The Due Process Clause, Research Paper Example

The Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments did not contain the components of liberty in same sex liberty rights (United States v. Lawrence 2003). The states were able to define what should be a marriage, whether same sex unions are condoned. This is where the uniform aspect of Federalism must be considered (E.A Young & C. E Blondell, Federalism Liberty and Equality in United States v. Windsor federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) 2013). These perspectives in addition to the perspective of John R. Durocak with Supreme Court of the U.S. John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner Petitioners v. Texas on Writ of Certiorari to the Court of Appeals Texas, Fourteen District 2003.

One

The common factors which defined Lawrence and Windsor are the federal government’s requirement of intervening in affairs which require the defense of individual constitutional rights. What is the common factor of intervening in decisions made by states? In the United States, the common factor is federalism. Federalism has formed the national dialogue with regards to same sex civil unions. In the 1990s, many jurisdictions placed the issue on the national forum by conducting observational analysis of the aspects of same sex civil unions. The federal Defense of Marriage Act was created by Congress in order to place parameters on the states observations and analysis of same sex civil unions. This was performed in order to guarantee that the non’ consenting jurisdictions did not have the obligation of acknowledging same sex unions by increasing the expense for the jurisdictions which may consent to same sex civil unions in the future (E.A Young & C. E Blondell, Federalism Liberty and Equality in United States v. Windsor Federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) 2013).  This perspective was the basis of the analysis of Lawrence and Windsor in Justice Kennedy’s analysis of the liberties of the members of same sex unions.

Two

Professor Barnett demonstrated that he had been in favor of individual privacy and the right to choose one’s sexual preference. Professor Barnett’s perspective is in opposition to many states. It appears that a fundamental requirement with regards to the moralism proposed by the democratic majority participatory perspective is in regard to the regulation of morality which is practiced behind closed doors. The restriction of the individual authorities which are enjoyed by members of same sex civil unions would be the outcome of placing the policing power with the states.  Professor Barnett comments on the need for the limitation of the authorities of the states:

While a police power of the states is nowhere implied in the Constitution, its existence may well be implicated by what the Constitution says. In p  particular , the Fourteenth’s Amendment’s guarantee  that shall deny any person within the jurisdiction  the equal protection of laws may presuppose a state power of  “protection” (John R. Doracak Tax Constitutional Question on Affordable Health Care Act of 2010: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in Light of Citizens: United v. FEC and Speiser  v. Randall Conditioning of a Tax Benefit on the Non- Exercise of a Constitutional Right, 34).

Five                                                                                                      

Participation in the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 is a benefit. People cannot be penalized for not taking advantage of a benefit or forced to take advantage of a benefit. The problem with unconstitutional reasoning in order to declareAffordable Health Care Act of 2010nconstitutional is that no constitutional right is violated. Patients are not forced to subscribe to Obamacare nor are they coerced into its acceptance. The Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 extends coverage to individuals who previously did not qualify. The individuals are not obligated to receive the Obamacare services (HHS About the law, 2014). This aspect is the challenge with the application of unconstitutional perspectives to Affordable Health Care Act of 2010. “…Congress… cannot deny the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (United States v. Windsor, 570 US ____at ***2013). It has been recommended by Justice Thomas in Lawrence and Justice Scalia in Windsor that by means of political procedures that future legislation may revoke what are apparently ridiculous legislation (John R. Doracak, Is the Constitution Only Libertarian and Non Socially Conservative U.S v. Windsor and the Unconstitutionality of DOMA‘s Definition To Exclude Same- Sex Couples Requiem for a Heavyweight? 31).

The Texas Penal Code…undoubtedly imposes constraints on liberty. So do laws prohibiting prostitution, recreational use of heroine, and, for that matter working more than 60 hours in a bakery. But there was no right to “liberty” under Due P Process Clause , though today’s opinion repeatedly makes the claim…The Fourteenth Amendment expressly allows that State to deprive their citizens of “liberty” so long as due process of law is provided (Lawrence v. Texas 593 US. 558, 592- 593). It is true that “later generations can see that laws once though necessary and proper in fact only serve to oppose”…and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws (Lawrence v. Texas 593 US.558, 603; (John R. Doracak, Is the Constitution Only Libertarian and Non- Socially Conservative U.S v. Windsor and the Unconstitutionality of DOMA ‘s Definition To Exclude Same- Sex Couples Requiem for a Heavyweight?, 16).

Six

The federal government can show a compelling interest for its actions when it comes to upholding the constitution. The Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments interest that the federal government is manifesting in this situation. In a same sex civil union, there is a joint household tax liability. Justice Robert’s initial premise that the obligation of an individual with regard to mutual responsibility payments is a form of revenue tax, due to its semblance of a revenue tax for the causal attributes which are delineated. If it looks like a revenue tax and is applied as a revenue tax, it must be a revenue tax. This is the reasoning used by Justice Roberts. Initially, the payment is forwarded to the Treasury by the constituents upon the filing of a tax return and is not applicable to the constituents who do not contribute income taxes as a result of their personal revenues being less than the threshold which the IRS requires. The reporting threshold for the heads of household and their dependents is reported in the IRS publications (IRS Publication 501, 2014). Furthermore, the sums which are remitted to the IRS are conducted in the same form as revenue taxes. The remissions which are contributed by the individuals in same sex civil unions is substantial, estimated to reach $4 billion during the next three years (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 US_-, 132 S Ct. 2594 2012; John R. Doracak Tax Constitutional Question on Obamacare: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in Light of Citizens   United v. FEC and Speiser v. Randall Conditioning of a Tax Benefit on the Non-Exercise of a Constitutional Right, 7).

The U.S. constitution protects freedom of expression. Speiser v. Randall was memorably commented upon by Justice Brennan, where he inscribed “we hold that when the constitutional right to speak is sought to be deterred by a state’s annual taxing program demands that the speech be unencumbered until the state comes forward with sufficient proof to justify its inhibition” (Speiser v. Randall, 357 US 513, 528 – 529 1958; John R. Doracak Tax Constitutional Question on Obamacare: National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius in Light of Citizens   United v. FEC and Speiser v. Randall Conditioning of a Tax Benefit on the Non-Exercise of a Constitutional Right, 32).  Justice Brenna continued in stating “similarly it does not follow  that because only a tax liability law is involved, the ordinary tax assessment procedure are adequate when applied to penalized speech” Speiser was fundamental in that the constituent  was coerced into making an oath of loyalty in order to procure a veteran’s property tax exemption. The critic on the opposition of Affordable Health Care Act of 2010 cannot be based on the application of the authority not to receive Obama care benefits and not to support the Affordable Health Care Act of 2010.