Loving v Virginia

Background- Interracial couple get married in the District of Columbia, and then they returned to Virginia. Couple tried with violation of the law in Virginia against interracial couples. Then they were found guilty and sent to both spend a year in jail.


Issue- Does the Virginia law against interracial marriages violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment?


Decision- 9-0 in favor of Loving


Opinion- I believe the law was unconstitutional as well according to the equal protection clause because not only did this law cause direct discrimination but it applied to the general public and was not on an individual basis. When the law is applied to the "Rational Purpose Test" is comes no where near to passing. Freedom to marry is a fundamental right given to both blacks and whites by the constitution.

Gonzales v Carhart

Gonzales v Carhart 

Background- 2003 President Bush signed Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act. Carhart, a doctor among others who preformed late term abortions, sued to stop the act from going into affect. They claim it was unconstitutional due to the "undue burden" on the right to abortion. They also claim that the act was to broad towards what kinds of abortions and towards what conditions an abortion is legal.

Issue- Is this Act a constitutional violation towards personal liberty under the fifth amendment and are abortions necessary to protect the mothers health?


Decision- 5 to 4 in favor of Gonzales 


Opinion- I believe the act was constitutionally vague/ unconstitutional because it didn't specify under what circumstances an abortion could be preformed, and that no type of abortion that is banned can be inferred. According to Stenberg v. Carhart even though abortions are never medically necessary they are still legal. 

Atkins v Virginia

Background- Jones and Atkins (18 years old) both on the night of August 16, 1996 around midnight abducted Eric Nesbitt. They stole over $200 and after taking Nesbitt to an isolated location shot him repeatedly. When taken into custody, the men's stories were both different and the shooter wasn't confirmed. Until, Atkins cell mate, to whom Atkins confessed to about shooting Nesbitt, told the police. Jones testified for a life sentence against Atkins. Atkins was sentenced to death.

Issue- Can mentally retarded people be candidate for the death penalty, or is it cruel and unusual?

Decision- 6 Atkins, 3 against. Execution of the mentally retarded is cruel and unusual according to the evolving standards of decency; therefore, making that punishment excessive.

In my opinion I think that the death penalty should be ordered according to the crime and if the person is an extreme danger to the public. It should not be based on if a person is mentally ill or not because all people have enough power to take a life or multiple. This ability though is only used by murderers or people in self defense and it is a consious decision that even the mentally retarded people have an ability to make. Coker v Georgia and Enmund v Florida both state that certain crimes that are committed are not probable cause for the death penalty but none of them address ones state of mind; therefore, it is not unconstitutional because it is not excessive according to the crime.