birdwatcher (birdwatcher) wrote,
birdwatcher
birdwatcher

  • Mood:

Vergara v. California

Завтра в Калифорнии начнутся слушания по делу Вергара против Калифорнии. Истцы требуют признать законодательную поддержку профсоюзов учителей неконституционной, потому что она ущемляет право калифорнийских детей на образование:
The California Supreme Court has long recognized that a child‟s right to an education is a fundamental interest guaranteed by the California Constitution. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 609 (“Serrano I”).) Because “education is the lifeline of both the individual and society” (id. at p. 605) and serves the “distinctive and priceless function” as “the bright hope for entry of the poor and oppressed into the mainstream of American society” (id. at pp. 608-09), laws that inflict a “real and appreciable impact” on the fundamental right to education, and which are not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state interest, are unconstitutional. (Butt v. California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, 685-86 (“Butt”).) (ссылка на pdf)
У меня в связи с этим хорошая идея: нет ли у нас, случайно, конституционного права на лечение, и конституционна ли, в свете ответа на предыдущий вопрос, АМА?
Subscribe
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 1 comment