Candidates responded to the ruling. It's just FYI...
"Power Through Precedence"?
Where Does the Supreme Court
Stand on Gun Control, and
How Will it Rule in the Future?
To date, we've discussed the power of the Supreme Court to rule in favor of, or against, certain actions and laws based on legality and constitutionality. Often times, the Court will address certain national issues (gay marriage, racism, environmental concerns), and one of significant importance right now is gun rights - freedoms, limitations, and accessibility.
As a final assessment of our understanding of the Supreme Court, let's evaluate the "power of precedence" in regards to gun laws and how the Supreme Court might rule, if they're ever forced to do so.
Let's begin with a little background information on guns in the United States. Below is a very short video about "Five Guns that Changed American History".
As a final assessment of our understanding of the Supreme Court, let's evaluate the "power of precedence" in regards to gun laws and how the Supreme Court might rule, if they're ever forced to do so.
Let's begin with a little background information on guns in the United States. Below is a very short video about "Five Guns that Changed American History".
I The above video discusses five (5) "key" guns, from the type that killed President Lincoln to the newer models that will help in overseas wars.
But the type of gun at the center of legal debate is called the semi-automatic rifle, also categorized as a common "assault weapon". You saw mention of it in the video in regards to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Today, from Highland Park, Illinois, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court to limit access to these types of weapons, and essentially ban them all together. The case is called Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois (2015) and it has the potential to change everything. Early in 2013, the City of Highland Park passed a law that gave anyone who legally possessed “an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine” 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. Residents, particularly Arie Friedman, protested, on the grounds of the Second Amendment. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that these assault rifles "can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot" than other weapons, but also struggled with the issue of whether or not the Founding Fathers ever intended assault weapons to be protected by the Second Amendment. In April 2015, the 7th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the city of Highland Park, and their ban on assault weapons, and Friedman appealed to the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court ever ban assault weapons? You tell me! You'll be making the argument to me that assault weapons should, or should not, be banned. You'll be filling out your template, in the form of a "written brief".
Let's take a look at the precedents established previously! Similarly to our activity above, examine the Court case links below to learn about the precedents established:
But the type of gun at the center of legal debate is called the semi-automatic rifle, also categorized as a common "assault weapon". You saw mention of it in the video in regards to the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Today, from Highland Park, Illinois, there is an appeal to the Supreme Court to limit access to these types of weapons, and essentially ban them all together. The case is called Friedman v. City of Highland Park, Illinois (2015) and it has the potential to change everything. Early in 2013, the City of Highland Park passed a law that gave anyone who legally possessed “an Assault Weapon or Large Capacity Magazine” 60 days to move these items outside city limits, disable them, or surrender them for destruction. Residents, particularly Arie Friedman, protested, on the grounds of the Second Amendment. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals acknowledged that these assault rifles "can be beneficial for self-defense because they are lighter than many rifles and less dangerous per shot" than other weapons, but also struggled with the issue of whether or not the Founding Fathers ever intended assault weapons to be protected by the Second Amendment. In April 2015, the 7th Circuit Court ruled in favor of the city of Highland Park, and their ban on assault weapons, and Friedman appealed to the Supreme Court.
Will the Supreme Court ever ban assault weapons? You tell me! You'll be making the argument to me that assault weapons should, or should not, be banned. You'll be filling out your template, in the form of a "written brief".
Let's take a look at the precedents established previously! Similarly to our activity above, examine the Court case links below to learn about the precedents established:
- Presser v. Illinois, (1886)
- United States v. Miller, (1939)
- Lewis v. United States, (1980)
- United States v. Lopez, (1995)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008)
Presser v. Illinois, (1886)
This firearms case ruled that the Second Amendment right was a right of individuals, and not just for militias, as the original wording of the Constitution says. The Judges interpreted that the Second Amendment to mean that, although state laws could prohibit common citizens from forming their own personal military organizations, and drilling or parading, they still could not limit a personal right to keep and bear arms.
United States v. Miller, (1939)
This case dealt with the type, and length, of specific firearms. City-dwellers, specifically those in Chicago and New York, were terrified by the new "Tommy Gun", otherwise known as the Thompson Submachine Gun, a favorite by gangsters and mobsters like Al Capone. The National Firearms Act (1934) required that certain guns, especially those most deadly, be registered with the federal government. This registration was also accompanyed with a very high fine.
In United States v. Miller, (1939), the Supreme Court defended the National Firearms Act and ruled that firearms of a certain length and "power", if they were to carried across state lines, had to be registered with the federal government. In more specifics, they found that the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the protections provided by the Second Amendment, which does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
In United States v. Miller, (1939), the Supreme Court defended the National Firearms Act and ruled that firearms of a certain length and "power", if they were to carried across state lines, had to be registered with the federal government. In more specifics, they found that the possession of a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the protections provided by the Second Amendment, which does not protect the possession of such an instrument.
Lewis v. United States, (1980)
In short summary, the Court ruled that Congress may prohibit certain people (criminals) from possessing a firearm. Because of the precedent that Congress "...may prohibit a convicted felon from engaging in activities far [more basic] than the possession of a firearm," it was decided that Congress could limit this activity as well.
United States v. Lopez, (1995)
On March 10, 1992, Alfonso Lopez, Jr. carried a concealed .38 caliber revolver, along with five cartridges, into the school. The gun was not loaded; Lopez claimed that he was to deliver the weapon to another person, a service for which he would receive $40. Lopez was charged with violating the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990.
Lopez appealed his arrest...but on economic grounds! Under the Commerce Clause, the Congress of the United States has the power to regulate businesses between states. Lopez and his lawyers argued that his "regulation of economics" did not apply to guns, and therefore, the creation of a "gun-free zone" was unconstitutional.
The Court...agreed! In summary, Congress can not create "gun free zones", because, a "gun" does not fall under their economic control. Though the reasoning for the decision may be unclear, the results are real: the government can not create "gun free zones" - only individual schools and agencies can.
Lopez appealed his arrest...but on economic grounds! Under the Commerce Clause, the Congress of the United States has the power to regulate businesses between states. Lopez and his lawyers argued that his "regulation of economics" did not apply to guns, and therefore, the creation of a "gun-free zone" was unconstitutional.
The Court...agreed! In summary, Congress can not create "gun free zones", because, a "gun" does not fall under their economic control. Though the reasoning for the decision may be unclear, the results are real: the government can not create "gun free zones" - only individual schools and agencies can.
District of Columbia v. Heller, (2008)
Perhaps the most important case in recent history, the case, known simply as "the Heller case" clarified that people can possess a firearm for self-defense. Remember, the Second Amendment was passed to provide weapons for if / when people serve in the armies, but now, the Heller case provided for "personal protection". The Supreme Court also found that the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 - which stated that guns must be "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" - was also unconstitutional. The Heller case also further protected the rights of individuals to own a handgun.
