Quiz 1: Legal Heritage and the Digital Age
Facts of the Case The case is related to the concept of fairness of law. The case goes to back to 1909 when a statute named "Woman's 10 - Hour Law". This statue had put in restriction on the working hours of women engaged in factories and manufacturing units to 10 hours per day. The law was also applicable to women and not to men. One of the owners of such factories naming WCR Co. filed a lawsuit against the statue contending that it is unconstitutional as it hinders the Equal Protection Clause of Illinois constitution. However, the Supreme Court upheld the statue. The Supreme Court stated that limiting the working hours of women is correct. The reasons stated by the Supreme Court were that of the physical capabilities of women, maternal role to be fulfilled by women and other roles and responsibilities of home which a woman has to undertake. Issue concerning the case The issue is whether the enactment of such statue is just and fair. Secondly, whether this would be applicable in today's world. Thirdly, should the law should be progressive science?? Findings and Decision of the Court The court believed that the women had different biological characteristics in comparison to men. Moreover, their role in the upbringing of family cannot compete at the same level as men can. But this statue seems unfair and unjust. This is because during the trial of the court, women wanted to work for long hours to earn their livelihood. In addition, a statute like this would straightaway jeopardize the right of women to earn a living as per her skill set and honesty If this statute would have come forward in today's world then it would have been revoked immediately. These days' women have been equally capable if not more than men as they have made huge strides in every sphere of life and profession. A law like this would be a complete objection for women to achieve a level of professional as well as personal growth. Progressive science means the data which results in the formation of theory needs to be updated and modified with time. In legal terms the law or statute should be modified depending upon the change in the circumstances which led to such laws. In this case, the 10 hour women statute would hardly make sense in today's time of advancement and development of humans in general and women in particular.
Ethical situation: The power to regulate the commerce with the tribes of Country A is given to federal government in the year 1788. They entered into many treaties with the tribes living in State M of Country U. The treaty states that the privilege of fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers needs to be given to those people in 1837. In 1990, the tribes of State M sued State M stating that they are seeking the rights provided to them in the year of 1937 and injunction to prevent State M from interfering with those rights. State M argued that those rights were extinguished in 1958 when they enter into the union. Determine whether the treaty is valid: According to Person X, the treaty signed in 1837 is valid and enforceable. The tribes have the extensive right to fishing, hunting, and gathering rice in the lands, lakes, and rivers. By analyzing the historical data, it is clear that the treaty did not mention any period limit for the rights. Thus, State M cannot extinguish the rights of the tribes when they enter into the union. Determine whether the act of State M is ethical: The act of State M is unethical. As there is no period limit for the treaty, State M does not have the rights to extinguish the treaty. They ended the rights of the tribes given to them in the treaty. Thus, this is unethical. Conclusion: The state has no right in ending the rights of the people, which was signed in the treaty by the federal government. The treaty is one of the most important sources of law in Country U. Thus, it should be followed according to the condition and principles. If there is no time limit mentioned in the treaty, state could not stop it.
Case summary: After the civil war, the fifteenth amendment was added in the constitution of Country U. The amendment provides voting rights to the citizen of the country. The voting right should not be denied because of color, behavior, or race. Many states created the requirements to vote. It denied the minority citizens to vote. In 1965, Government of Country U passed the voting rights act. It denies the procedure which forbidden the citizens to vote because of race or color. It was a great success. Since the act makes the voting percentage of the minority people exceeded the majority people. Determine if there is sufficient justification in the voting rights act: According to Person X, there was sufficient justification in the voting rights act. It prohibits the racial discrimination in voting process. It gives rights to vote for the minority people who belong to B community. It increased the minority voter turnout. Determine if it is ethical to adopt impairments: The fifteenth amendment in the constitution of Country U is the biggest failure as many states were trying to adopt impairment to minority voters. Those states enacted the character requirement, literacy test, and racial discrimination as the qualification of the citizen to vote. It is highly unethical to prohibit a citizen from voting. Determine whether the states should seek approval from the federal government before making changes and determine whether it is necessary: According to Person X, the states should seek approval from the federal government before making any changes in the voting rights. Thus, only fair and justifiable changes will be approved. It will negatively influence the rights of the citizen. It is necessary in recent days. No one should have the right to change the criteria without the permission of federal government. Absence of this method may result in unfair treatment between the citizens. Conclusion: The voting rights act get clearance from the federal government, which states that no state has power in changing the voting rights. It helps in eliminating racial discrimination in the voting process.