PART I
[Articles of Confederation] [The Marshall Court] [Fundamental and Economic Philosophies of 19th century] [Slavery]

PART II
[History of the Constitutional and legal rights of Women] [History of Women - Margaret Sanger]

Why the United States found the Articles of Confederation wanting by 1787.

At the Convention in Philadelphia, the colonists raise the issue that the Articles of Confederation did not adequately solved the convergent problems of 1787. In saying that the Articles of Confederation was wanting directs our attention as to what was lacking. The colonies in America had gradually developed the idea that they were a separate entity from England. The question of whether English laws were relevant to preserving peace and stability in the New World became a popular clamor. Many colonists argued that the Common Laws of the Magna Carta did not resolve issues that had developed in the New World, such as the issue of property and ownership.

The settlers came to the New World with set ideas concerning governance and law. Magna Carta which stood as a foundation for the colonial laws and governance did in fact set the theme for colonial governance and further pointed out the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederations. It also influenced amendments made to the United States Constitution. Within the Magna Carta of 1215, natural law is said take precedence over the rule of the king, "that a natural law - a fundamental, immutable law - exists, that no one, not even a king, is above the law." [3] The Magna Carta also established the boundaries of monarchical rulership and how the monarchs should treat their subjects. The idea of absolute rulership was outed in the Magna Carta. The King could not immediately summon his knights at his discretion. He had to consult with the nobles in financial matters, as stated in clause 14 in the Magna Carta.[3] This idea became the forerunner to parliamentary procedures and the development in the American constitution.

The basic concepts that greatly contributed to the development of the American Constitution came out of the Magna Carta, as mentioned above clause 14 set the standard for the treatment of subjects to the king. Court meetings were to be held on a regular basic in clauses 17 of the Carta. In clause 28, property rights are protected and stated, which prevented the seizure of property without future payment.

Of great concern to the settlers were the ownership of land. They believed that English law gave them the right to inhabit and cultivate the land they discovered in the New World. In the Letters Patent to Sir Humfrey Gylberte (1578), states that English laws "give full authoritie and power"[5] in " inhabiting within any other place within our allegiance, and which hereafter shall license as aforesayd, shall and may have, and enjoy all the priveleges of free denizens and persons of native England, and within our allegiance: any law, custome, or usage to the contrary notwithstanding." [6] In the document, Indian and White Views on Property showed the disparity of beliefs between the native Indians and the English settlers. The English idea that land ownership could be transferred through sales differed greatly from the Indian concept of collective ownership of the land. This misconception of land usage created continued conflict between the whites and the Indians, in which this document ruled in favor of the white's rights led to the war of 1754.

In the first charter the settlers were given the right to grant land, titles and established a monopoly of trade. As stated in the Magna Carta, clause 63 religious tolerance was made free. An attempt to regulate religious conduct was outlined by the Virginia Company in the hope that the colony would appear more civilized and less barbarous to perspective settlers to the New World. In 1619, the Virginian colony issued the Virginia Rules on Conduct and religion which enforced social control. The flaw with this document was that the General Assembly assumed it had the authority to define the duties of the clergy and the conduct of the inhabitants in the colony. Because the company could do this showed that the expectation on conduct was dependent on the morals set by the church. The church and not the company held the power to conduct affair related to dress code, the behavior of the inhabitants and maintenance of order in the colony. In 1620, the Mayflower Compact was issued which removed the control out of the corrupted control of the church and placed it in the hands of the land company. The colony agreed to be governed by the Freemen, to obey the laws and to grant authority to the Plymouth company. This compact is important, since it marked the first step by the colonies to move away from the imperialism of English rule in favor of independent governance by their own consent.

The Fundamental Orders of Connecticut (1639) extended the ideals of the Mayflower compact. The Fundamental Orders set the framework of the constitution in its separation of branches and defining the authority and powers of each branch of government. The eleven clauses of the document set the foundation of governance in the colony. Within clause one the General Assemblies is separated into two branches, and most importantly the subsequent clauses such as clause four placed a limit to offices held under this new governance. The document which followed presented the circumstances for change and the fundamentals of the constitution.

In the Bloudy Tenent of Persecution a vague conception of the what constitutes church rights and state rights was contested. Roger Williams arguments were the first in the New World in calling for freedom and separation between the state and the church. There was the evident need to separate the state from the church, since the problem of religious toleration became integrated with the need to attract settlers of diversified denomination. By 1682, in the need to attract more settlers to the colonies in enabling the colony's survival, William Penn wrote the document, Frame of Government aimed at limiting the government and endorsing the idea a of morally good and cooperative settlement.

One of the great landmark cases was the Zenger's case, which set the precedence for future cases related to publication and the law of seditious libel allowing truth as a defense instead of the detriments influenced later cases such as the Sedition Law of 1798. This case established the principle of freedom of expression and constituted what was considered treason or liable to slander.

Although the colonies was faced with internal problems and instability, the maintenance of good relation with Great Britain was rapidly diminishing. The idea of mercantilism was rapidly being threatened with the idea that the colonies did not exist for the good of the mother country. There was the growing American sense of independence and the resentment of the imperialism the British monopoly of colonies' trade and tariffs. The idea of "no representation with taxation," was a resounding clamor throughout the thirteen colonies in America that by time of the Convention in Philadelphia, the colonies were ready to break away from the grasp of English imperialism.

Document 10, Against the Writs of Assistance (1761) demonstrated the growing friction between the colonies and the mother country. In an attempt to crack down on the smuggling occurring after the French and Indian war in New England, the British authority sought new writs of assistance to conduct open-ended search warrants on any premise at officers discretion. James Otis argued that these writ were illegal and went on further to say that, " All precedents are under the controul of the principles of the law.....No Acts of Parliament can establish such a writ: Through it should be made in the very words of the petition it would be void, 'An Act against the constitution is void.'" He went on to say that this warrant to search is only permitted when, there is "probable suspicion" in which the "officer should show probable grounds, should take his oath on it, should do this before a magistrate, and that such magistrate, if he thinks proper should issue a special warrant to a constable to search the places."[38]

In 1765 William Blackstone wrote the Parliamentary Omnipotence, which gave the growing power to English parliament and at the same time awoke the colonists in gaining dominance over the royal governors. In the same year the Virginia Stamp Act was passed to generate revenue to repay the debt of the war between the French. In opposition to this act, seven resolutions was published known as the Virginia Stamp Act resolutions which asserted the colonist's rights as Englishmen against sudden and unlawful taxation from the Britain. Furthermore only by the law or ordinances of the General Assembly could the "exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants."[41] Consequent to these resolutions came the Stamp Act Congress, which boldly denied Great Britain the right to tax the colonies without their consent, and it is out of this that the idea of "no representation with taxation" emerged. What followed this rebellious stand of the colony was the Declaratory Act which further reinforced that parliament did not have the power to enforce their control in the colony. In 1767, the Letter from a Farmer in Pennsylvania only added to the growing idea that parliament had no right what-so-ever to impose internal or external taxes on the colony.

But what gave the most influential propaganda and agitation for American independence was Thomas Paine's Common Sense in 1776. Paine encouraged citizen to see the King as the enemies to the colony's prosperity and developed the idea of control into the hands of the common people. It was not surprising that the colony gained its independence in 1776. Bearing in mind that Adams', Thoughts on Government influenced the writing of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration echoed the views of Adams and Paine in creating governments, governed by the colonies and not by a tyrannical monarchy. The Pennsylvania Bills of rights showed the colonies great fear of a strong centralized government such as what they experienced under the British imperialism.

With the independence of the colonies each states drew up their own constitution which later resulted in the need to ratify of the Articles of confederation. The Articles as mentioned previously had enormous weaknesses. Because of the great fear and the remembered abuses under a strong government, the framer of the Articles created a government with loose and limited central authority, with the balance of power given to each states. With congress having limited power over states, congress lacked the power to impose taxation on states. Congress lacked the power of the purse and therefore could not regulate trade or extend military aid to states that requested it, for example, congress could not respond to the Shay's Rebellion in 1786. It became enormously clear to the thirteen states that the Articles of Confederation needed either to be amended or replaced with a new constitution. At the Convention in Philadelphia, three proposals made it necessary for a new constitution.

The three proposals are discussed under the proposal for Government, document 26. The first is the Virginia plan, devised by James Madison which represented the interest of the bigger states. It proposed separate executive, legislative and judicial branches in a strong national government, whose decisions are binding to the states. This bicameral legislature would reflect the population of the states, with direct election of the lower house, which in turn would elect the senate. The problem with this proposal is clearly seen in the apportion of congressional strength based on the population. As a result the smaller states feared the dominance of the larger states in congress and their voice in government would be over looked.

The second proposal was the New Jersey Plan, drafted by William Paterson which gave each state a one vote in congress. This proposal ensured more power to congress but did little in given congress a stronger hold over the states. Alexander Hamilton from New York proposed the third proposal, ensuring a strong central government. None of these proposals was adopted as the new amendment solely. The Constitution of the United States encompassed ideas of the three documents, which ensured a strong central government with checks on each branches powers. These checks and balances are what make the constitution a fair representation of the needs of the new nation and prevent the existence of tyranny.

How did the Marshall Court help to shape the economic, social and political framework of the nation during the early 19th century?

After the United States had asserted itself a new nation, by gaining its independence from Britain and the drafting of its constitution, the new nation faced the internal problems on governance. Although the Constitution provided checks and balances among the three branches of government, the role of the judiciary branch was greatly defined under John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Under Marshall the Supreme Court became the supreme arbiter of the Constitution.

In document 42, Marshall set the precedence of the Supreme Court being the true arbiter of the constitution. The issue was over the appointment of midnight judges. William Marbury one of the four last minute appointed whose appointment was discarded by Jefferson sought a writ of mandamus in Marshall's court. Marshall in turn posed three questions on the issue, " Did Marbury have a right to the commission? If he did, and his rights had been violated, did the law provide him with a remedy? If so, did a writ of mandamus from the Supreme Court constitutes the proper remedy?" The end result was the setting of a precedence, in which the principle of Judiciary Review was made. Marshall pointed out that the constitutionality of the Constitution should be decided by the Supreme Court judge who are appointed by life and would not be swayed by transitory political thoughts. An act passed by Congress and signed by the president is left up to the judiciary branch to decide whether it is constitutional. Also the people can compel the president into obeying a law and once a decision is made a law, it is a case for the judiciary branch to review.

In document 43, Eakin v. Raub (1825) the idea of judicial review was contested and criticized by Gibson. Document 54 also involved a later case of judiciary review concerning the charter of the Second National bank. There was the question of whether any state, namely the Maryland could enact a law that imposed a tax on all banks, "not chartered by the legislature " and operating "without authority from the state." Although Marshall ruled in favor of a strong endorsement of national sovereignty, it did not end the debate over the recharting of the Second bank; since this issue resurrected in document 55, resulting in a veto of the bank bill.

In document 45, involving the American Insurance v. Canter, the Supreme Court ruled that the government have the inherent sovereign powers to acquire territory through treaty or by military conquest. since this case the right of the nation to acquire, govern and dispose of territory was made definitive. Document 47 involved the trial of Aaron Burr in relation to violating the Sedition Act and in committing treason by alleging to create a new state in Mexico. Marshall imposed a strident interpretation of what the constitution meant by an act of treason, in which he defined that treason could only take place within the context of war, " that the crime of treason should not be extended by construction to doubtful cases; and that crimes not clearly within the constitutional definition should receive such punishment as the legislature in its wisdom may provide." [197]

In 1809 document 48 raised the issue of state sovereignty and federal judicial power. The Republican were forced to uphold the authority of the federal courts over state tribunals in order to sustain their own foreign policy. This case was also a violation of the 11th Amendment. Document 52 involved the case between Dartmouth college v. Woodland. This case disputed the contract clause. Marshall maintained that any contract can not violated or breached unless there were provisions made in the contract that stipulated the said circumstance. Further maintaining that the court could not make any changes that would violate this contract. Following this ruling, the question of the Contract Clause was again brought Marshall's court in document 53 in reference to a state declaring itself bankrupt. The Supreme Court ruled that the constitution did not forbid state laws, and the Contract clause did not set limits on what the states could do especially concerning contract made before enactment of law. " The Constitution does not grant to the states the power of passing bankrupt laws, or any other power; but finds them in possession of it, and may either prohibits its future exercise of entirely, or restrain it so far as national policy may require." And furthermore, Congress, " can not constitutionally introduce into such laws a clause which discharges the obligations the bankrupt has entered into." [224-225]

Document 56 involved the case of Cohens brother v. state of Virginia concerning the sale of lottery tickets in the District of Columbia. Virginian court convicted the brother on the grounds that they were violating state laws an maintained that the Supreme court had no jurisdiction to exercise judicial review of a state's criminal law without the state's permission. Marshall ruled that the court could in fact exercise appellate review over state court decisions.

Document 57, Marshall ruling resulted in the dissipation of the monopoly on steamboat navigation between New York and New Jersey, which permitted the national government to adapt its policies to new technology in transportation and commerce. This decision set the precedent of interstate regulation of commerce and defined that commerce meant navigation and trading, therefore the federal act superseded the state acts.

In all the cases brought to Marshall's court there was the resounding of precedence and land marked precedence. Marshall had indeed the changed the role of the judicial branch by extending its power beyond the boundary of the constitution. He also maintained in his ruling that the only the Supreme Court was the true arbiter of the Constitution of United States.

The fundamental and Economic Philosophies of the first half of the Century

This era in American history is denoted as a "release of energy." A national system of road, canal and railways connected east to west. Industries grew and the economies were connected. From New England, whose soil was incapable of producing grain competitively with the cheap and fertile western lands, came a steady stream of men and women who left their coastal farms and villages to take advantage of the rich interior of the continent. The 1800's marked the beginning the democracy in true sense of the word. "The changes that took place in Jeffersonian and Jacksonian eras required a rethinking of the law, and in fine common law tradition, necessary changes occurred."[277]

The first case in this era was document 61, a case involving the usage of the water dams. A down stream mill owner sued the defendant for obstructing the water flow by a new upstream dam. The court ruled that as long as the use of the property did not impair the usage of the water downstream the defendant could use his property as he see fit. The second case, document 62 involved the formation of union and the right to conduct strikes, organized by the Federal Society of Journeyman Cordwainers. This case opened the door to the free-market economy. Document 75 also involved the formation of union and strike, in which the question of conspiracy was found in a default since unions were not by themselves illegal, nor were their demands of only union members be hired.

Tyler v. Wilkinson, a landmark case also involved the watercourses which upheld the plaintiff's claim to the use of the water, but then insisted that the true test of water law should be "reasonable use;" any utilitarian use. In Lansing v. Smith, the question of safety comes into place involving the building of a watercourse that caused damage to individual's property. The court ruled that the state is not liable for the damages done to property by the building of the Erie Canal, since it was for the benefit of the public.

The era faced the opposition to expansion through the watercourse as was mention previously as well as through the building of roads and railroads. In document 67, Jackson vetoed the Mayville road because he felt that a road that is inclusively in Kentucky is not a federal issue but state responsibility. Federal funds are not appropriate for building a road that extend only in one state. This marked the era of sectionalism.

Document 69 involved the monopoly of the bridge, in which the Charles River Bridge accused a second company, the Warren Bridge of destroying the monopoly. The judge ruled that state had the power to encourage more bridge charters, because there was no right to a monopoly in the original charter. Also this was an impairment and interference of progress.

In document 68, the state of New York stipulated that any ship docked in their harbor had to provide a list of passengers and post security against any becoming public charges. Those who didn't had to pay a fine to the state. The court ruled that the State police laws prevented immigrants from becoming a ward of the state, in protecting the health, safety and welfare of its citizens, and therefore the state had a right to protect itself against unwanted paupers.

Sand v. Taylor involved the transfer of title. The question of what are the sellers' rights was evident in this case, when a buyer refused to accept a shipment of wheat he had ordered. English common law came into place, when the seller disposed of the wheat at the current market price and sued the buyer for the difference between market price and the breached price. The judged ruled in favor of the seller.

By 1821 the question of extending the suffrage since most states had eliminated the property qualification to vote. In the 1820's there was the change from a government of the upper class to a government of the people. Document 64 involved the opposition against universal suffrage. The opposition came from conservatives who felt that only those with a stake in society (a property interest) should have a voice in electing its government.

In case study of document 70 and 72, the battle of custody rights comes into play. Both case disputed who should be given the custody to right of the children in a divorce settlement, the father or the mother. In the Nickerson's case, the father was awarded the custody of the child since he provided the income. However in Mercein v. People ex. rel. Barry, the custody claim was awarded to the mother. This matter was not of who was most fit financially, but concern the best interest of the child, in terms of nurture rather than income. This ruling set a precedence for other custody case involving the best interest of the child.

Document 74 involved liability. The question of who is responsible when an injury occurred in the factory, the worker or the company? The court ruled that the fault lay not with the company but with the injured worker for failing to take the necessary precautions. Bearing in mind that when the worker took the job, he was aware of the dangers, therefore the railroad was not liable for dangers done to him.

In conclusion, this era of release of energy was marked with social, political and economic progress. There was the creation of national markets and the marked de-marginalization of democracy in politic. This was the age of American industrialization. Commerce rather than manufacturing was the characteristic economic activity of the early years of Republic.

Slavery

The most pervasive reality of the South was the question of slavery. Every aspect of Southern life was affected and infected by it. Slavery was confined, with increasing few exception to the South, its poisonous consequences were felt in all corners of the the country. It touched every political issue; it divided religious denominations; it cast its dark shadow westward. I produced an almost universal paranoia in the South and that least attractive of trait, self-righteousness, in the North. But the general contempt for blacks by whites who lived north of the Mason-Dixon line did not prevent Northerners from continuously denouncing slavery and abusing the South for perpetuating it.

Document 82, Maryland Statute on Negroes and Other Slaves, firmly established the South's position on slavery, that children born from slaves were automatically considered slaves for life. In document 83, the question of whether a slave is considered a slave in an area free of the institution of slavery, was still considered a slave. It was pointed out that although one should abide by the laws of each country by the natural law, if the majority of the population accepted the institution Somerset was still considered a slave. Document 84 expressed the concern of slavery holding states about the growing power of the federal government in defense of their right to practice slavery.

In document 87, the abolitionist movement cried out against the defense of slavery. Documents 88, 89 and 90 there were various attacks in northern courts on the mechanisms for dealing with runaway slaves. Document 91 sought the removal of the Fugitive Slave Act and endorsed that slavery should be dealt with on a national level. Documents 92 and 93 showed the South's view and effort in tightening the grasp on what they considered the rights of property and possession, and clearly defining that slaves had no rights as citizen of the states. Slaves were considered property or chattel, and it was not surprising that in the Dred Scott case, document 97 the issue was thrown out of the court on the grounds that Dred Scott was not even a considered a citizen. Taney ruled that the congress could not authorize a state to abolish slavery. Document 94 was a special case since it set the precedence of the idea of "equal but separate.".

Document 95 called for a stronger Fugitive Slave law by the South in an effort of reclaiming what they considered property. In response to this northern states enacted personal liberty laws against the tightening of the Fugitive acts, such as was seen in document 95. The slave states exercised other measures in justifying slave holding and disobey federal court ruling such as in document 99. This case also disputed Taney's earlier ruling and ruled that the federal law is the law of the land. The state can not protect the people from the federal law and the state could prevent slavery from occurring in any state. <p>

The issue of sectionalism continued and escalated to point where the south developed a totally different ideology from the north. In document 100-101, it became enormously clearly to the South that the federal government would eventually impose the abolition of slavery on them, an institution their economy greatly depended upon. And so in 1860, South Carolina enacted an ordinance of Secession, which clearly divided and separated the Southern states from the union. In the next four years, the union and the confederate states engaged in the most devastating and sectional war in American history.

Work Cited

Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, From Settlement through Reconstruction. Edt. Melvin I. Urofsky Vol 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. MaGraw-Hill Inc. New York:1989

PART II

April 18, 1996

History of the constitutional and legal rights of women in 20th to 21st century America - the security of health, labor and suffrage.

"Women have historically fared better legally in the United States than we have in elsewhere in the world."[Waltman, 106] Throughout most of history women generally have had fewer rights and career opportunities than men. They regarded wifehood and motherhood as women's most significant professions. "In the nineteenth century, United States women obtained the rights to hold property and have equal standing in court before most European women did."[Waltman, 106] Women in most nations won the right to vote and increased their educational and job opportunities in the 20th century. In 1920 women got the right to vote nationally in the United States, with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment. Perhaps most important, they fought for and largely accomplished a reevaluation of traditional views of their role in society.

During the early history of the United States, a man virtually owned his wife and children as he did his material possessions. If a poor man chose to send his children to the poorhouse, the mother was legally defenseless to object. Some communities, however, modified the common law to allow women to act as lawyers in the courts, to sue for property, and to own property in their own names if their husbands agreed. Under the common law of England, an unmarried woman could own property, make a contract, or sue and be sued. Nevertheless, a married woman, define as one with her husband, gave up her name, and nearly all her property came under her husband's control.[Brockett, 130]

Equity law, which developed in England, emphasized the principle of equal rights rather than tradition. Equity law had a liberalizing effect upon the legal rights of women in the United States. In the 1900's in United States, a woman could sue her husband. In Mississippi in 1839, followed by New York in 1848 and Massachusetts in 1854, they passed laws allowing married women to own property separate from their husbands. In divorce law, however, generally the divorced husbands kept legal control of both children and property. This is seen in document 70. In the document 72 there was an evident change in the Supreme Court ruling on the question of women rights..

In the case of Nickerson, which was the first custody battle between husband and wife tried in the Supreme Court. The Justice Nelson ruled in favor of the father, on the grounds that only the father could provide financial security through his income. Women and children were viewed as property and possession of the men. The father has the right to this claim to, "dispose of the custody and tuition of such (his) child, during his minority or for any less time to any persons in possession or remainder." [Urofsky, 311] In the later case involving custody, the Mercein v. People ex. rel Barry (1840) the woman won the custody battle on the argument of nature.

Women gained the right to vote in 1920, but their political roles had been small since. Politically, many feminists believed that a cooperative society based on socialist economic principles would respect the rights of women. The Socialist Labor Party, in 1892, was one of the first national political parties in the United States to have included in its platform women's suffrage. Women in the United States during the 19th century organized and participated in a great variety of reform movements. For example, they advocated in the improvement of education, initiation of prison reform, the banning alcoholic drinks and during the pre-Civil War period, helped in the abolition of the slaves.

The first women's rights convention took place in Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848. The declaration of Seneca Fall Convention (1848) was modeled after the Declaration of Independence. Elizabeth Cady Stanton wrote it. It claimed that, "all men and women are created equal," and that "history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman." [Urofsky, 338] With the Union victory in the Civil war, women abolitionists hoped that their hard work would result in suffrage for women and for blacks. Nevertheless, the 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, adopted in 1868 and 1870 respectively granted citizenship and suffrage to blacks but not to women.

The struggle to win the vote was slow and frustrating. Wyoming Territory in 1869, Utah Territory in 1870, and the states of Colorado in 1893 and Idaho in 1896 granted women the vote but the eastern states resisted. The woman-suffrage amendment to the Federal Constitution, presented to every Congress since 1878, repeatedly failed to pass. In the same instance suffragist Alice Paul wrote the Equal Rights Amendment [ERA] in 1921. They had introduced it in Congress every session since 1923. It was passed by Congress in 1972, but failed to be ratified by the necessary thirty-eight states by the July 1982 deadline. Although the Equal Rights Amendment had two arguments in favor [document 217a and 217c] and one against it [document 217b], thirty-five states later ratified it.

After women won the vote, they were faced with the issue of whether they had the right to work outside the household, especially in areas and professions designated mostly for men. In colonial America, women who earned their own living usually became dressmakers or kept boardinghouses.[Brockett, 225] In contrast to the earlier attitude towards women in the work force, most women today worked in professions and jobs that were once exclusively available to men. By the early 19th century, the industrial revolution opened the door of opportunity for women in the factories and mills. Many factories preferred to hire women (especially single women) because they could pay them less than men and they were hard workers. Many employers at the time believed that women worked for pin-money and not for the reason to support their families. [Wolf, 46]

Despite this superficial beliefs and views about women, many professions and doors were still closed to women, such as law and the medical profession. In the Bradwell v. Illinois case, uphold that women should not be allowed to take the bar because, hot strife of the bar, in the presence of the public, would destroy femininity. [Urofsky, 391] In the case of Darrin v. Gould anti-ERA argued with the a similiar logic, that if ERA was adopted it would do away with all sensible distinction between males and females. The medical profession is an example of change attitudes in the 19th and 20th centuries about what was regarded as suitable work for women. The American Medical Association, founded in 1846, barred women from membership. But by 1910s, women were attending leading medical schools, and in 1915 the American Medical Association began to admit women members. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 covered employment discrimination on the basis of race and gender yet the many states had not extended its domestic policies to protect women.

During the Civil Rights era many policies and act were enacted that sought to protect the right of women and prevent the violations against women and other minority groups. The presidential Executive Order in 1967 prohibited bias against women in hiring by federal government contractors. Later the enactment of the Affirmative Action Act that attempted to curb the discriminations based on sex [against women] and race [against blacks]. Against the violation of paying women less than men in similiar field of employment the enactment of the Equal Pay Act was introduced in 1963. Despite the Equal Pay Act of 1963, they paid women in 1970 about 45 percent less than men for the same jobs; in 1988 about 32 percent less. In the case of Frontiero v. Richardson the case of equal pay was contested against the discrimination based on gender by including the gender discrimination within the Equal Protection Clause. While women were recruited into the work force, there were many laws passed in the Supreme Court that protected the designated the amount of hours that women and children should be allowed to worked in factories and industries. These cases - Commonwealth v. Hamilton Manufacturing, Muller v. Oregon, Lochker, Adkins v. Children's hospital, Massachusett v. Mellon, Whitney v. California West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish etc - have set the precedent for the working woman today. Notably in many of the cases just mentioned the labor rights of women were guaranteed almost accidentally.

Despite the enactments of certain act mentioned above, ensuring the protection of the rights of women and preventing the discrimination in other fields persisted against women. Many retail stores would not issue independent credit cards to married women. [Brockett, 232] Divorced or single women often found it difficult to obtain credit to purchase a house or a car.[Brockett, 220] This is ironic since before the civil liberties were granted we noted that most of the violation against women was directed to the married women, after the 1963 there seemed to be an enormous change in the attitudes and values of the society towards women. Between the 1970s and 1990s, we find that the single women suffer profoundly from inadequate protection against the law and social facilities. Laws concerned with welfare, legal age to drink, crime, prostitution and abortion also displayed a bias against women and men.

In recent years, the violation of a woman's right to privacy were infringed upon by the government. For example, a mother receiving government welfare payments were subject to frequent investigations to verify her welfare claim.[Waltman, 396] Protection under the law was guaranteed in many states but there were clear discrimination of unequal treatment of women and the continued classification of gender. For example in Oklahoma, the statute allowing women to purchase beer at eighteen but required men to be twenty-one was in fact direct gender classification. The state argued that, since men between the age of eighteen and twenty-one as a group cause more alcohol-related automobile accidents, the law was a reasonable was to secure highway safety. [Waltman, 108] However, the Supreme Court disagreed with the state's position and ruled that this was an breach of the Fourteenth Amendment and sustained that gender classification would require a very high proof, in case Craig v. Boren.

Sex discrimination in the definition of crimes existed in some areas of the United States. In many states, they would accuse a woman who shot and killed her husband, of homicide, but they could term the shooting of a wife by her husband a "passion shooting." [Brockett, 68] Only in 1968, for example, did the Pennsylvania courts void a state law which required that any woman convicted of a felony be sentenced to maximum punishment prescribed by law. They prosecuted women's prostitutes although they allowed that their male customers went free. It is notably that even the right of women to the use of their bodies was not considered a right to privacy by the laws. Ironically in Michael M v. Superior, a thirty-year-old woman who had sex with a sixteen-year-old male was found guilty of committing no crime, since Statutory rape was defined in California as sexual intercourse with a female under the age of eighteen. [Waltman, 108] Ever since Margaret Sanger advocated and introduced the birth control and usage of contraceptives, more women moved into the work force.Many states opposed the usage of contraceptives and the practice of birth control method. For example, the law passed in Connecticut [Griswold v. Connecticut] that forbade the use of contraceptives and was later modified to included abortion. From this issue bred the new issues of Privacy and Equal Protection. Waltman states that, "Using the Ninth Amendment and parts of various other amendment, the late 1960s and early 1970s the Supreme Court created a generalized" right to privacy. [Waltman, 109] In most states, abortion was legal only if they detected that the mother's life endangered. In 1973, the United States Supreme Court ruled that states could not restrict a woman's right to an abortion in her first three months of pregnancy as seen in the case Roe v. Wade.

The issue of abortion then became the most hotly debated gender issue and is still debated by the catholic church and pro-life advocates today. In 1989, the Supreme Court ruling in Webster v. Reproduction Health Services, allowed states more regulating room in the abortion issues. In Rust v. Sullivan (1991), the Court upheld controversial rules issued by the executive branch that forbade clinics receiving federal funds from providing abortion counseling. In the state of Pennsylvania (1992), the justices voted 5-4 to uphold most of the restrictions over states on the regulation of abortion but did not overrule the Roe case.

Since that ruling there have been other issues related to women's right that the Supreme Court had to decided on the treatment and protection of women's rights. As mentioned earlier child custody, the right to vote and the right to work were not easy battles in ensuring women's protection under the law and the Constitution. The 1990s has brought about issues such as the availability of alimony only to women, pregnancy leaves and differing rates for life insurance into the Courts. Certainly the rights and liberties of women has improved since the 1920's and the 1960's, and I predict that women liberties will more greatly improved upon in the next decade, extending to the full recognition of lesbians. As Virginia Wolf had remarked, "if we have the habit of freedom and the courage to write exactly what we think; if we escape a little from the common sitting-room and see human beings not always in their relation to each other but in relation to reality.....then the opportunity will come and the dead poet who was Shakespeare's sister will put on the body which she has often laid down." [Wolf, 50] The Constitution is vast in scope to allow the women to win their liberties and so will curtail the rights of other marginalized people in our ever changing society.

In conclusion, by opening up the doors of opportunity to women and allowing women certain rights has enable this society to be truly liberal and democratic. It is a truly wonderful experience to live in a time where liberty is unlimited, boundless and is not subject to discrimination. We have come a long way but the trials are no where near a conclusion. Although the future appears uncertain, there is the one guarantee that the unforeseen future gives under the constitution is the attainment of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Jerold L. Waltman, American Government, Politics and Citizenship. West Publishing Company. New York: 1993

Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History, From Settlement through Reconstruction. Edt. Melvin I. Urofsky Vol 1 Library of Congress Cataloging-in- Publication Data. MacGraw-Hill Inc. New York: 1989

Documents of American Constitutional and Legal History: The Age of Industrialization to the Present. Edt Melvin I Urofsky Vol 2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data. MacGraw-Hill Inc. New York: 1989

Virginia Woolfe, a Room of One's Own.Blackwell Publishers; Cambridge, Mass. U.S.A: Three Cambridge Center 1992. Pp.45-46.

Samuel McChord Crothers, Meditations On Votes For Women. Houghton Mifflin Company, The Riverside Press Cambridge. New York: 1914

L.P. Brockett, M.D., Woman: Her Rights, Wrongs, Provileges, And Responsibilities. Books for Libraries Press. New York: 1970