1. The Last Word: 14 th questions due Friday; test Monday FrontPage: NOT an FP. You dropped food on the floor…should you eat it?

2. Washington vs. Glucksberg (1997)  Dr. Harold Glucksberg, a physician—along with four other physicians, three terminally ill patients, and the non-profit organization, Compassion in Dying, counseling those considering assisted-suicide—challenged Washington state's ban against assisted suicide in the Natural Death Act of 1979.  They claimed that assisted suicide was a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth (and the Fourteenth) Amendment to the United States Constitution.  Question Presented: Whether the protection of the Due Process Clause included a right to commit suicide, and therefore commit suicide with another's assistance.  Does the Constitution (anywhere) make mention of a “right” to physician-assisted suicide?  No, it makes no mention of this “right”.  On the other hand, does the Constitution give the government the power to limit this “right”?

3. Washington vs. Glucksberg (1997)  The Decision:  The Court held that because assisted-suicide is not a fundamental liberty interest, it was not protected under the 14th Amendment.  Assisted-suicide, the court found, had been frowned upon for centuries and a majority of the States had similar bans on assisted suicide. Rehnquist found the English common-law penalties associated with assisted suicide particularly significant.  The Court felt that the ban was rational in that it furthered such compelling state interests as the preservation of human life and the protection of the mentally ill and disabled from medical malpractice and coercion. It also prevented those moved to end their lives because of financial or psychological complications. The Court also felt that if the Court declared physician-assisted suicide a constitutionally protected right, they would start down the path to voluntary and perhaps involuntary euthanasia.  The Effect: PAS is not a “right”…

4. Oregon vs. Gonzales (2005)  In 1994 Oregon enacted the Death with Dignity Act, the first state law authorizing physicians to prescribe lethal doses of controlled substances to terminally ill patients.  Attorney General John Ashcroft declared in 2001 that physician-assisted suicide violated the federal Controlled Substances Act, and that he would prosecute doctors under the federal law. Oregon challenged this action by the government. Question Presented: Does the Constitution guarantee the “right to die” (right of states to make laws allowing physician-assisted suicide)?  No, it makes no mention of this “right”.  On the other hand, does the Constitution give the government the power to limit this “right”?

5. Oregon vs. Gonzales (2005)  The Supreme Court determined that the federal government’s actions were.. Unconstitutional  Effect of the decision:  Oregon’s assisted suicide law was allowed to stand; the Court essentially said that states could legislate either way.  **To this day, only 5 “jurisdictions” in the world allow for euthanasia  Oregon, Washington, Montana, Belgium and the Netherlands.  PA and 46 other states have laws that make physician- assisted suicide essentially the same as a murder.

6. The Constitution and “equality”  Is “equality” mentioned anywhere in the original text of the Constitution?  Where/when does the idea that all Americans (or people) are equal first appear?  When does the idea first make it into the Constitution?  What was the purpose of this amendment?  Are all people treated “equally” in the US?  Do they have to be?

7. Are all Americans equal?

8. The Fourteenth Amendment  Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

9. The Equal Protection Clause “nor shall any state…deny to any person …the equal protection of the laws.”  In your own words, what does “equal protection” mean?  Does government always treat people the same?  What is it called when government treats people differently based on their characteristics?  When are these kinds of distinctions acceptable?

10. Testing Equal Protection  Just like many of the rights we’ve discussed so far, the Supreme Court has developed “tests” to determine when a law or government is unreasonable, and violates the Equal Protection Clause  Though there are several different “tests”, they are easy to think of in a kind of ascending order.

11. To determine which test might be applied in a case…or, how do the tests work?  First, ask:  What is the criteria/basis for the distinction?  Does the law/action discriminate based on race, gender, age, etc, or does it concern a “fundamental right”  This will determine the test  Higher level test means that, in the judge’s mind, the group that is discriminating (college, state government, organization) has MORE of a burden to prove a good reason…  Lower level test means, in the judge’s mind, the group that is discriminating has a LOWER burden to prove a good reason for the distinction

12. Testing Equal Protection  Fundamental Rights – HIGHEST  Any law which restricts a certain group’s ability to exercise their most basic rights, including the right to vote, travel freely, due process or expression, is subject to the HIGHEST SCRUTINY (closest look)  Suspect Classification – 2 nd HIGHEST  If a law or government action draws a distinction based on race, religion or national origin, will be given a very close look as well, but the burden of proof is not quite as high as with Fund. Rights  Intermediate Scrutiny – mid level  For laws that classify based on gender.  Rational Basis –  the lowest level of scrutiny; the government must only prove that the law has a rational basis (good reason) and that it accomplishes that goal.

14. Homework: Test Monday FrontPage: Have research questions on the 14 th out. “Rolling Through The Bay” is an abstract toothpick sculpture of San Francisco. It has about 100,000 of toothpicks. The amazing part, is that it has four ping pong ball paths that roll through different landmarks of San Francisco. I have spent about 3000 hours on it over a period of 34 years and the only glue I use is Elmer’s.

15. Loving vs. Virginia Question:  Did Virginia's anti-miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion:  Yes. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that distinctions drawn according to race were generally "odious to a free people" and were subject to "rigid scrutiny" under the Equal Protection Clause.  The Virginia law, the Court found, had no legitimate purpose "independent of invidious racial discrimination." The Court rejected the state's argument that the statute was legitimate because it applied equally to both blacks and whites

16. Gratz vs. Bollinger Question:  Does the Michigan's use of racial preferences in undergraduate admissions violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Conclusion:  Yes. In a 6-3 opinion, the Court reasoned that the automatic distribution of 20 points, or one-fifth of the points needed to guarantee admission, to every single "underrepresented minority" applicant solely because of race was unconstitutional.

17. Boy Scouts vs. Dale Question:  Did the Boy Scouts violate Dale’s rights under the Equal Protection clause? Conclusion:  No. In a 5-4 opinion, the Court held that "requiring the Boy Scouts to admit Dale violates the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association."  In effect, the ruling gives the Boy Scouts of America a constitutional right to bar homosexuals from serving as troop leaders.  Chief Justice Rehnquist wrote for the Court that, "[t]he Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill…”

18. US vs. VMI Question:  Does Virginia’s refusal to accept a woman into its all-male academy violate the equal protection clause of the 14 th amendment? Conclusion:  Yes. In a 7-to-1 decision, the Court held that VMI's male-only admissions policy was unconstitutional. Because it failed to show "exceedingly persuasive justification" for VMI's gender-biased admissions policy, Virginia violated the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause.  Virginia's creation of VWIL could not offer women the same benefits as VMI offered men. The VWIL would not provide women with the same rigorous military training, faculty, courses, facilities, financial opportunities, or alumni reputation and connections that VMI affords its male cadets.

19. Would you consider this law constitutional, or does it infringe on the rights of Americans?  California’s Proposition 8 (now part of its constitution)  Section I. Title  This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act." Section 2. Article I.  Section 7.5 is added to the California Constitution, to read:  Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  Could this law be challenged on constitutional grounds?