Deck 1: Legal Heritage and the Digital Age

Question 1

Fairness of the Law In 1909, the state legislature of Illinois enacted a statute called the "Woman's 10-Hour Law." The law prohibited women who were employed in factories and other manufacturing facilities from working more than 10 hours per day. The law did not apply to men. W. C. Ritchie Co., an employer, brought a lawsuit that challenged the statute as being unconstitutional, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Illinois constitution. In upholding the statute, the Illinois Supreme Court stated:
It is known to all men (and what we know as men we cannot profess to be ignorant of as judges) that woman's physical structure and the performance of maternal functions place her at a great disadvantage in the battle of life; that while a man can work for more than 10 hours a day without injury to himself, a woman, especially when the burdens of motherhood are upon her, cannot; that while a man can work standing upon his feet for more than 10 hours a day, day after day, without injury to himself, a woman cannot; and that to require a woman to stand upon her feet for more than 10 hours in any one day and perform severe manual labor while thus standing, day after day, has the effect to impair her health, and that as weakly and sickly women cannot be mothers of vigorous children.
We think the general consensus of opinion, not only in this country but in the civilized countries of Europe, is, that a working day of not more than 10 hours for women is justified for the following reasons: (1) the physical organization of women, (2) her maternal function, (3) the rearing and education of children, (4) the maintenance of the home; and these conditions are, so far, matters of general knowledge that the courts will take judicial cognizance of their existence.
Surrounded as women are by changing conditions of society, and the evolution of employment which environs them, we agree fully with what is said by the Supreme Court of Washington in the Buchanan Case; "law is, or ought to be, a progressive science."
Is the statute fair? Would the statute be lawful today? Should the law be a "progressive science"? W. C. Ritchie Co. v. Wayman, Attorney for Cook County, Illinois, 244 Ill. 509, 91 N.E. 695, Web 1910 Ill. Lexis 1958 (Supreme Court of Illinois)

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Ethics In 1975, after the war in Vietnam, the U.S. government discontinued draft registration for men in this country. In 1980, after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, President Jimmy Carter asked Congress for funds to reactivate draft registration. President Carter suggested that both males and females be required to register. Congress allocated funds only for the registration of males. Several men who were subject to draft registration brought a lawsuit that challenged the law as being unconstitutional, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the draft registration law, reasoning as follows:
The question of registering women for the draft not only received considerable national attention and was the subject of wide-ranging public debate, but also was extensively considered by Congress in hearings, floor debate, and in committee. The foregoing clearly establishes that the decision to exempt women from registration was not the "accidental by-product of a traditional way of thinking about women."
This is not a case of Congress arbitrarily choosing to burden one of two similarly situated groups, such as would be the case with an all-black or all-white, or an all-Catholic or all-Lutheran, or an all-Republican or all-Democratic registration. Men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.
Justice Marshall dissented, stating:
The Court today places its imprimatur on one of the most potent remaining public expressions of "ancient canards about the proper role of women."It upholds a statute that requires males but not females to register for the draft, and which thereby categorically excludes women from a fundamental civil obligation. I dissent.
Rostker, Director of Selective Service v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S.Ct. 2646, 69 L.Ed.2d 478, Web 1981 U.S. Lexis 126 (Supreme Court of the United States)
1. What arguments did the U.S. Supreme Court assert to justify requiring males, but not females, to register for the draft?
2. Is the law, as determined by the U.S. Supreme Court, fair?
3. Do you agree with the dissent?

Answer 2

Facts of case:
In 1975, the U.S government stopped draft registration for men. In 1980, president recommended both males and females to register but allocated funds for only males. Few men sued a lawsuit stating that the "equal protection clause" law has being violated.
Issue of case:
The issue is that whether draft registration for women violated of U.S "equal protection clause".
1.
Justification of requiring males to register for draft:
The main purpose of draft is to provide combat troops.
"Congress says that women won't be needed for draft registration, so they decided not to register. The reason is that women have restrictions on combat, are not situated for registering a draft.
2.
Judgment from U.S supreme court:
No, the congress has violated the "equal protection clause" act from U.S constitution. The congress has valid reason behind violating the clause of equal protection.
3.
Opinion from J M:
J M says that they didn't think that exclusive of women would offend the Constitution. Congress didn't "conclude that every position in the military must be filled with combat ready men."