Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Abortion (1)
- Baker v. State (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights (1)
- Common Benefits Clause (1)
-
- Constitutional jurisprudence (1)
- Constitutional scholarship (1)
- Dicta (1)
- General Law (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- Law school curriculum (1)
- Legal Analysis and Writing (1)
- Legal Education (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Narrtive (1)
- New Judicial Federalism (1)
- Same-sex marriage (1)
- State constitutional law (1)
- Vermont (1)
- Women (1)
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Baker V. State And The Promise Of The New Judicial Federalism, Charles Baron, Lawrence Friedman
Charles H. Baron
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution’s Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores …
Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo
Deadly Dicta: Roe’S “Unwanted Motherhood”, Gonzales’S “Women’S Regret” And The Shifting Narrative Of Abortion Jurisprudence, Stacy A. Scaldo
Stacy A Scaldo
For thirty-four years, the narrative of Supreme Court jurisprudence on the issue of abortion was firmly focused on the pregnant woman. From the initial finding that the right to an abortion stemmed from a constitutional right to privacy[1], through the test applied and refined to determine when that right was abridged[2], to the striking of statutes found to over-regulate that right[3], the conversation from the Court’s perspective maintained a singular focus. Pro-life arguments focusing on the fetus as the equal or greater party of interest were systematically pushed aside by the Court.[4] The consequences of an unwanted pregnancy, or as …