In the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor, the court decided that the defense of marriage act violated which of the following?
A.) the comity clause
B.)the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment
C.) *States rights*
D.) reasonable discrimination
Extradition, or the process of one state returning a person to the state where he is charged with a crime, is an example of which of the following?
A.) buying and selling property in different states
B.) *due process of the Fifth Amendment*
C.) full faith and credit
D.) privileges and immunities
Which would be an exception to comity clause?
A.) *Buying and selling property in other states*
B.) Charging more money for out-of-state collage tuition
C.) Freely traveling between states
D.) Recognizing all marriages from all states
*If anyone can help please let me know *-* *
zapper is wrong i got 1/3 it's
1.B
2.C
3.B
I came in clutch
Madoria is right
Yep 100 %
madoria is correct! Thanks a lot! 😊😊😊😊
madoria is right
THank you
thanks @madoria
In order to answer these questions, we need to understand the concepts and legal principles related to each question.
1. In the Supreme Court case United States v. Windsor, the court examined the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). The court ruled that DOMA violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. To arrive at this answer, you can analyze the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor and specifically look for the constitutional grounds on which the court found the Defense of Marriage Act to be unconstitutional.
2. Extradition refers to the process of one state returning a person to the state where they are charged with a crime. To determine which of the given options relates to the concept of extradition, you need to identify a choice that aligns with the legal principles underlying the process. The correct answer is the "due process of the Fifth Amendment." This is consistent with the idea that extradition must comply with constitutional guarantees of due process.
3. An exception to the comity clause refers to a situation where the comity principle, which relates to cooperation and mutual respect between states, does not apply. To identify the exception, you need to understand the concept of the comity clause and identify a choice that goes against the principle. In this case, the exception is "buying and selling property in other states," as it does not relate to the principles of comity but instead refers to interstate commerce.
Remember that while I can provide explanations on how to find the answers, the specific interpretations and decisions made by the Supreme Court or legal experts should be consulted for accurate and updated information.
No thanks to anyone. The correct answers are:
1. C
2. B
3. C
Congress may, by general laws, prescribe the manner in which such acts may be proved and the effects of such laws. For example, before 2015, almost all states had laws that only allowed persons of the opposite sex to marry. Some states, however, wanted to allow marriage between persons of the same sex. In response, Congress passed what was called the Defense of Marriage Act (or DOMA) to handle this situation. This law stated that no state had to recognize the marriage between persons of the same sex, unless they wanted to do so. However, in the 2013 case of United States v. Windsor, the Supreme Court declared section 3 of DOMA unconstitutional. The ruling stated that it violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. In 2015, in the case of Obergfell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment requires that all U.S. states must recognize same-sex marriages.
Divorce, the legal termination of marriage, has also created some problems under the full faith and credit clause. Some states have challenged what they consider the quickie divorce laws of other states. The Supreme Court ruled in some cases before it that both husband and wife must be allowed to contest such divorces before they can be given full faith and credit.
Full faith and credit covers criminal acts. This is covered by a process the Constitution calls extradition. This process covers situations where a person is charged with a crime in one state and flees to another state to escape punishment. Most of the time, states will turn over a person to the state requesting the return. Often, the accused may demand a public hearing on the matter. The accused may choose to waive extradition, and not fight the return. In rare instances, the governor of the state may refuse to send the fugitive back.
Citizens of each state are also guaranteed all the privileges (rights that a person qualifies for) and immunities (protections) to which any citizen is entitled. This is known as the comity clause. Comity means friendship. Citizens of the United States have the privilege to travel freely from state to state. You do not need an internal passport. Each American citizen has the right to buy and sell property in other states.
States do have the power to make reasonable (or rational) discrimination, favoring the citizens of their own state over those of another state. For example, states often charge out-of-state tuition to students from other states desiring to attend college in their state. This is considered a reasonable form of discrimination because the out-of-state student’s family has not paid state taxes for support of the public colleges.
My explanation. Now have a good day.