In the University of California vs. Bakke case, the court validated the admission of Bakke. The ruling disregarded the university’s policy that allotted 16 positions to students who belonged to minority groups. I disagree with the majority’s decision because it allowed political interference to set principles for learning institutions. In addition, the decision upheld the constitutionalism of affirmative action. I also disagree with the decision because it enhanced the affirmative action plans adopted by different institutions. The ruling gave institutions the authority to incorporate the issue of race in their admission criteria.
specifically for you
for only $16.05 $11/page
Finally, the decision made it difficult for students from minority groups to gain admission into certain schools. According to the ruling, cases of past explicit discrimination against minority groups would not be used as a basis for the admission of students into any institution. The court should have considered the adverse effects of racial discrimination on university admission opportunities for students from minority groups.
In the United States vs. Virginia case, the court ruled that the Virginia Military Institute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment through its Sex-based admission policy. I agree with the majority’s decision because the ruling offered women equal opportunities similar to those enjoyed by men. The sex-based admission policy was both discriminatory and unconstitutional. Women should get equal opportunities as men do, and gender should not be used as an excuse to deny them opportunities. Finally, the admission policy was unconstitutional because it was a direct violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection doctrine prohibits states from denying any individual equal protection under their governing laws. Based on this doctrine, I would support the proposed amendment because it would eradicate any possibility of giving favors or making exemptions based on aspects such as religion, gender, sexual orientation, or race. The amendment would give all individuals equal opportunities to excel in all undertakings. In addition, it would eliminate any form of discrimination or segregation in making crucial decisions that involve employment, admission, or provision of organizational services.
There is no explicit constitutional protection of the right to privacy because there is a lack of a clause that addresses the issue. However, different courts have dealt with the issue by establishing certain privacy rights that individuals should enjoy. Non-originalists have interpreted the guarantee of liberty to citizens by the Fourteenth Amendment to imply protection of privacy. They argue that the amendment protects privacy because it deals with matters such as marriage, termination of medical treatment, child-rearing, and reproduction. Therefore, the constitution provides implicit protection of privacy under different amendments and the Bill of Rights.
The constitution offers certain legal foundations for privacy protection. I believe that the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amendment provide the necessary protection for people’s right to privacy. Amendment I protects the privacy of beliefs, Amendment III protects the privacy of homes, while Amendment IV protects the privacy of individuals and their possessions. There might be a lack of an explicit privacy protection clause in the constitution. However, several legal bases contained in the constitution protect the privacy of individuals in different situations and circumstances.
In the Griswold vs. Connecticut case, the court ruled that the state of Connecticut had violated the right to privacy, which was protected by the constitution. The Connecticut law prohibited the use of contraceptives by married couples, thus infringing on the right to marital privacy. The court maintained that the Bill of Rights, and the First, Third, Fourth, as well as the Ninth Amendments, protected the right to marital privacy.
100% original paper
on any topic
done in as little as
The justices ruled that the law was illogical because it required couples to desist from using contraceptives. I think that the decision was right and valid because married couples should have the freedom to use a contraception method of their choice to prevent conception. The 14th Amendment protects the right of individuals to privacy. On the other hand, the Ninth amendment stops any institution or entity from denying individuals any right that is not specified in the constitution. The government had no jurisdiction in interfering with the private marital affairs of couples to determine whether they were using contraceptives. Such matters should be left to the discretion of couples.
I think that the United States should not have another constitutional convention. A convention is attended by states through representation by legislative members. As such, states would be certified as members of the convention through their representatives. This would deny citizens an opportunity to take part directly in the convention. Decisions would be made by a small portion of the population on behalf of millions of citizens.
In the case of amendments through a constitutional convention, the authority of the Congress in deciding the ratification procedure would prevail. I think that a convention is not needed because Article V of the constitution does not clearly define the roles of a constitutional convention. The constitution does not contain provisions to regulate the activities of the convention. Therefore, I think it would do more harm than good.