0
What was the ruling in the 1874 Supreme Court Case Minor v Happersett?
Wiki User
∙ 10y agoWant this question answered?
Be notified when an answer is posted
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is a court case that deals with the 19th amendment?
Minor vs Happersett
Has the US Supreme Court acted to restrict the political rights of the Constitution?
The supreme court has indeed acted to restrict the political rights of the constitution. In 1875 a group of women from Missouri appealed to the supreme court to challenge the Missouri law that denied them the right to vote in a case called Minor v. Happersett. The Supreme court ruled against these women based on the statement in our constitution "All men are created equal." It was not until congress passed the 19th amendment in 1920 that women received full political rights.
State statutes that prevented women from voting were declared constitutional in the case of?
minor v. happersett
Do all cases involving federal laws tried in the supreme court?
No. There is an entire court system. Minor court issues are resolved in minor courts. If there is a controversy then it is moved up the line of courts, eventually reaching the state supreme court if there are enough controversies. If there is a challenge to the state supreme court's final decision, than it MAY be moved to the Supreme Court of the United States.
State statues that prevented women from voting were declared constitutional in which case?
The Minor vs Happerset ruling was based on an interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court readily accepted that Minor was a citizen of the United States, but it held that the constitutionally protected privileges of citizenship did not include the right to vote.
If two states' Supreme Court rulings are opposite can the US Supreme Court resolve the conflict?
Answer:Yes, but the courts have to agree to sign over the conflict and the US court must approve the minor courts adjustment because Congress stripped the US Supreme Court of original jurisdiction over issues between the states.Answer:The first answer only applies to cases where the states are in conflict with each other, not where State Supreme Court rulings apply different interpretations to Federal or constitutional laws.When this happens, if a party to one of the actions petitions the High Court for a Writ of Certiorari, and the Supreme Court considers the matter adjudicated to be of sufficient importance to warrant a review, they may well grant certiorari to the petitioner in order to clarify how the Constitution or law is to be applied. This helps ensure more consistent ruling in lower level courts.On the other hand, if the opposite rulings involve differing individual state constitutional issues, the case would be outside the US Supreme Court's jurisdiction, and the state Supreme Court for each state would issue the final decision.
Does a 16yr old need a lawyer to request change in custody between parents?
If you live in the US... The minor cannot do that. The non-custodial parent would have to file a petition with the court (they can do it without an attorney, but personally, I wouldn't). The court will consider the minor's wishes when making the ruling, but they are not required to abide by the minor's wishes. It's just one factor of many that they consider.
At what age can a minor in Texas make the decision to live with Mom or Dad?
The court makes the determination, not the minor. The court will usually consider the minor's opinion on the matter as one of the many factors they weigh before issuing the ruling, but it's certainly not the only one and probably not the most important one (if you're 17 and 9 months, then they'll probably figure they might as well let you live where you want for the three months they get to dictate; but if you're, say, 12, then it's a lot less relevant). The rule of thumb nationally is that it's around 12 when the court starts considering a minor's wishes as a serious factor. But, as I said, the minor never gets to dictate the ruling, not even at 17 years and 364 days, if the judge feels strongly enough that the minor's decision is not in his or her best interest.
Who said innocence is no bar to a jury conviction?
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said, "Innocence is no bar to upholding a jury conviction." Seems minor, but it's a big difference from what you quoted.
What court do minor offences go to?
Minor offences typically go to a lower court, such as a municipal court or a magistrate's court. These courts handle less serious criminal or civil cases, and their jurisdiction varies depending on the region or country. They often handle traffic violations, minor infractions, or misdemeanors.
Did all Amendments to the Constitution come in reaction to Supreme Court decisions?
No, not all of them, although it's fair to say the Eleventh, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Sixteenth, Nineteenth and Twenty-Sixth Amendments were necessitated in some way by Supreme Court decisions.The first Ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) were created to appease some of the states that didn't want to ratify the Constitution without some guarantees of protection from the federal government.The Eleventh Amendment was a reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, (1793), because the Court held the states lacked sovereign immunity from being sued by citizens for war debt accumulated during the Revolution.The Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (also called the Reconstruction Amendments) were created as a result of the Civil War; however, the Supreme Court's decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford, (1857), was a major kindling factor in that war.The Sixteenth Amendment was a direct reaction to the Supreme Court's decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co., (1895), which declared Congress' attempt to institute an income tax unconstitutional.The Nineteenth Amendment granting women's suffrage wasn't ratified as a direct result of a Supreme Court case, but was necessitated by the Court's interpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment not applying to women, in Minor v. Happersett,(1875), an equal protection challenge based on the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court's peculiar interpretation of the Fifteenth Amendment was that it "...did not confer upon women the right to vote but only the right not to be discriminated against on the basis of their sex in the setting of voting qualifications."The Twenty-Sixth Amendment reducing the national voting age for both federal and state elections from 21 to 18 was ratified in response to the Supreme Court's decision in Oregon v. Mitchell, (1970), in which a divided Court declared Congress could reduce the voting age for federal elections, but did not have the authority to override state voting regulations. The states, contemplating the expense and confusion of holding separate elections for state and federal office, were happy to agree to this Amendment.Most of the other amendments involved what the Court refers to as "political questions," which it typically declines to hear.
Who can try cases involving minor offenses?
Generally, that would be a district court judge. That would be a probable cause hearing. If there is a need to appeal, it can be moved to superior court, and you can have a jury trial. However, if you go to superior court with a minor offense, and you are found guilty there too, you will likely do some time. When it comes to small claims court (evictions and money owed), it is usually a magistrate who presides as the "judge." Another facet is that while the judges on television courtrooms are real judges, and one even a former state supreme court justice, it really isn't court in the usual sense, but binding arbitration.
