Law Commons^™

Obergefell’S Prescription: Why The Fourteenth Amendment Trumps State Employees’ Free Exercise Claims, Douglas B. Mckechnie

ConLawNOW

Soon after the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges, some elected officials and civil servants objected to the requirement that same-sex couples be offered marriage licenses. In particular, they argued that a government employee whose job duties include issuing marriage licenses cannot be forced to do so if it would violate his or her religion’s dictates. This piece argues that position is unavailing as it ignores the jurisprudence construing the free exercise clause of the First Amendment as well as the mandate created by the Court’s interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment in Obergefell.

Toward A Judicial Bulwark Against Constitutional Extravagance - A Proposed Constitutional Amendment For State Consent Over Judicial Appointments, Steven T. Voigt

ConLawNOW

Imagine a championship football game where one team is allowed to pick all of the referees.

Since the beginning of our nation, the line dividing federal and state power has been debated. But it has been decided in the federal courts, where judges were originally chosen by the President with the consent of a Senate that was chosen by the legislatures of the States. Federal judges are still chosen by the President with the consent of the Senate, but the Senate is no longer chosen by the States. With this constitutional change that proponents wrongly argued would not affect state …