|
I am fascinated with constitutional law. I have come up with three fictional constitutional cases that might be interesting to talk about.
Tell me what you think about each case.
#1: A muslim student, Mohammed, a senior at a public New England high school is participating in a chorus as part of his school's requirement that a student take a credit of "fine arts" before graudating. As part of the class, a student is required to perform in concerts open to the public. For one concert, the instructor, Mr. Jones, selects certain musical pieces, including "Just a Closer Walk With Thee," and "Let Us Break Bread Together." These are pieces with overt Christian themes. Mohammed refuses to sing them on religious grounds. Mr. Jones thinks he is overreacting and, when the student walks out of the concert, the teacher gives him an F. Since it is the last semester before graduation, if the "F" stands, Mohammed will not graduate.
Mohammed sues the school district. he claims:
1. Forcing him to sing Christian songs violates the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment (and to a lesser extent, his freedom of speech). By being forced to sing these songs, he will have to profess religous beliefs he does not hold.
2. For a teacher to have students sing religious songs violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The performance of the songs gives credence to the ideas within them. The children singing them and the audience hearing them will believe that the government favors those ideas. therefore, it will have the effect of indoctrinating children in the christian religion.
Mr. Jones responds as follows:
1. No one in the audience expects that children singing these songs actually hold these beliefs. People sing songs about other people's experiences, ideas all the time. We all know Mohammed is a muslim, and he would still be a muslim, even if he sang the song. We are not forcing him to give up Islam.
2. We sing these songs because they represent a certain style of music, one that happened to be predominately christian. We have done this before (before mohammed joined the class) with other religious music, including Hindu hymns. The school may, according to the first amendment, teach about religious matters in their historical context, without making a judgement about their validity. We are simply presenting a style of music, nowhere do we say the content of the songs present CORRECT ideas. the government is not favoring chrstianity.
Should Mohammed have to take his "F"?
-------------------------------------------------
#2 Mary is an 18 year old freshman at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire. (in the state of NH, a legal adult is 18, the drinking age is 21) She is an honor student, and a champion ice hockey player. At a local restaurant, her 22 year old friend brings her a drink that he purchased at the bar. A policeman working undercover, notices her receiving the drink. after he sees her take a sip, he walks up to them at the table, identifies himself as police, and asks for her ID. She tells him she "forgot it at home". he asks for her name and address, which she provides. He finds out from the college database that she is only 18 and therefore underage. He then serves her with a citation for "minor in posession" or MIP. It is a fine for $200. (What the police does with her friend is irrelevant) She refuses to pay it. Instead she files a motion in court to throw out the fine.
Mary argues as follows:
1. To deny an 18 year old the freedom to possess alcohol is a violation of the 14th amendments guarantee of equal protection. the government has denied ONLY the class of adults age 18-20 the freedom to drink. The government lacks ANY rational basis for this discrimination. If an 18 year old is responsible enough, according to the state of NH, to buy cigarettes, watch porn, get married, fight in the army, it's illogical to say that they can't possess alcohol.
the state of New Hampshire responds as follows:
1. The government has a rational basis for having the age at 21. the government has a responsibility to keep the roadways safe, statistics have shown that 18-20 year olds are less responsible and less experienced behind the wheel than adults. Also, the inconvenience is not that bad, because Mary will only have to wait three years, till she turns 21, and the so-called injsutice will be remedied. Allowing mary access to alcohol will infringe on a government purogative to protect minor children. high school kids will have a much greater access to alcohol if the age is 18, becuase more of their older friends will be able to buy it. Also, the state will lose federal highway funds if it lowers the drinking age, pursuant to the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, signed by Ronald "states rights" Reagan in 1984.
Should Mary have to pay the fine?
---------------------------------------------------------
#3 Joe is a mechanic. He makes barely enough to support himself. One night after work, he goes to a club, where he meets Kathy, an insurance adjustor. Both are in their 30s. After dancing at the club and drinking, Joe takes Kathy to his appartment and they have protected sex using a condom. During sex, the condom breaks. this freaks both of them out. A few weeks later, Kathy discovers she is pregnant. This upsets joe, because Joe CANNOT afford to support a child. He counsels Kathy to get an abortion. Kathy responds that she doesn't believe abortion is right, and it is her sacrosant choice to have this child and care for it. It will be her atonement for her carelessness the night she went to the club, she reasons. She tells Joe that he must atone for his carelessness as well. He must find a way to pay child support. the next day, joe contacts a "men's rights" group. They offer to pay for a legal counsel if he would be willing to sue to divest himself of paternal responsiblity (which means he won't be responsible for the chlid, or have to pay child support). He agrees. When the court hears his suit, the judge laughs at him and denies his motion. Joe appeals.
Joe argues as follows:
1. Forcing Joe to support a child he does not wish to have violates his right to privacy under the 14th amendment, as explained by Griswold v. Connecticut, and Roe v. Wade. the right to abortion translates to a right to refuse to become a parent. Kathy, by having an abortion, can refuse parenthood. Joe has no way to force Kathy to abort (and he DOES NOT ask for that power) and therefore, must become a parent against his will, having no other recourse. By denying joes motion, the court is essentially "preventing him from having an 'abortion'."
2. To force men to have a child, and allow women the option of not having a child violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. A right is given to women that is denied to men. It does not serve an important government interest to force men to support children they cannot or do not want to. this is the same thing as forcing a woman to bear a child against her will.
Kathy responds:
1. Women have abortion rights because we have the unique joy/burden of bearing children phsyically. It has nothing to do with simply refusing parenthood. It has to do with women retaining control over her own body. Since men's bodies do not enter into the equation, he has no privacy rights in this matter. If Joe didn't want to become a parent, he should have thought of that before agreeing to sex.
2. The Court recognizes that the genders are inherently different in some ways, that is why the Constitution allows more sex discrimination than it does racial or religious discrimination. Becuase women have the unique ability to bear children, of course the govenrment needs to treat men and women differently. Since Joe's body is not involved, but Kathy's is, the government can treat joe and Kathy differently.
Should Joe be forced to support the child?
---------------------------------------------
I hope this isn't too dense. I think they'll raise some great issues!
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
