Đang chuẩn bị liên kết để tải về tài liệu:
Gale Encyclopedia Of American Law 3Rd Edition Volume 12 P5

Gale Encyclopedia of American Law Volume 12 P5 fully illuminates today's leading cases, major statutes, legal terms and concepts, notable persons involved with the law, important documents and more. Legal issues are fully discussed in easy-to-understand language, including such high-profile topics as the Americans with Disabilities Act, capital punishment, domestic violence, gay and lesbian rights, physician-assisted suicide and thousands more. | MILESTONES IN THE LAW LAWRENCE V. TEXAS 27 classification created by the legislature in violation of Article I 3a is void.15 B. Strict Scrutiny Under In re McLean Before examining the precise manner in which the McLean court analyzed a statute that discriminated on the basis of sex it is informative to review what that court had to say about the meaning of the Texas ERA. The McLean court declined to give the Texas ERA an interpretation identical to that given state and federal due process and equal guarantees. 725 S.W.2d at 697. Both the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution had due process and equal protection guarantees before the ERA was adopted in Texas in 1972. Id. If the due process and equal protection provisions and the ERA are given identical interpretations then the 1972 amendment adopted by a four to one margin by Texas voters was an exercise in futility. Id. Thus the McLean court concluded the Equal Rights Amendment is more extensive and provides more specific protection than both the United States and Texas due process and equal protection guarantees. McLean 725 S.W.2d at 698. The McLean court did not however adopt a per se standard 16 but instead concluded the Texas ERA elevated sex to a suspect class thus subjecting any gender discrimination to strict scrutiny placing the burden on the proponent of the discriminatory provision to demonstrate a compelling interest and that there is no other manner to protect the state s compelling interest. Id. citing Mercer v. Board of Trust. North Forest Indep. Sch. Dist. 538 S.W.2d 201 206 Tex. Civ. App. Houston 14th Dist. 1976 writ refd n.r.e. holding any classification based on sex is suspect classification thus any 15The majority never really addresses the Texas ERA or the companion Inviolability Clause in its analysis of appellants challenge to 21.06 on the basis of gender discrimination under the Texas Constitution even though Rule 47.1 requires that opinions from this Court address every issue