I’ve been working on this one paper all weekend and it is getting on my nerves. It is for a thing called “moot court” which is just a mock trial thing. Anyway, I’m a lawyer (lead attorney for my team too thank you very much) and all lawyers have to turn in their arguments for how theyd argue the case. This is so annoying since I haven’t done a paper like thi before and I’m not sure if I’m using enough cases. To make things worse, I’m at six pages and I still have to have at least whole other and I’m not sure what to put in it. This sucks. I’ve been taking breaks too, but the breaks aren’t much fun since I feel guilty for not working on the paper. Anyway, what I meant to get at is, have any of you guys done a case brief before? Any tips?
Info, you’re a cutey-pie
I used to have to write case briefs when I was at community college, but I can’t think of any specific tips. Maybe if you gave us more information someone could come up with something.
I’m not talking about a case brief, I’m talking about a lawyer brief. It’s basically using a bunch of cases to make an argument about some other case. I finishied though and turned it in. I pretty much put up as much information that I could though. I was mostly asking for tips on how to do them or what makes a lawyer brief good (the format was pretty much like a professional lawyer brief). It’s all good though.
Charl…hmmm…
Here’s the finished thing though. It’s a fake case about the government not recognizing “transgender” marriages. Transgender marriages are basically marriages between people that have had a sex change. I’m arguing on behalf of the US to say why the US was fien in doing what it did. Please no criticizime. It’ll drive me crazy. You can criticize after I get my paper back. :hahaha; Compliments are welcome though. It’s just that if I get any criticizisms prior to getting my grade back on it, it’ll drive me crazy and make me think that I did terrible.
Gusmano v. United States (2010)
Introduction
Geronimo Gusmano and his wife Wilma Gusmano have filed suit against
the United States claiming that the amendments to the Defense of Marriage
Act (DOMA) are unconstitutional. They are arguing that Congress does not
have the power to amend the DOMA and that the amendments themselves are
violate the Constitution’s ban on ex post facto laws. In this case, the
United States plans to show why the amendments to the DOMA are
constitutional and that Congress acted within its power.
Background Facts
In February of 2008, the governor of New Jersey, Jon Corzine, passed
a law that changed New Jersey’s definition of marriage to comply with the
amendments to the DOMA. Married transgender couples had the various
rights, privileges, and benefits associated with marriage revoked in
accordance with the state law. The law affected many throughout New
Jersey, two of them being Geronimo Gusmano and his wife Wilma Gusmano,
formerly Guillermo Meis, who were affected more than most. The two would
lose various benefits and faced different life style changes, some being
very expensive. The Gusmanos also faced challenges when their friends,
colleagues, and acquaintances knew their situation. The Gusmano filed suit
against the United States in the District Court of New Jersey. Their suit
was denied and they appealed to the Court of Appeals for the third circuit.
The Court of Appeals ruled that the amendments were constitutional.
Legal Questions
- Does Congress have the power to change the definition of marriage?
- Are the DOMA amendments ex post facto?
- Can the Gusmanos bring this case to trial?
Answers- Congress does have the power to pass this law since they are coercing
and not compelling states to adopt the new definition of marriage. The
second question that the Gusmanos are posing is whether.- The amendments to the DOMA are not ex post facto since they are not
punishing anyone. The amendment specifically states that those who have
already been awarded certain benefits through marriage will not have to
repay any previous awards.- According to Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923), the case
should not be heard since the DOMA amendments do not cause significant
injury and the Gusmanos had other options available prior bringing the
case to court.
Argument
The Gusmanos are arguing that the amendments to the DOMA are
unconstitutional since they do no fall within Congress’ power. They
believe that the amendments to the DOMA are form of compulsion, which is
forbidden, as stated in New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
Congress does however have the power to coerce states to adopt policy as
ruled in South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). The DOMA amendments
fall within Congress’ power of coercion and are not compulsion. The
states have the option to lose ten percent of the federal education funding
and continue to recognize transgender marriages. There are options
available and Congress has left the final decision within the states.
Congress conditioned aide to the states in the form of the ten
percent annual deduction from the specific state’s federal education funds.
The ten percent annual deduction is an incentive to the states to help
them to adopt the policy; states are free to reject the policy and lose the
ten percent. The ten percent annual deduction is not enough to hurt the
state, but enough to convince the state to change its definition of
marriage so that it is in compliance with the DOMA amendments. Congress is
not compelling the states to adopt the policy. There are options available
to the states that do not choose to comply with the DOMA amendments.
Congress has not told the states to adopt the policy and left them with no
other options.
The DOMA amendments are similar to 23 U.S.C. 158 in which Congress
withheld five percent of funds from South Dakota. 23 U.S.C. 158 said that
if states do not comply with a minimum drinking age of twenty-one. If a
state did not comply, it would lose five percent of its federal funding.
The court upheld the 23 U.S.C. 158 in South Dakota v. Dole, which the DOMA
amendments follow in practice. The only difference between the DOMA
amendments and 23 U.S.C. 158 is the subject matter. The DOMA amendments
deal with marriage, while 23 U.S.C. 158 dealt with drinking ages.
Geronimo Gusmano and his wife Wilma Gusmano are arguing that
Congress does not have the power to change the definition of marriage.
Congress does have the power to do so as has been stated in South Dakota v.
Dole. Congress also has the power under the Full Faith and Credit Clause
(Article IV, Section 1) of the Constitution. Congress is using its power
over full faith and credit to change how marriage records will be handled.
An issue surrounding the Full Faith and Credit Clause is how it
applies between states. The Full Faith and Credit Clause becomes even more
complicated when taking into account the federal government. America is a
system of dual sovereignty, in which the states and the federal government
share power; Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Each entity has
certain powers, but the federal government is supreme according to the
Supremacy Clause (Article VI) of the United States Constitution.
There are various areas of government that must be regulated between
the states and the federal government. The Constitution outlines many of
the powers associated within each group. Article I of the Constitution
outlines many of the powers of Congress, while the Tenth Amendment reserves
powers to the states. The power reserves to the states is limited;
however, some states have attempted to go beyond this power by using the
Full Faith and Credit Clause to extend their control; Mills v. Duryee, 7
Cr. 480 (1813); Williams v. North Carolina II, 325 U.S. 226 (1945). The
court has ruled against this type of behavior in each case.
The DOMA amendments are an attempt to help prevent the states from
abusing the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Congress is standardizing the
definition of marriage throughout the country. The Full Faith and Credit
Clause was intended to help protect state autonomy, not disrupt it. Both
the Full Faith and Credit Clause in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment
help to define and control the system of dual sovereignty in America.
Article I, Section 8 states that Congress has the power to regulate
interstate commerce. The power to regulate interstate commerce has been
defined in various cases throughout American history. Champion v. Ames,
188 U.S. 321 (1903) dealt with individuals trafficking lottery tickets
between states. The decision in Champion v. Ames further clarified the
interstate powers of Congress and acknowledged Congress’ power to regulate
activities and behaviors. Transgender marriages fall into both categories
of interstate commerce and full faith and credit.
Marriage has always been treated as a public record, which Congress
is allowed to make general laws regarding them as stated by the Full Faith
and Credit Clause. Marriage is a public record and recognized across the
nation as a result of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. With the DOMA,
Congress used its powers over full faith and credit to further define
marriage and how it was to be handled throughout the nation. The DOMA
amendments are further defining marriage and how it is to be managed.
Ex post facto is another issue raised by the Gusmanos. The Gusmanos
say that the amendments to the DOMA violate the Constitutional ban on ex
post facto laws. They argue that they are being punished for their past
actions. The DOMA amendments, however, do not violate the Constitution’s
ban on ex post facto laws. In Beazell v. Ohio, 268 U.S. 167 (1925) the
court said that not all retrospective laws are ex post facto, the DOMA
amendments fall into this category. Ex post facto was treated in Common
Law to apply to criminal laws; the DOMA amendments do not criminalize any
behavior.
Kennedy v. Mendoza, 372 U.S. 144 (1963) further defined what
constituted an ex post facto law. Kennedy v. Mendoza said that the
Constitutional ban on ex post facto laws deals with the judging of punitive
laws. The DOMA amendments are not punitive and do not directly punish
anyone. The DOMA change the definition of marriage and affect people, but
does not punish. There may be unintended consequences, such as with the
Gusmanos, but the law is still not punishing anyone for prior actions,
which the Constitution has banned.
The case of Massachusetts v. Mellon, which was decided along with
Frotingham v. Mellon, raises the issue of if this case should even be in
court. In Massachusetts v. Mellon the court ruled that the Maternity Act
of 1921 was constitutional since states were free to reject it. In
addition to the state being able to reject the act, there were other
options available to Frotingham prior to filing suit. State measures could
have been used prior to the lawsuit. In addition to state measures, the
court ruled that it could not annul an act unless an individual was in
danger of sustaining an immediate injury. In Massachusetts v. Mellon, the
court said that “the party who invokes the power must be able to show, not
only that the statute is invalid, but that he has sustained or is
immediately in danger of sustaining some direct injury as the result of its
enforcement, and not merely that he suffers in some indefinite way in
common with people generally.” The court also said that one party cannot
act on the behalf of the group, but instead that group must come together
to challenge the act.
In this case, the Gusmanos did try any alternative methods prior to
bringing the case to court. They had many options available to them prior
to filing a suit, much like Frotingham in Massachusetts v. Mellon.
Massachusetts v. Mellon also said that the injury must definite and that
they can only act if there is injury or the threat of injury, not the
constitutionality of the law. The Gusmanos have not suffered any
significant or immediate injury. Their marriage is null, but they do not
have to repay any benefit or award back to the government. The Gusmanos
also did not go through their state to get New Jersey to not comply with
the DOMA amendments. The Gusmanos have not used other political channels,
but have instead relied solely on the court. Prior to bringing this case
to court, the Gusmanos should have attempted to use other methods to change
the DOMA amendments.
Rebuttal
What has happened to the Gusmanos is unfortunate, but the
consequences will be temporary. As time goes on, people will know of the
law and will be able to easily avoid in the future. Future transgender
couples will be aware and it will not punish them. It will prevent them
from engaging in an action, but that is not too different from many laws
that have already been deemed Constitutional.
The Gusmanos may say that their service life insurance will be lost
as a result and that is an injury that makes this case valid under
Massachusetts v. Mellon. There are ways around this; by changing the names
and that the insurance is not based on marriage. While they will be facing
some hard life style changes such as needing separate health care and
filing separate taxes and having separate insurance policies, the United
States does not believe that this is a significant or immediate injury to
fall into the judicable area mentioned in Massachusetts v. Mellon.
The affect on transgender married couples could be interpreted as ex
post facto, but since the couples do not have to repay any benefits or
awards, they are not being punished. The only effect is that their
marriage is no longer recognized. Geronimo Gusmano and Wilma Gusmano can
continue to live as they have been. The only difference is that their
marriage is no longer recognized, which is not a punishment.
It may be argued that Geronimo Gusmano and Wilma Gusmano have been
punished by being humiliated by the law. The DOMA amendments have forced
them to reveal their history and it has caused them personal pain. The
argument is null since they have drawn more attention to themselves by
bringing the case to the Supreme Court. By having the case in this court,
their situation has become much more public. Those that may not have known
about their situation have now become aware as a result of the case.
Summary
We ask that the court uphold the decisions of the lower courts to
affirm the constitutionality of the DOMA amendments. The amendments to the
DOMA do not go beyond Congress’ power and do not violate the Constitution’s
ban on ex post facto laws. Congress has not violated any precedent and has
done what the court has allowed in the past by passing the DOMA amendments.
Congress has the power to change the definition of marriage as long
as it does not compel states to adopt the new definition, which was defined
in New York v. United States. With the DOMA amendments, Congress is
coercing the states, which is constitutionally acceptable as stated in
South Dakota v. Dole. Since Congress acted within its power, the DOMA
amendments are constitutional.
While it is possible to interpret the DOMA amendments as ex post
facto, they are not. As was said in Beazell v. Ohio, not all
retrospective laws are ex post facto. Ex post facto laws are punitive,
which the DOMA amendments are not. The DOMA amendments do not punish
transgender married couples. The amendments only change the definition of
marriage and the kind of marriage that will be recognized.
There were many other options available to the Gusmanos prior to
bringing the case to court. The Gusmanos failed to use the other options
available to them and are doing so without suffering a definitive injury,
which is in violation of Massachusetts v. Mellon. Other political channels
were left untouched. The court is suppose to be used as a last resort,
when all other options fails, but the Gusmanos have used it as their only
method.Cases Cited
Beazell v. Ohio, 268 U.S. 167 (1925)
Champion v. Ames, 188 U.S. 321 (1903)
Kennedy v. Mendoza , 372 U.S. 144 (1963)
Massachusetts v. Mellon, 262 U.S. 447 (1923)
Mills v. Duryee, 7 Cr. 480 (1813)
New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)
South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987)
Williams v. North Carolina II, 325 U.S. 226 (1945)
Shut up and shoot them like you’re trained to do, soldier!
That’s bad, but mine can be worse.
I’m currently taking a break from my massively unfortunate essay on unenforcable contracts and whether the Contacts Enforcement Act 1956 should be repealed.
Pushing up 1500 words and it’s getting too close to the 2000w limit. At this rate I won’t even have space for a conclusion. Seriously, you’d think 3rd year college paper would be a bit more liberal with word limits instead of forcing us to keep it short.
Yeah, I’ll finish it soon.