Baker v. State and the Promise of the New Judicial Federalism
Charles Hillel Baron
Boston College - Law School
New England Law | Boston
Boston College Law Review, Vol. 43, pp. 125-158, 2001
Boston College Law School Research Paper No. 2001-13
In Baker v. State, the Supreme Court of Vermont ruled that the state constitution's Common Benefits Clause prohibits the exclusion of same-sex couples from the benefits and protections of marriage. Baker has been praised by constitutional scholars as a prototypical example of the New Judicial Federalism. The authors agree, asserting that the decision sets a standard for constitutional discourse by dint of the manner in which each of the opinions connects and responds to the others, pulls together arguments from other state and federal constitutional authorities, and provides a clear basis for subsequent development of constitutional principle. This Article explores the ways the Vermont justices employed doctrinal threads from these authorities, analyzes and critiques perceived shortcomings in the reasoning of each opinion, and then addresses the important contribution that independent state constitutional jurisprudence can make to constitutional discourse. The Article further encourages law schools to implement curricular changes that will expose students to state constitutional law.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 35
Keywords: Baker v. State, Vermont, Common Benefits Clause, same-sex marriage, New Judicial Federalism, state constitutional law, constitutional scholarship, constitutional jurisprudence, law school curriculumAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: July 23, 2005
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.344 seconds