United States V. Virginia 1996 Case (Essay Sample)

United States V. Virginia 1996 Case Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation United States ‘holding in the case Without a doubt, United States’ law team is well equipped with facts to sue Virginia. This is because, since 1862 to 1996, Virginia’s military educational facilities segregate men from women based on their gender without compelling reasons (Udell, 1996). Evidently, this is showcased in their admission policies in Virginia Military Institute (VMI). The team believes that the ‘respondent’ country violates the constitution. The Position of the United States in the Case Notably, however, Virginia and its VMI violated the Fourteen Amendment of the Equal Protection clause by producing a policy that favors the admission of men exclusively into military service. Virginia has failed to acknowledge governmental acts that advocate the equal protection of its citizens, without discriminating the parties based on gender. The official denial of women simply because they are of that gender sends unlawful signals that negate the motivation and willingness to give back to the society through engaging in in-service in the DOD. Female citizens rightfully deserve the award of opportunities to serve in the Department of Defense (Vojdik, 1996). According to what the United States has found out, Virginia ignores women's aspiration to gain the insightful achievement, participation, and contribution, especially when it comes to the use of personal talents and intellectual capacities. For this case, the burden of justification should dwell positively on the prosecutor's side. The Supreme Court should consider the arguments presented by judging cleverly on the genuine cases proclaimed by our panel. In essence, the economic inferiority of women shall not be used to prescribe the non-genuine prescription of stereotypic hypotheses. The remedies that were proffered by Virginia maintaining that the process of instituting VMI as men-only Institute continuously violates the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. In the same manner, the mechanics initiating the incorporation of the VWIL, as a separate academy for women does not act supposedly as curative for discrimination as well as non-adherence to the constitutional views (Vojdik, 1996). Besides, the United States' ignition, in this case, is catalyzed by the remedial decree that has to fit tightly with the violation of clauses. Personally, I think that Virginia's generalizability of its opinion regarding women must be shaped according to the law. When women are unconstitutionally denied a golden chance or opportunity to assume the positions they desire in military service, self-esteem and inferiority complex takes significant dominance in individual female’s life. For this reason, the US’s position in this case suitably provided genuine reasons on why Virginia should be judged and prosecuted. Having this notion that VMI's professional way of training provides learning benefits that are solely reserved for male individuals, and that it cannot be made available and modified by women, is lame. Evidently, this is because it violates and supports the provocation of law on equal p...