 |
|
You are ignoring the answers already given you & also
Posted on: May 9, 2022 at 16:46:41 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
73726
Member For:
21.78 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
are implying a false premise that the Supreme Court couldn't reverse itself if it recognized some constitutional right in the past.
You ignored my earlier response:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=18138156
The court recognized slave owners' "rights" to their "property". It was a morally corrupt decision, just like Roe v Wade, which was based upon lies.
Fortunately, they will both end up on the dust heap of history.
But some of those other 12 cases I linked to above in the post you responded to, but apparently didn't bother to look at also involved overturning earlier decisions that had recognized rights.
For instance: Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
The Court decided the Lochner case in 1905, ruling that a New York State law limiting the number of hours a baker could work to 60 per week was unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the justices declared that the law removed a person's right to enter freely into contracts, violating the 14th Amendment. The specific clause being violated states, "any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
The Court heard the Adkins case in 1923. It regarded a Washington, D.C., law that set a minimum wage for female workers. It was overturned on similar grounds as the Lochner case.
Lochner set a major precedent that severely limited federal and state laws regulating working hours and wages. In fact, the period following the case is known as "The Lochner Era." However, the Adkins case was a key point in the women's rights movement in the U.S., which for decades debated absolute equality for women versus favoring only special protections and regulations for them.
The Lochner Era ended in 1937 when the Court decided West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The matter involved a law very similar to the Adkins minimum wage law, but in this case, the Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not explicitly guarantee freedom of contract, and that such freedom could be limited by reasonable laws designed to protect workers' health and safety.
You ignored my earlier response:
http://www.tigerboard.com/boards/view.php?message=18138156
The court recognized slave owners' "rights" to their "property". It was a morally corrupt decision, just like Roe v Wade, which was based upon lies.
Fortunately, they will both end up on the dust heap of history.
But some of those other 12 cases I linked to above in the post you responded to, but apparently didn't bother to look at also involved overturning earlier decisions that had recognized rights.
For instance: Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
The Court decided the Lochner case in 1905, ruling that a New York State law limiting the number of hours a baker could work to 60 per week was unconstitutional. In a 5-4 decision, the justices declared that the law removed a person's right to enter freely into contracts, violating the 14th Amendment. The specific clause being violated states, "any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law."
The Court heard the Adkins case in 1923. It regarded a Washington, D.C., law that set a minimum wage for female workers. It was overturned on similar grounds as the Lochner case.
Lochner set a major precedent that severely limited federal and state laws regulating working hours and wages. In fact, the period following the case is known as "The Lochner Era." However, the Adkins case was a key point in the women's rights movement in the U.S., which for decades debated absolute equality for women versus favoring only special protections and regulations for them.
The Lochner Era ended in 1937 when the Court decided West Coast Hotel v. Parrish. The matter involved a law very similar to the Adkins minimum wage law, but in this case, the Court decided that the 14th Amendment did not explicitly guarantee freedom of contract, and that such freedom could be limited by reasonable laws designed to protect workers' health and safety.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
You are ignoring the answers already given you & also - JeffB MU - 5/9 16:46:41