Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
12-17668 #144

12-17668 #144

Ratings: (0)|Views: 10 |Likes:
Published by Equality Case Files
Doc 144 - Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of State of Nevada
Doc 144 - Amicus brief of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence in support of State of Nevada

More info:

Published by: Equality Case Files on Feb 03, 2014
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

02/04/2014

pdf

text

original

 
A
PPEAL
N
O
.12-17668U
NITED
S
TATES
C
OURT OF
A
PPEALS
F
OR 
T
HE
N
INTH
C
IRCUIT
 __________________________________________ 
B
EVERLY
S
EVCIK 
, et al.,
 Plaintiffs-Appellants
,v.B
RIAN
S
ANDOVAL
, et al.,
 Defendants-Appellees.
 __________________________________________ 
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of NevadaCivil Case No. 2:12-cv-00578-RCJ-PAL (Judge Robert C. Jones)
 __________________________________________ B
RIEF OF
A
MICI  
URIAE 
C
ENTER FOR 
C
ONSTITUTIONAL
J
URISPRUDENCE AND
27S
CHOLARS OF
F
EDERALISM AND
J
UDICIAL
ESTRAINT IN
S
UPPORT OF
D
EFENDANTS
-A
PPELLEES AND
EQUESTING
A
FFIRMANCE
 __________________________________________ 
John C. Eastman
Counsel of Record 
C
ENTER FOR 
 C
ONSTITUTIONAL
J
URISPRUDENCE
c/o Chapman UniversityDale E. Fowler School of LawOne University Dr.Orange, CA 92866(714) 628-2587 (phone)(714) 844-4817 (fax) jeastman@chapman.eduD. John Sauer C
LARK 
&S
AUER 
,LLC7733 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 625St. Louis, Missouri 63105(314) 332-2980 (phone)(314) 332-2973 (fax) jsauer@clarksauer.com
 Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956713 DktEntry: 144 Page: 1 of 45
 
i
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
 Amicus Curiae
Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence is a project of TheClaremont Institute, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, which has no parentcorporation. It issues no stock, and therefore, no publicly held company owns 10%or more of its stock. All other 
amici curiae
 are individuals, not corporations.Accordingly, no
amicus
 has any parent corporation that owns 10 percent or moreof stock.
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956713 DktEntry: 144 Page: 2 of 45
 
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Corporate Disclosure Statement .............................................................................. iTable of Authorities .............................................................................................. ivInterest of Amicus Curiae ..................................................................................... 1Summary of Argument .......................................................................................... 2Argument ............................................................................................................... 5I.Eight Principles of Federalism and Judicial Restraint Call For Courts to Exercise the “Utmost Care” When Considering NovelConstitutional Rights, and They Uniformly Counsel Against theRecognition of a Federally-Mandated Right To Same-SexMarriage. ........................................................................................... 5A.Federalism and Deference to the States as Sovereigns andJoint Participants in the Governance of the Nation UrgeJudicial Self-Restraint, Especially In Matters of Traditional State Concern. ....................................................... 6B.This Court Must Respect the Role of the States asLaboratories of Democracy in the Development of Emerging Conceptions of Liberty and Equality. .....................11C.The Scarcity of Clear Guideposts for Decisionmaking inthe Unchartered Territory of Substantive Due ProcessCalls for Judicial Restraint. .....................................................13D.This Court Should Hesitate To Recognize a New RightTo Same-Sex Marriage Where There Is No Close NexusBetween the Right Asserted and the Central Purpose of aConstitutional Provision. .........................................................15E.This Court Should Not Recognize a Novel Right ToSame-Sex Marriage in the Absence of an Established or Emerging National Consensus in Favor of the Right. ..............17F.This Court Should Not Constitutionalize an Area That IsCurrently the Subject of Active, Multi-Sided Debate andLegal Development in the States. ............................................20
Case: 12-17668 01/28/2014 ID: 8956713 DktEntry: 144 Page: 3 of 45

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->