POL303: The American Constitution

Respond to Peers: Respond to at least two of your classmates’ posts by Day 7. In your responses to your peers of at least 200 words, extend the conversation by examining their claims or arguments in more depth or by responding to the posts that they make to you. Keep the discussion on target and try to analyze things in as much detail as you can. For instance, analyze your classmate’s discussion of the politics surrounding this ruling by the Supreme Court.  Does their argument reflect their own political biases?  Why or why not? Also, support your analysis with examples from the required material(s) and/or other scholarly resources, and properly cite any references. 



what is one constitutionally based argument that asserts the Supreme Court justices correctly interpreted the equal protection clause from the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments in the DOMA case?






On September 21, 1996, President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). DOMA declares that states do not have to give full faith and credit to marriages of same-sex couples performed in other states, and also provides that the federal government will not recognize such marriages. DOMA had put Clinton in an election-year dilemma. DOMA was introduced in Congress in response to a Hawaii Supreme Court decision, Baehr v. Lewin, which will most likely result in the legalization of marriages between persons of the same sex in Hawaii(www.nesl.edu). Hawaii was the first state to allow same-sex marriage. Congress declared that the purpose of DOMA was to order other states form recognizing same-sex marriages that started in Hawaii and to prevent same-sex marriages from becoming eligible for federal entitlements (www.nesl.edu). Also according to the article, many have argued that DOMA is unconstitutional under the Full Faith and Credit Clause, the purpose of this Note is to analyze the constitutionality of DOMA under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause in the wake of Romer v. Evans.






What is one constitutionally based argument that asserts the Supreme Court justices incorrectly interpreted the equal protection clause from the Fifth and/or Fourteenth Amendments in the DOMA case?


There is the case United States v. Windsor. State of New York recognizes the marriage of New York residents Edith Windsor and Thea Spyer, who wed in Ontario, Canada, in 2007. Spyer died in 2009 and left everything to Windsor. Widsor was barred from claiming the estate by federal defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Which means- a law providing rules of construction for over 1,000 federal laws and the whole realm of federal regulations—to define “marriage” and “spouse” as excluding same-sex partners. Windsor contacted DOMA saying that violates the principles of equal protection incorporated in the Fifth Amendment. There was a ruling and the United States lost and was ordered to refund Windsor’s tax with interest (www.law.corell.edu).




Explain which argument is the most credible, reliable, and valid. Why?




I think that United States v. Windsor is. They were against same-sex marriages and felt the need to step in and try to take something from someone all because they are of the same sex. She was unlawfully treated in the matter.









Basic features
  • Free title page and bibliography
  • Unlimited revisions
  • Plagiarism-free guarantee
  • Money-back guarantee
  • 24/7 support
On-demand options
  • Writer’s samples
  • Part-by-part delivery
  • Overnight delivery
  • Copies of used sources
  • Expert Proofreading
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)