Government Questions/Answers

Submitted by: Submitted by

Views: 137

Words: 302

Pages: 2

Category: Other Topics

Date Submitted: 10/08/2013 09:32 AM

Report This Essay

1.) Explain how the Supreme Court determined that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to privacy?

Many amendments in the Constitution imply rights to privacy. The first amendment provides privacy of association, the third amendment provides privacy from quartering of soldiers, and the fourth amendment provides privacy from unwarranted searches and seizures. The right to privacy was also applied to abortion rights (Roe vs. Wade)

2.) Briefly discuss the background of the case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003). What was the majority opinion in this case? What constitutional question was answered?

Police responding to a weapons disturbance case accidentally walked in on Lawrence and his male partner engaging in consensual intercourse. Previously, in 1986, sexual intercourse between homosexuals was ruled to not be protected by the Constitution, so therefore, Lawrence was charged with “deviate sexual intercourse”. The majority opinion in the case was that Lawrence’s act was performed in the privacy of his own home and it was completely consensual, did not involve minors, and was not prostitution, so therefore it was okay. He stated that “It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.”

3.) Justice Scalia dissented in this case. Explain the reasons he gave for his dissent. Was he demonstrating judicial activism or judicial restraint? Explain.

Justice Scalia makes the argument that by changing the law from the Bowers case, the Court is working against Texas’ state interests and that the Court should be a neutral force instead of one that enforces moral laws, which was the reason Justice Stevens voted against the majority in the Bowers case. Scalia demonstrated judicial restraint by sticking with the notion that homosexual behavior is not protected in the Constitution and it is not the Court’s job to protect it.