Muller v. Oregon, 208 U.S. 412 (1908), is listed is a landmark decision made in the United States Supreme Court history. This law justifies both sex discrimination and labor laws that were made during that time period. Without theses laws we probably wouldnt have gotten to the point we are at today with labor laws. This ruling set the foundation for the laws we have today on how many hours we can work a day as well as how many hours we can work without break. The case upheld an Oregon law that bared women from working more than 10 hours a day in industrialized jobs. The law was made because Oregon took special interest in protecting women's health, they stated that woman have a child-bearing physiology and social role that made them strongly …show more content…
Because of this Muller was then convicted of violating Oregon's labor laws by making a female employee work more then 10 hours in a day. Muller was fined and had to pay $10 which was a lot back then (dont we all wish that was the most we had to pay on fines today). Muller then appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court and then the United States Supreme Court. This of course did not work in Muller's favor. Both courts declared the law constitutional and upheld Muller's conviction. With the U.S. Supreme Court the ruling was unanimous with a 9-0 vote, the justices upheld the law. Below I have placed an insert from this …show more content…
It also shows that making the justices aware of social and economic conditions could help win their approval. The lawyers in Brown v. Board of Education and may other cases followed the path that future supreme court justice, Louis Brandeis who surved from 1916 to 1939 created. Brandeis was additional counsel for the state of Oregon and he entered a huge brief in support of the law that collected supporting data from hundreds of sources. This brief outlined the outcome of working long hours for woman and became known as "Brandeis Brief". The brief became a future model for presenting to the supreme
The case of wickard v filburn was about a was a small farmer in the state of Ohio who decides to grow extra wheat for his personal use and to feed his livestock. He got in trouble with the law because he grew too much wheat now can you believe that. Mr.filburn decides to take the situation to the supreme court wondering why or what did he do to get in trouble for harvested nearly 12 acres of wheat, the supreme court penalized him although he argued for his rights along with asking what he did wrong.
Whitney v. California Tylisia Crews September 22, 2015 Facts The parties of the Whitney v. California case was against petitioner Charlotte Anita Whitney and respondent, the state of California’s Criminal Syndicalism Act of California. It was argued on October 6th, 1925 and was decided on May 16th, 1927. The state of California filed a lawsuit against Whitney when they found out she was accused of helping begin the Communist Labor Party of America, a party that advocated violence to get a political change. Whitney was found guilty even though the constitution was the defendant’s defense.
When Muller got fined and convicted, he appealed to the Oregon Supreme Court (Historic U.S. Court Cases: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2).After he appealed the case, the U.S. Supreme Court heard about it and decided to consider in (U.S.Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). William D. Wenton, who was Curt’s lawyer, argued that what happened was violated the 14th amendment. Wenton had to write a very long document stating that the rule violated the amendment (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908 (U.S. Constipedia/Muller-v-Oregon-1908). When he presented the documents to the court, he made some very strong and valid points. The points that he made led to the women’s jobs laws being regulated and improved.
It bounced from district to Supreme Court level between 1958 to 1963. In an opinion of an 8-1 majority the court
Lopez won the U.S. V. Lopez case making it important because in terms of congressional power since it would go against the rights given in article 1 section 8 number 10 that says, “To define and punish…offences against the Law of Nations. Aside from that it would have an effect on interstate commerce, thing that congress regulates as mentioned in article 1 section 8 number 3. Since Lopez won, the laws for the state had to change causing the state to have its own rules and punishments from the ones for the whole U.S. The Lopez case is an implied power due to article 1 and has many cons. The case of Lopez is considered implied power because his case went against the power of congress. In article 1, congress has the power to define and punish
1. The resolve over the Oregon and Texas disputes began with the “joint occupation” treaty in 1818, this allowed Britain and United States to both claim authority in the Northwest. This was the initial resolve amongst settlers from either nation. Because the large amount of settlers coming in to the Northwest in the 1840s. This caused an urgency for the United States government to solidify Americas Regions.
America’s founders created the constitution in order to create unification and order in the United States. However, there have been controversy surrounding the interpretation of the constitution, this has caused debate over many issues within the country. These issues and the lack of wartime policy within the constitution directly lead to the Civil War, which was one of the worst alterations this nation has faced. The Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, and Bleeding Kansas were controversial issues surrounding the constitution that directly lead to the Civil War.
The duty of any criminal prosecutor is to seek justice. A conviction is the end of justice being served prior to sentencing; however justice cannot be served if an innocent person is found guilty. Even though the prosecutor(s) are there to represent the public and has the duty to aggressively pursue offenders for violations of state and federal laws, they shall never lose sight or their own moral compass of their main purpose is to find the truth. In the pursuit of truth, the United States Supreme Court has developed or made rulings in reference to several principles of conduct which have to be followed by all prosecutors to assure that the accused person(s) are allowed the proper procedures and due process of the law granted by the 14th Amendment.
“In the 20 years that Oregon’s Death with Dignity Law has been on the books, 1,749 patients have been prescribed lethal medications, and only 64% of them (1,127) used them to die, according to state data. Last year, Oregon doctors prescribed 206 lethal medications, 133 of which were reported used by patients” (Portland Press Herald). This statistic shows that not all patients who are prescribed the drugs, use them to end their life. Gale states, “The three most frequently cites reasons for requesting suicide were: a decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable, loss of autonomy and loss of dignity.
The government appealed the court of appeals decision to bring to the Supreme Court where it is now. I stand with full belief, and the majority opinion of the Supreme Court that Abel Fields’ conviction be overturned. His First Amendment rights had been violated. Even though he was
This case was not just an event in history, but a strong point that supported and still supports equality to this day. People can use this case to help support their reasoning for what they believe in and why certain actions should
State vs. Mayfield Trial On December 27th, 1989, State Police Officer Edward Mayfield pulled over Donna Nugent to a shady area where he strangled her and threw her body off of a bridge. We don’t know why he pulled her over. He then proceeded to strangle her with a rope. I believe State Police Officer Edward Mayfield is guilty of murder in the first degree because he had and hid the murder weapon, pulling over specifically blonde women, and he changed the activity log.
The two Supreme Court cases Korematsu v. United States 1944 and Schenck v. United States 1919 are similar in how they deal with people who stood up for their rights and dealt with Constitutional Amendments but differ in their time periods and the amendments they deal with. Both of the cases took place during times of war, Schenck during World War I and Korematsu during World War II. Charles Schenck did not believe in the Conscription Act so he urged people to protest it through words and papers and when he was brought to court the main case issue was if his actions were protected by the First Amendment. Much like Schenck, Fred Korematsu did not agree with the Japanese Exclusion Act and refused to be removed from his home. When he was brought
Oregon-Doc. 7). The only job that women needed was motherhood because they were labeled as the idol to their children. According to this women had little independence and were diversified form men. Proper to the stereotype of women, in 1908 the Supreme Court accepted the political constitution of law to protecting women labor and the discrimination of both gender. Women were bias to the stereotype of gender roles and their rights and independence.
The case ruled that segregation was unconstitutional because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court ordered that school integration go forward "with all deliberate