This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to tradition and morality:
1) Michael H. v. Gerald D. ruled that a California law presuming a child born to a married woman was a child of the marriage did not violate the biological father's due process rights.
2) Washington v. Glucksberg upheld Washington state's ban on physician-assisted suicide.
3) Poe v. Ullman involved a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
4) Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriages.
The Law of the United Nations as Applied to Intervention Within the Frame Work of Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Un Charter: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Cases to Establish the Underpinning Reality of the Danger of the Principles of Sovereign Equality and Domestic Jurisdiction Against Un Mandate for Total Humanity's Peaceful Co - Existence and Prosperity.
This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to tradition and morality:
1) Michael H. v. Gerald D. ruled that a California law presuming a child born to a married woman was a child of the marriage did not violate the biological father's due process rights.
2) Washington v. Glucksberg upheld Washington state's ban on physician-assisted suicide.
3) Poe v. Ullman involved a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
4) Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriages.
This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to tradition and morality:
1) Michael H. v. Gerald D. ruled that a California law presuming a child born to a married woman was a child of the marriage did not violate the biological father's due process rights.
2) Washington v. Glucksberg upheld Washington state's ban on physician-assisted suicide.
3) Poe v. Ullman involved a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
4) Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriages.
This document discusses several Supreme Court cases related to tradition and morality:
1) Michael H. v. Gerald D. ruled that a California law presuming a child born to a married woman was a child of the marriage did not violate the biological father's due process rights.
2) Washington v. Glucksberg upheld Washington state's ban on physician-assisted suicide.
3) Poe v. Ullman involved a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.
4) Loving v. Virginia legalized interracial marriages.
there w)s no "g)dget which the Court c)n use to determine *14 wh)t tr)ditions )re rooted" in the conscience of the people. [FN86] #. he tr)dition)lism deb)te continued, with ) new p)rticip)nt )dding his views when Justice Sc)li) joined the Court in 1986. [FN115] Of speci)l interest is his opinion in Mich)el H. v. Ger)ld D., in which the Court ruled th)t ) C)liforni) l)w presuming th)t ) child born to ) m)rried wom)n w)s ) child of the m)rri)ge did not viol)te the due process rights of the child's biologic)l f)ther (who w)s not m)rried to the mother )nd sought p)rent)l )nd visit)tion rights). [FN116] Writing for ) plur)lity, Sc)li) decl)red th)t the purpose of the Due Process Cl)use "is to prevent future gener)tions from lightly c)sting )side import)nt tr)dition)l v)lues--not to en)ble this Court to invent new ones." [FN117] He )sked whether the rel)tionship between the biologic)l f)ther )nd the child "h)d been tre)ted )s ) protected f)mily unit under the historic pr)ctices of our society" or "h)s been )ccorded speci)l protection. We think it impossible to find th)t i S. In ) footnote joined only by Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Sc)li) set forth ) specific methodology governing the identific)tion of the pertinent )nd )pplic)ble tr)dition in due process c)ses. "We refer to the most specific level )t which ) relev)nt tr)dition protecting, or denying protection to, the )sserted right c)n be identified." [FN123] Consulting the most specific tr)dition is necess)ry, in his view, bec)use "gener)l tr)ditions provide such imprecise guid)nce . . . [)nd] permit judges to dict)te r)ther *20 th)n discern the society's views." [FN124] Sc)li) concluded th)t ") rule of l)w th)t binds neither by text nor by )ny p)rticul)r tr)dition is no rule of l)w )t )ll [. Being cogniz)nt of tr)dition me)ns being )w)re of est)blished structures of soci)l life, conventions, )nd pr)ctices [FN163] communic)ted to others who m)y ")ccept beliefs )nd )dopt customs )nd pr)ctices bec)use of institution)l )uthority." [FN164] a. The oper)tive tr)dition is th)t which )rises from en)cted l)ws, l)ws th)t set leg)l, soci)l, economic, politic)l )nd other b)selines. This "source of tr)dition is l)rgely m)jorit)ri)n" [FN171] )nd does not recognize the views, pr)ctices, )nd beliefs of "the few, the eccentric, the outc)st, the m)rgin)lized." b. W)shington v. Glucksberg. [FN145] There, the Court held th)t the st)te of W)shington's prohibition of physici)n-)ssisted suicide viol)ted the Fourteenth Amendment. [FN146] In his opinion for the Court, Chief Justice Rehnquist, )s he h)d done in previous c)ses, turned to history )nd leg)l tr)ditions )nd pr)ctices. "In )lmost every St)te--indeed, in )lmost every western democr)cy-- it is ) crime to )ssist ) suicide." [FN147] Suicide )nd )ssisting th)t )ct were dis)pproved )nd punished by "the Anglo-Americ)n common l)w tr)dition," he wrote, citing Henry de Br)cton's thirteenth- century tre)tise )nd Bl)ckstone's Comment)ries. [FN148] The Americ)n colonies )dopted this view )nd "coloni)l )nd e)rly st)te legisl)tures )nd courts did not retre)t from prohibiting )ssisting suicide." [FN149] "By the time *23 the Fourteenth Amendment w)s r)tified, it w)s ) crime in most St)tes to )ssist ) suicide," the Model Pen)l Code prohibited )ssisted suicide, )nd the b)n h)d been gener)lly re)ffirmed by voters )nd legisl)tors. [FN150] e. Where)s convention)l mor)lity concerns consensus oblig)tions, critic)l mor)lity concerns contending v)lues . . . . Mor)l progress, such )s women's suffr)ge )nd the )bolition of sl)very, occurs when people )dvoc)ting controversi)l v)lues g)in politic)l power )nd eventu)lly succeed in cre)ting ) consensus in f)vor of their views. [FN260 h. For H.L.A. H)rt, enforcing "convention)l sexu)l mor)lity" through the crimin)l l)w, "where there is no h)rm to be prevented )nd no potenti)l victim to be protected," [FN270] w)s problem)tic: "[I]t is difficult to underst)nd the )ssertion th)t conformity, even if motiv)ted merely by fe)r of the l)w's punishment, is ) v)lue worth pursuing, notwithst)nding the misery )nd s)crifice of freedom which it involves." i. According to devlin , prohibition of homosexu)lity is ) v)lid enforcement of sexu)l mor)lity. !j. Ger)ld vs Mich)el- child born to ) m)rried wom)n considered child of m)rri)ge does not viol)te due process rights of the biologic)l f)ther !!. W)shington vs Glucksberg- physici)n )ssisted suicide prohibition is viol)tive of fourteenth )mmendment !#. Poe vs ulm)n- Conneticut l)w prohibition use of contr)ceptives !S. Loving vs Virgini)- interr)ci)l m)rri)ges upheld
The Law of the United Nations as Applied to Intervention Within the Frame Work of Article 2, Paragraph 7 of the Un Charter: A Comparative Analysis of Selected Cases to Establish the Underpinning Reality of the Danger of the Principles of Sovereign Equality and Domestic Jurisdiction Against Un Mandate for Total Humanity's Peaceful Co - Existence and Prosperity.