This paper sucks.

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

  1. Does Congress have the power to change the definition of marriage?
  2. Are the DOMA amendments ex post facto?
  3. Can the Gusmanos bring this case to trial?
    Answers
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.