Ash Pol 303 Week 3 Dq 1 Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination

POL 303 Week 3 DQ 1 Equal Protection and Gender Discrimination


Check this A+ tutorial guideline at


http://www.assignmentclick.com/pol-303-ash/pol-303-week-3-dq-1-equal-protection-and-gender-discrimination



 In recent years opportunities for women in the U.S. military have been expanding. But 200,000 jobs may remain closed to women for a variety of reasons. Recently two female Army Reserve officers sued the government for excluding them from formal “assignment” to specific Army combat units and other positions solely because of their gender (Sampson, 2012). They argue that being excluded from these “assignments” limits their opportunities for advancement in the Army and restricts their current and future earnings and their retirement benefits.
They also argue that the Army’s practice of “attaching” them to such units (instead of formally “assigning” them which is barred under Army rules) actually exposes them to greater danger than male soldiers because women are excluded from combat-arms training for engaging hostile opponents.
Respond to this 3-part question in your initial post:
Explain the Supreme Court's reasons in United States v. Virginia (the majority opinion by Justice Ginsberg) for holding that excluding women from VMI violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
Explain the rationale of Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion.
Does the military’s exclusion of women from formal and active combat “assignments” on the basis of gender violate their Equal Protection rights? To decide this issue, apply the rationale of either Justice Ginsberg or Justice Scalia. Fully explain your reasons for your position in terms of a constitutional rationale.
Reference: Sampson, Z. (2012, May 25). 2 female Army officers sue to reverse combat ban. Associated Press. Retrieved
from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/05/25/2-female-army-officers-sue-to-reverse-combat-ban/ 
​
For more classes visit


http://www.assignmentcloud.com