CON LAW

CHAPTER 7 Equal Protection 1. Intro y y Equal Protection Provision EXAM INTRO: o

2/4/2012 2:57:00 PM

The equal protection clause protects us from government classifications, but the level of protection depends on the level of scrutiny thats used. If the government uses classifications based on suspect criteria, such as . Its strict scrutiny. If the government regulates on gender, non-marital children its intermediate. Otherwise its rational basis. herethen go on and apply the relevant test.

Analysis1 1. What is the classification? 2. What level of scrutiny should be applied? Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Scrutiny Rational Basis 3. Does the Govt Action Meet the Level of Scrutiny?

Plaintiff must establish prima facie case by proving 2 elements impact and purpose.

Pl must show that 1) law has a disproportionate or disparate impact on a particular group (I.e. census data showing higher % of whites complete HS), and 2) the impact on this particular group is intentional in the sense that it results from a discriminatory purpose or design (see Wash v Davis). Heightened scrutiny is achieved under EPC only if there is a de jure, rather than de facto, discrimination where there is an intent or purpose to discriminate. Purpose is automatically satisfied where a statute is discriminatory on its face, thereby showing discriminatory intent. Otherwise, Pl must prove that the measure was adopted at least in part because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group. However, awareness of foreseeable disparate impact may serve as one of several kinds of proofs from which an inference of discriminatory purpose may be drawn. Discriminatory intent may be inferred from legislative history, process of adoption of law involved departure from substantive criteria normally governing such matters, etc. Govt can rebut prima facie case by 1) disproving impact, 2) not to any degree motivate by discr purpose, or 3) showing discriminatory impact was not caused by Ds purposefully discriminatory acts. If successful, court will apply rational basis test. Otherwise, appropriate level of heightened scrutiny is applied.

2. The Rational Basis Test y Does the Law Have a Legitimate Purpose? o Romer v. Evans* (non-legitimate purpose)   Colorado repealed laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and precluded adoption of new protections. The Court held that the law violated the equal protection clause because the laws homosexual classification was irrational, and was enacted out of mere animosity toward homosexuals o US Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz (actual purpose not required)  A retired railroad worker filed suit challenging an act which made him ineligible for certain retirements benefits granted to other workers, on the ground that it violated the equal protection clause.  The court held that the law was constitutional because the rational basis test merely requires plausible reasons for the law, regardless of the actual reasons behind the law. o FCC v. Beach Communications (any conceivable purpose sufficient)  P filed suit against the FCC claiming classification made between cable facilities in an Act violate the implied equal protection guarantee of the 5h Am because there is no rational basis for the distinction.  The court held that any conceivable legislative purpose is sufficient, even if it rests on rational speculation unsupported by evidence, and challenger bears burden to negate every conceivable basis which might support it. y Is the Classification reasonable in Light of its Purpose? o Railway Express Agency v. NY (Underinclusive) 2  A natl delivery company challenged a NYC traffic regulation which prohibited advertisements on the side of vehicles, claiming the law was a violation of equal protection because it did not apply to delivery vehicles which advertised their own services.  The court held that the law does not violate the equal protection clause merely because the govt chose to regulate a particular activity but did not make it applicable to every form of that activity

Underinclusive (also see pp 735/37): The classification contains some people with the

relevant trait, but not everyone with the relevant trait (inversely, some people are not disadvantaged even though the failure to include them undermines achievements of the states interest). Under rational basis test, Govt may chose to reduce a perceived danger by regulating only a dew of those who are responsible for the danger i.e. delivery trucks which in itself does not violate equal protection. Under strict scrutiny, however, courts often strike down underinclusive legislation.

NY City Transit Authority v. Beazer (Overinclusive)3  D refused to hire methadone users due to risk of relapse, and Pls sued on the ground of the equal protection clause claiming that methadone users should be treated like most other applicants rather than other users of narcotics.  The Court refused Pls claim, and held that an exclusionary scheme which is not directed against any individual or category of person, but rather represents a policy choice made by govt, is not unconstitutional unless it circumscribe a class of persons characterized by some unpopular trait or affiliation. Bright-line rule (use/no use) more efficient U.S. Dept. of Agr. v. Moreno* (arbitrary/unreasonable)4  After being denied food stamps because they lived with unrelated persons, Pls filed suit against the govt claiming that the exclusion was unrelated to the purpose of the Food Stamp Act.  The court held that the law was irrational because the classification did not further some legitimate govt purpose.

City of Cleburne v Cleburne Living Ctr* (arb/unreasonable)   Pls filed equal protection violation suit against the City after it denied a special use permit to operate a group home for the mentally retarded. The court held that the Citys refusal was irrational because it had no rational basis for believing that the proposed home would threaten the citys legitimate interests.

3. Classification Based on Race and National Origin y Race Discrimination and Slavery Before 13th Am.: Prior to the adoption of the 13th Am (1865), slavery was constitutional. Prior to the adoption of the 14th Am in 1868, there was no constitutional assurance of equal protection and thus no limit on race discrimination. o Dred Scott v. Sandford

Overinclusiveness: Where reach of the rule at issue includes persons who do not exhibit

the trait the authority is seeking to exclude i.e. un-employability due to narcotic use encompasses those who are undergoing treatment for heroin addiction does not make the regulation unconstitutional. i. A law is under-inclusive if it does not apply to individuals who are similarly-situated to those to whom the law applies.
4

A law may fail the mere rational basis test is the legislature has clearly identified a specific

purpose for a classification if the classification does not rationally advance the given purpose, law will be struck down. Also, law will be struck down if actual purpose was illegitimate (see US Dept of Agr v Moreno)

Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner into a free-state, but after the owners death, the administrator of the estate tried to make Scott part of the estate. Scott filed suit seeking his freedom

The court held that slaves cannot be citizens, and that slavery cannot be limited to the south (thereby invalidating the Missouri compromise, and resulting in the Civil War)

The Post-Civil War Amendments  After the civil war, the 13th Am was enacted prohibiting slavery. Section 1 of the 14th Am overruled Dred Scott v. Sanford by declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the U.S. are U.S. citizens.

Strict Scrutiny for Discrimination Based on Race and National Origin y The Govt must show an extremely important reason for its action and it must demonstrate that the goal cannot be achieved through any less discriminatory alternatives (narrowly tailored). Strict scrutiny applies to racial classifications whether disadvantaging or helping minorities.

Proving the Existence of a Race or National Origin Classification o 1) Race and National Origin Classifications on the Face of the Law: text of the law draws a distinction among people based on race or natl origin.  Korematsu v US (law burdens Racial Minorities) y y After Pearl Harbor attacks, the US evacuated Japanese Americans, and Pl challenged the constitutionality of the order. The court upheld the racial classifications burdening minorities holding that compulsory exclusions of large groups of citizens from their homes is not permitted, expect in time of war under circumstances of direst emergency and peril.  Loving v. Virginia (law burdens both Whites and Minorities) y Virginia law prohibited marriage between blacks and Whites, an interracial couple challenged conviction on grounds of equal protection y The court held that the law violated the EPC because the law restricts the freedom to marry solely on the basis of racial classification  Palmore v Sidoti (law burdens both Whites and Minorities) y A mothers custody was questioned after she married a black man, on the ground that private racial bias may affect the childs welfare. y  The court held for the mother claiming that it cannot use private racial bias as a justification for official court action Plessy v Ferguson (law separates races; Separate but Equal)

A man asserted an equal protection challenge against his conviction for violating a law which required railroad companies to maintain separate carts for blacks and whites.

y y

Court upheld the law holding that the 14th Am does not withhold from states the power to permit or require separation of races. Dissent: The constitution is color-blind, and neither knows or tolerates classes among citizen. Justice Harlans dissent is often cite to when challenging affirmative actions.

Brown v. Board of Ed. (Initial attack on separate but equal) y Several children challenged the denial of their admission to schools attended by whites pursuant to laws permitting or requiring segregation. y The court held that states may not segregate public schools on the basis of race b/c separate schools are inherently unequal (even if physically equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities).

Johnson v CA (segregation in other context) y y P claimed that CAs practice of segregating new inmates by race was a violation of the EPC The court held that all racial classifications imposed by the Govt are subject to strict scrutiny, including classifications in prison, and Govt must prove that racial classifications are narrowly tailored to further a compelling Govt interest.

2) Facially Neutral Laws with a Discriminatory Impact or with Discriminatory Administration: Reqt of Discriminatory Purpose (Davis) and Impact (Palmer)  The requirement for Proof of a Discriminatory Purpose: Laws that are facially race neutral but are administered in a manner that discriminates against minorities or has a disproportionate impact against them. P must offer proof of a discriminatory purpose for such laws to be treated as racial or national origin classifications. If such showing cannot be made, Govt must merely meet rational basis test.5 y Washington v Davis* o After being rejected, black applicants filed suit against PD, claiming that the PDs admissions test had a discriminatory impact on blacks. o A facially neutral law or official act is unconstitutional only if there is proof that the law or act has a discriminatory

Rationale: EPC purpose is to stop discriminatory Govt acts, not bring about equal results.

purpose, which may be inferred from surrounding circumstances (i.e. discriminatory impact)  Discriminatory impact alone does not support a finding of discriminatory purpose, and is not unconstitutional unless Govt had discriminatory intent. y McCleskey v. Kemp o A black man convicted of murder appealed his death sentence, claiming that based on statistical evidence the state administered the death penalty in a discriminatory manner against blacks. o The court refused Ds claim and held that statistical evidence does not alone prove that the decision makers acted with discriminatory intent.  Court looks at: Historical background, administrative record* (fact based inquiry may be able to infer unconstitutional discriminatory intent/purpose) y City of Mobile v. Bolden (Discrim. purpose reqd for 15th Am) o No black had been elected to the citys commission, and black citizens filed suit against the city claiming that the citys at-large voting system violates the 15th Ams b/c it dilutes the blacks voting strength. o The court held there was no violation, stating that the 15th Am does not guarantee the right to have black candidates elected, rather prohibits only purposeful discriminatory denial or abridgment by the Govt of the freedom to vote on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.  Proof of a Discriminatory Effect Also required y Palmer v Thompson o A group of black citizens filed suit against the city claiming that its decision to close public pools due to desegregation violated the EPC. o The court held that even though the citys act was motivated by a discriminatory purpose it does not violate the EPC, b/c the decision to close the pools affected all citizens equally and no one group was more disadvantaged than another as a result  How is Discriminatory Purpose Proven? y Personnel Admin. of Mass v. Feeney

Female state eee filed suit against State after two less qualified men were promoted over her solely based on their status as veterans, even though Pl scored higher on civil service exams. The court held that a govt act must have been taken because of, not merely in spite of, its adverse effects upon an identifiable group, and mere awareness of an adverse impact is insufficient to prove discriminatory purpose.

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metro Housing o A real estate developer filed suit against a municipality claiming that its decision to deny a rezoning request for low income housing was racially discriminatory and in violation of the 14th Am. o The court held that, while proof that a discriminatory purpose was one motivating factor in the decision is sufficient to eliminate judicial deference accorded to the Govt action, here there was no circumstantial or direct evidence of intent.  Look for: leg/admin history, substantive or procedural departures from the norm.

o y

Do we need to know preemptory challenges (800) Introduction: The Problem of Remedies  Brown v Board of Education II y y After the first BROWN decision, SCOTUS determined here how to remedy school segregation. The court held that the District Courts are to employ their full equitable power to ensure and oversee the prompt and full implementation of the constitutional principles set forth therein. o If School district cannot start compliance promptly/reasonably, it caries the burden to prove need of more time upon request courts consider: physical condition of school, transportation of students, personnel. Judicial Power to Impose Remedies in School Desegregation Cases  Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Ed (Broadly defined remedial powers of federal courts) y Black students sought relief after a county failed to desegregate its schools in an expedient manner consistent with BROWN I (states may not . . . on basis of race).

Remedies: The Problem of School Segregation o

The court held that when school officials fail to comply with the constitutional principles announced in BROWN I, the Court may employ broad equitable powers to remedy the violation, the only limits of which are those contained in the Constitution.

Milliken v Bradley (limiting remedial power) y In an effort to remedy the de jure segregation of schools in one of many districts, school officials were ordered to submit desegregation plans for all districts, even though the other districts were not parties to the action, were not subjects of any constitutional violation claims, and there was no finding that the district at issue committed acts effecting segregation within the other districts.6 y The court held that a courts remedial power is not limitless, and before separate school district can be consolidated for remedial purposes, it must first be shown that there has been a constitutional violation within one district that produces a significant segregative effect in another district. (must show other district also violated the constitution)

When Should Federal Desegregation Remedies End?  Board of Ed. Of Oklahoma City Public Schools v. Dowell y Black students filed a claim seeking to reopen a desegregation case closed ten years earlier when it was shown that a unitary system had been achieved. y The court held that case could not be reopened b/c a desegregation decree should not be dissolved after local authorities have made sufficient showing of constitutional compliance with the court order. o  Recognizes the importance of local control over public school systems. Parents Involved in Comm Schools v Seattle School Dist.* (2007) y y Parents filed suit against school district that used race as a factor in assigning children to schools on equal protection grounds. The court held that use of a race as a factor in school assignments violates the EPC, unless used to remedy past segregation or used as one of a range of factors to promote diversity in higher education (only acceptable compelling interests for racial classification in schools)

Racial Classification Benefiting Minorities: Affirmative Action

De Jure Segregation: Segregation imposed or permitted by law.

Test For Affirmative Action    Strict Scrutiny What purposes for affirmative action programs are sufficient to meet the level of scrutiny (Croson) What techniques of affirmative action are sufficient to meet strict scrutiny (Grutter/Gratz)

The Emergence of Strict Scrutiny as the Test  Richmond v J.A. Croson Co (remedying past discrimination -> strict scrutiny)7 y After P lost its bid on a city project due to its inability to get bids from minority subcontractors, P challenged the citys ordinance requiring the use of 30% of minority subs on city projects. y The court held that while a Govt body has a compelling interest to remedy past discrimination it must be justified by particularized instances of prior discrimination. The Use of Race to Benefit Minorities in College and University Admission8  Grutter v Bollinger* (Edu. Diversity -> Compelling State interest) y A white law school applicant brought suit to challenge a law schools policy of relying on an applicants race in the admissions process. y the court held that racial classifications must be narrowly tailored to achieving a compelling Govt interest, and a law school may use race as one factor, among many, when admitting an otherwise eligible applicant, but not to meet a predetermined quota.  Gratz v Bollinger* (school admission) y After being denied admission, white college applicants filed suit against a university based on the schools admission scoring system which granted every minority candidate 20 points. y Awarding significant number of points to gain admission by virtue of minority status is not sufficiently narrowly tailored to further the compelling govt interest of racial and ethnic diversity.  Easley v Cromartie (racial gerrymandering) y The lower court found that the congressional districts boundaries were unconstitutionally established using race as a motive in the plan.

i.e. affirmative action programs set of actions designed to eliminate existing and

continuing discrimination, remedy lingering effects of past discrimination, and create systems to prevent future discrimination.
8

Applies to public schools only state action. Will not be tested on gerrymander

The court held that racial gerrymander claims require the plaintiff to show that the plan is unexplainable on grounds other than race

4. Gender Classifications9 The Level of Scrutiny: Intermediate scrutiny PLUS10 y y Gender classifications must serve important govt objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives (Boren), and Are valid only when there is an exceedingly persuasive justification. (US v Virginia) o The Emergence of Intermediate Scrutiny  Reed v Reed (PP 881) y Mother of deceased child claims a statute that prefers males over females in the administration of an estate to which they both have equal claims, violates the EPC. y  Gender Classifications must substantially advance an important govt interest in order to be upheld under EPC. (Reed v Reed) Frontiero v. Richardson (uses strict scrutiny not good law) y A female Air Force Eee sought increased benefits on the basis of her husband as a dependent, which were refused by Armed Services, which only allowed men to claim wives presumptively as dependents. y  Gender-based classifications, like racial classifications, must pass strict scrutiny. (not good law) Craig v. Boren* (Laws burdening men) y Based on statistical survey, and accident reports, a law had different drinking ages for men and women for consumption of 3.2% beer, and male under 21 and bar owner brought EPC claim. y Court stuck law down, holding that gender classifications must serve important govt objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objectives. o  Reports indicating DUI arrests differed merely 1.2%, did not test age-sex differences against increase in DUI US v. Virginia* (exceedingly persuasive justifications - a slightly higher bar just for gender) y Female applicant seeking admission to an all-male military public school, filed a claim against the state challenging the schools

For EPC analysis, always envision the one person that is bringing the claim, rather than EXAM: Some justices look for exceedingly persuasive justification, and some argue that

what society thinks.

this raises intermediate scrutiny closer to strict scrutiny.

policy against admitting women. There was no equal educational opportunity to that of VMI in the State for women. 11 y Gender-based classifications of the Govt can be defended only by exceedingly persuasive justifications to substantially further a Govt aim. y Proving the Existence of a Gender Classification (When Is It Discrimination) o Geduldig v. Aiello  Group of women filed a claim against CA challenging its disability insurance system b/c it denied benefits for pregnancy related disability due to the high costs associated with them.  Court upheld law, holding that underinclusive legislation is appropriate under the EPC so long as the line drawn by the State is rationally supportable, and here no risk from which men were protected excluded women. y Gender Classifications Benefitting Women o Gender Classification Based on Role Stereotypes  Orr v. Orr y A man in a divorce proceeding challenged a state law upon equal protection grounds which provided that only men could be required to pay alimony upon divorce. y The court struck down the law holding that requiring alimony upon divorce to women only does not further the Govts interest in providing financial assistance to needy spouses after divorce, b/c it does not apply to needy men.  Mississippi Univ for Women v. Hogan y y P brought EP claim after he was denied admission to University of Womens nursing program solely on the basis of gender. The court held that the state may not deny admission to males b/c a state may designate an education opportunity to members of only one-sex if the members of the fender benefited by the classification actually suffer a disadvantage related to the classification. o Dissent*: 1) lack of injury b/c P merely claimed inconvenience of traveling to a coed nursing school. Without injury a case is not ripe, and the constitutional issue may not be reached. 2) Female-only nursing school is no unique educational opportunity b/c there are nursing schools for men in the state.

11

VMIs pathway would not be equally available at a female-only military institute.

Michael M v Superior Court of Sonoma County* y y P was charged with statutory rape in CA, and claimed States statute discriminates unconstitutionally against men only. Upheld, a state may provide for punishment only for males to equalize deterrents to teenage pregnancy. o If equally applicable to women, it would promote underage women to seek abortions b/c pregnancy would result in automatic statutory rape charge. These are the sorts of reasons why gender is not subject to strict scrutiny.

Rostker v Goldberg y P brought suit, alleging the Military Selective Service Act violates EPC the MSSA requires all males between the ages 18 to 26 to register with the Selective Service. The purpose of the MSSA is to allow the armed services to select men in the event that a military draft is necessary. Women are not required to register with the Selective Service.

Gender Classifications Benefitting Women as a Remedy ASK KAT WHY COURT DISCUSSES TO WITHSTAND STRICT SCRUTINY UNDER EP Component of 5th AM due process clause. y Califano v. Webster o an equal protection claim was brought against the fed govt to challenge provisions of the Social Security Act that allowed women to increase their insurance benefits by excluding three more lowwage years than men. o The court upheld the law holding that the Govt had an important governmental objective to compensate women for past economic discrimination, and that the act works directly to remedy the effect of past discrimination. Classifications Benefiting Women Because of Biological Differences Between Men and Women y Nguyen v INS* y A Vietnamese-born child of an unmarried American man and Vietnamese woman faced deportation after two felony convictions, and challenged a law that would determine his citizenship on EP grounds b/c it demanded additional showings if the citizen parent was the father.  The court upheld the law holding that the statute is substantially related to the govts legitimate interest in ensuring the parent-child relationship exists before granting citizenship, and with mothers

the fact of birth establishes such a relationship, while with fathers additional steps are required to ensure paternity. 5. Alienage Classifications* Aliens are protected form discrimination because the EPC states that no person shall be denied equal protection of the law. Alienage Classifications refer to discrimination against non-citizens.12 Strict scrutiny is the general rule b/c alienage classifications look like racial classifications. y Strict Scrutiny as the General Rule o Graham v Richardson  A state law provided that welfare benefits could only be granted to citizens, and persons who have been residents for 15 years. A resident of less than 15 years challenged the law under EPC.  Could held that a law that denies welfare benefits to resident aliens and aliens who have not resided in the US for specified number of years violate the EPC. y o Note: also struck down b/c preempted by federal control over immigration Sugarman v Dougall   o A NY law prevented aliens from holding civil service jobs. Court held that a ban on employment of aliens in positions that have no relation to a states legitimate interest violate the EPC. In Re Griffiths   y A state law excluded aliens from being licensed attorneys. Court held that it was impermissible for states to require citizenship as a condition for practicing law. Exception: Rational Basis Review for Alienage Classifications Related to Self-Govt and the Democratic Process13 o The Supreme Court has said that a state may deny aliens the right to vote, or hold political office, or serve on juries. And where alienage classification relates to self-govt and the democratic process, rational basis review is applied. o Foley v Connelie (Governmental function exception)  A resident alien sought to challenge the denial of his admission to a state police force on the ground that the exclusion of aliens violated the EPC

12

Distinguishable from national origin classifications that discriminate against individuals b/c If it is local/state Govt more likely to receive strict scrutiny; whereas if federal Govt has

of the country that a person, or his ancestors came from.

the power to do something it may use it to restrict access of legal aliens to certain positions.

Court upheld law under rational basis test holding that a state may reserve for US citizens important non-elective govt positions in which officers participate directly in the formulation, execution or review of broad public policy.

Amback v Norwick (Governmental function exception)  Two resident alien women filed sit against NY seeking to invalidate a statute which restricted public school teacher certification to citizens of the US, unless they manifested an intent to apply for naturalization.  The court upheld the law under rational basis test holding that a state may reserve for US citizens public school teacher positions b/c a state may rationally conclude that teachers influence the attitudes of students toward the govt, political process, and civil duties.

Congressionally Approved Discrimination o The Supreme Court has held that the fed govts plenary power to control immigration requires judicial deference, thus only rational basis review is used if Congress or the President has created the alienage classification.

Undocumented Aliens and Equal Protection: Always Rational Basis o Plyler v Doe (court uses rational basis with a bite)  Undocumented alien children filed an EP challenge against Texas, aiming to invalidate a state law, which discriminated against undocumented alien children by denying them enrolment in public schools.  The court held that, while undocumented aliens are not a suspect class and education is not a fundamental right, a state may justify the denial of public education to undocumented children only upon a showing of a substantial state interest. y Rationale: Children will receive necessary vaccination upon entrance at school, Education will reduce crime rates, will help create workforce.

AB 1070: the issue is not whether pulling over illegal immigrant, but pulling over legal immigrants possibly on ethnic basis. 6. Discrimination Against Non-Marital Children intermediate scrutiny is applied in evaluating laws that discriminate against non-marital children. y y y Lolly v Lolly Laws denying benefits to all non-marital children Laws that provide benefit to some non-marital children

7. Other Types of Discrimination: Only Rational Basis Review

Age Classification o Massachusetts Board of Retirement v Murgia 

y y y

Discrimination Based on Disability o Almost always rational basis, except City of Cleyburn* i.e. Buffet Tax CA Supreme Court: Strict scrutiny to any distinction based on sexual orientation.14 Wealth Discrimination o Sexual Orientation: Rational Basis under Romer o

REVIEW W KAT o Only for EQUAL PROTECTION    Does the Govt intent to discriminate? 3 forms of intent to show which group is being treated differently go into scrutiny analysis y y y   strict intermediate rational

Intent manifests in 3 ways Has to show systematic, numerosity

14

EXAM: if exam refers to CA, mention that CA uses strict scrutiny.

Adams
Part IV: Reunion

2/4/2012 2:57:00 PM

The fourth episode shows John Adams being notified of the end of the Revolutionary War and the defeat of the British. He is then sent to Paris to negotiate the Treaty of Paris in 1783. While overseas, he spends time with Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson and Abigail visits him. Franklin informs John Adams that he was appointed as the first United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom and thus has to relocate to the British Court of St. James's. John Adams is poorly received by the British during this timehe is the representative for a recently hostile power, and represents in his person what many British at the time regarded as a disastrous end to its early Empire. He meets with his former sovereign, King George III, and while the meeting is not a disaster, he is excoriated in British newspapers. In 1789, he returns to Massachusetts for the first Presidential Election. When it was suggested that Adams should run for office, Abigail mentioned that he must at least be vice president. George Washington is elected the first President of the United States and John Adams as the first Vice President. Part V: Unite or Die The fifth episode begins with John Adams presiding over the Senate and the debate over what to call the new President. It depicts Adams as frustrated in this role: His opinions are ignored and he has no actual power, except in the case of a tied vote. He's excluded from George Washington's inner circle of cabinet members President Washington asked him to leave during a discussion with inner cabinet meeting, and asked Adams to refer to him as President only. And Adams relationships with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton are strained. Even Washington himself gently rebukes him for his efforts to "royalize" the office of the Presidency. Later, President Washington asks Adams to dine with him where they discuss the decision to remain neutral between Britain and France war. A French ambassador Janai requests of President Washington to side with France, and recruit Americans for the war, which George Washington refuses to do. Janai states that he will urge the American people to side with France. President W reaches out to Adams about Adams son to appoint him Minister to the Netherlands. A key event shown is the struggle to enact the Jay Treaty with Britain, which Adams himself must ratify before a deadlocked Senate (although historically his vote was not required). The episode concludes with his inauguration as the second presidentand his subsequent arrival in a plundered executive mansion. Adams acknowledges the greatness of former president Washington, and that he will uphold the constitution of the US. Thomas Jefferson becomes vice president. Part VI: Unnecessary War

The sixth episode covers Adams's term as president and the rift between the Hamilton-led Federalists and Jefferson-led Democratic-Republicans. Adams's neutrality pleases neither side and often angers both. His shaky relationship with his vice president, Thomas Jefferson, is intensified after taking defensive actions against the French because of failed diplomatic attempts and the signing of the Alien and Sedition Acts. However, Adams also alienates himself from the anti-French Alexander Hamilton after taking all actions possible to prevent a war with France. Adams disowns his son Charles, who soon dies as an alcoholic vagrant. Charles leaves his wife and child behind as a result of his addiction. Abigail agrees with Adams that he has been disgraceful but states that she cannot disowns him. Late in his Presidency, Adams sees success with his campaign of preventing a war with France, but his success is clouded after losing the presidential election of 1800. After receiving so much bad publicity while in office, Adams lost the election against his Vice-President, Thomas Jefferson, and runner-up Aaron Burr (both from the same party). This election is now known as the Revolution of 1800. Abigail receives a letter that Charles has died, and gives the news to Adams, who claims that he will not forgive him- Abigail says that their son was no mans enemy. When Jefferson tied with Aaron Burr, and while Congress was still counting the votes, Jefferson told Adams that he could decide the outcome, but Adams stated that this is a matter for Congress to decide. Adams leaves the Presidential Palace (now known as The White House), retiring to his personal life in Massachusetts, in March 1801.

Part VII: Peacefield The final episode covers Adams's retirement years. His home life is full of pain and sorrow as his daughter, Nabby, dies of breast cancer and Abigail succumbs to typhoid fever. Adams does live to see the election of his son, John Quincy, as president, but is too ill to attend the inauguration. Adams and Jefferson are reconciled through correspondence in their last years, and both die mere hours apart on the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (4th July); Jefferson was 83, Adams was 90.

2/4/2012 2:57:00 PM

CHAPTER 8 Fundamental Rights Under Due Process and Equal Protection 1. Intro (p 943)    Concept of Fundamental Rights 9th Am Procedural Due Process

4. Analyzing Fundamental Rights             Is there a fundamental Right? Is the Constitutional Right Infringed? Is there sufficient Justification for the Govts Infringement? Is the Means Sufficiently Related to the Purpose? The Right to Marry Loving v. Virginia  Stanley v. Illinois  Michael H. v. Gerald D. The Right to Keep the Family Together Moore v City of East Cleveland The Right of Parents to Control the Upbringing of Their Children Meyer v Nebraska         Pierce v Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus & Mary Troxel v Granville 6. Constitutional Protection for Reproductive Autonomy The Right to Procreate Buck v Bell  Skinner v Oklahoma The Right to Purchase and Use Contraceptives Griswold v Connecticut  The Right to Abortion Recognition and Reaffirmation     Roe v Wade Planned Parenthood v Casey Government Regulation of Abortions Gonzales v Carhart Eisenstadt v Baird Zablocki v Redhail The Right to Custody of Ones Children

5. Constitutional Protection for Family Autonomy

            

Govt Restrictions on Funds and Facilities for Abortions Maher v Roe Harris v McRae Spousal Consent and Notice Requirement Planned Parenthood v Danforth Planned Parenthood v Casey Parental Notice and Consent Requirements Bellotti v Baird

7. Constitutional Protection for Medical Care Decisions Right to Refuse Treatment Cruzan v Director, Missouri Dept of Health Right to Physician-Assisted Suicide Washington v Glusksberg Vacco v. Quill

8. Constitutional Protection for Sexual Orientation and Sexual Activity 9. Lawrence v Texas 10.Constitutional Protection for Control over Info 11. Whalen v Roe 12.Constitutional Protection for Travel 13. Saenz v Roe 14.The Right to Vote 15.Restrictions 16. Harper v Virginia State Board of Elections 17. Kramer v Union Free School District 18. Ball v James 19. Crawford v Marion County Election Board 20.Dilution of the Right to Vote 21. Reynolds v Sins 22. Wesberry v Sanders 23.Counting Uncounted Votes in a Presidential Election: Bush v Gore 24. Bush v Gore 25.Constitutional Protection for Access to Courts 26. Boddie v Connecticut 27. US v Kras 28. MLB v SLJ 29. Bounds v Smith 30. Lewis v Casey

2/4/2012 2:57:00 PM