Was there a concurring opinion in the muller v. oregon case?
In Justice David Josiah Brewer's unanimous opinion in Muller, the Court upheld the Oregon regulation. The Court ruled it on the basis of "the difference between the sexes." The child-bearing physiology and social role of women provided a strong state interest in reducing their working hours. Though with the state winning in shorter hours for women, and the popular progressives being happy with the outcome, equal-rights feminists were against this because it worked so heavily on the separation of the sexes into two stereotyped gender-roles and restricted women's financial independence.
What was the outcome of muller v Oregon supreme court case?
The court ruled in favour of Oregon state law that prohibited businesses from making women work more than 10 hours a day. Supreme court judges had ruled unanimously that due to women being the sex that bears the future progeny of the nation, the government had an interest to safeguard their health, even though 14th amendment to the constitution had the due process clause which allowed the freedom to contract.
Lochner v. new york who won the court case?
here's the case for you to read about: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/case37.htm
DeJonge v. Oregon Case Information?
I need help finding this information. What was the dissenting opinion for this case and the majority opinion? Also, who was the plaintiff and defendant? I am a little confused, and I need some help with this. Serious answers only please
Which constitution works better, the U.S. Constitution or the UK Constitution?
They differ not only in what they say, but how they are interpreted, and how they can be modified. The US Constitution is mandatory. It states the way things must be, and also specifies a long and difficult mechanism for changing it.The UK constitution is descriptive (and note the change of case in the word). It describes the way things are. It says the ways should be done if there is no reason to do otherwise. But in practice anybody can amend the "constitution" any time they want - if they can get popular consent, and particularly the consent of Parliament. It describes the normal behaviour, the uncontroversial path, doing things as they have always been done. But you can always stand up and say that a particular institution is obsolete, and we should change. And there will be a discussion, with different levels of civility, and if necessary Parliament, which always has the final word, will rule.Both models have their virtues. The US one has the clarity that it is clearly written - though you need two and a half centuries of Supreme Court judgements to fully interpret it. But it is all there, and not to be argued with, even it it is to be interpreted. But it is relatively inflexible. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Second Amendment, the arms of the 21st century are very different from the arms of the writers of that Amendment. Today's world offers choices that the Founding Fathers never imagined.On the other hand, the British constitution is written in many places and many styles, much of it precedent rather than legislation. Much of it is "understood" rather than explicit. Which makes it simultaneously to malleable, because any part of it can be changed any time, and too rigid, because it is difficult decide what it is to resist. An example is Prince Charles' letters. How much should the monarch, or the obvious heir, be able to influence those who govern apparently in their name? At the moment, I see the US constitution as creaking, and the British one as not so. On the other hand, maybe Britain's divisions would be better sorted if we had a clear set of rules to stand up for - or against.