Several states had statutes which required that male heirs be chosen over female

Question

Several states had statutes which required that male heirs be chosen over female heirs within the same degree of kinship when the state appointed someone to administer the estate of a person who died without a will. Ann Accountant wants to be the administrator of her father's estate, but the statute requires that her 19 year old brother be appointed instead. Ann wants to challenge the constitutionality of the state statue.

1) What constitutional protection will she claim is being violated? Please explain.

2) What level of scrutiny will the court use to review this statue? Please explain.

3) What test will the statute have to meet to be constitutional? Please explain.

4) what state interest is advanced by this statute? Does it outweigh the interest of Ann and other female heirs? Please explain.

Explanation / Answer

Because I believe that the federal question was properly presented within the definition of that requirement in our cases, I dissent from this dismissal. Instead, I would vacate the judgment below, and remand for reconsideration in light of supervening changes in the factual circumstances and the applicable state law.

While burglary is a serious crime, the officer in this case could not reasonably have believed that the suspect - young, slight, and unarmed - posed any threat. Nor does the fact that an unarmed suspect has broken into a dwelling at night automatically mean he is dangerous.

1 - Requirement for supermajority votes on some issues, such as constitutional amendments, raising taxes, declaring war, conviction of one criminally accused (unanimous jury verdict).

2 - Division of powers into different departments selected in ways that represent different constituencies differently, such as one house of a legislature based on population and the other on equal representation of geographic units with unequal populations.

3 - Constitutional substantive prohibitions on violations of certain specified rights, no matter how great the popular support for doing so might be.

4 - Procedural constraints, such as due process, requirements to deliberate for a certain period of time, delays in taking votes, etc., to give excited majorities time to cool off and think about it.

5 - Severe constraints on the powers delegated to government and to particular officials, and to funding for them, so they have less of a tendency toward abuse and corruption.

6 - Oversight functions, such as petition hearings, legislative hearings, ombudsmen, inspectors general, or bureaus set up to investigate and perhaps prosecute misconduct on one another, with safeguards against collusion or undue influence. This would include the power of judges to declare official acts unconstitutional and void.

7 - Enablement of corrective actions by private citizens, such as citizen arrests and prosecutions, access to grand juries, grand jury investigations, ballot initiative and referendum, open public meetings and records, access to publication outlets, and maintainance of a well- armed, trained, and organized militia than can operate independently of government supervision.

8 - Basic privacy protections to prevent undue public or private pressure on petitioners or dissidents.

9 - A robust network of independent private associations of all kinds that can easily become the focus of protest and reform, and enable victims of abuse or witnesses to corruption to form blocking or reversing coalitions.

10 - A high level of civic education and encouragement of civic participation by all citizens, starting from an early age, so that it becomes a habit, and civic skills are highly developed.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.