Equal Protection Clause
Equal Protection Clause
The majority opinion in the Virginia case indicates that no one should be denied protection laws and also civil liberties. The court ruled out that the male admission policy that was followed in VMI was unconstitutional. The reasons are because they only enrolled male candidates for training and exempted women since the policy did not give room female gender. The violation of the civil liberties of gender was the main issue that emanated in the case. However, the policy drafted argued that the reason was that the process was done through the advertising method (Levinson, 2017). Moreover, the policy also tried to demonstrate that if female admission were allowed, it would require the facility to build more places of residence and protection rules that made the facility to reconsider the admission criterion.
Justice Scalia’s dissent the court ruling claimed that the Virginia male institution policy that began by admitting males only lacked persuasive argument. The argument that was presented indicated that the establishment was done to promote the diversity that was not with Virginia women’s institution. Education diversity in the argument was not convincing since the policy did not offer the same benefits and incentives that were allocated to the VMI. Virginia women institution cadets were not offered the same activities that were provided in the policy of Virginia Military Institute. The court in the case tried to paint the picture by stating that the idea of the institute that it had to create a second institute which did not have the same name as the Virginia Military institute made it clear that the policy was not the same and the training requirement also was not the same (Schweitzer, 2017). Therefore, the policy failed to provide the equal protection clause of the candidates, and it was against the constitutional mandate.
Reference
Levinson, S. (2017).Strauder v. West Virginia is the Most Important Single Source of Insight on the Tensions Contained Within the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Louis ULJ, 62, 603.
Oyez. (n.d.). United States v. Virginia. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1941 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1995/94-1941
Schweitzer, T. A. (2017). Justice Scalia, Originalism and Textualism. Touro L. Rev., 33, 749.