Equal Protection

In March 2010 the Supreme Court heard a case discussing mothers and fathers being treated differently in determining whether their child or children could become and American Citizen. Ruben Flores-Villar was born in Mexico but raised by his parents,both American Citizens, in California. His mother was from Mexico and his parents were not married. Mr. Flores-Villar wanted to become and American Citizen so he would not be deported but he was rejected. The United States Court of Appeals rejected him because there was a law that stated "mothers and fathers whose children were born abroad and out of wedlock to a partner who was not an American Citizen." The law has now been amended, let fathers pass down American Citizenship only if the father had lived in the United States ten years prior to the birth of their child. Mothers were allowed to pass down American Citizenship if they had lived in the United Stated only one year prior to the birth of their child. Mr. Flores-Villar's father did not meet these requirements which is why he was not allowed American Citizenship. Flores-Villar argued that this law violated the equal protection principle.

This article relates to Allie's post in that men and women were being treated differently. For both circumstances there is a difference in men and women being treated, making the situation violate the Constitution's equal protection principle clause. My article violates this principle because men and women are not being treated equally. The law states that a man can only pass down American citizenship if he had lived in the U.S ten years prior to the birth of his child whereas the mother had only needed to live in the U.S for one year. Men and women are given the same rules to follow therefore violating the equal protection principle.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/us/23scotus.html