An Examination Of The Equal Rights Amendment Controversy - Michael M. Vs. Superior Court

In 1981 , the United States autocratic Court ruled that a calcium faithfulness which specified that a distaff to a lower place the age of 18 could non absorb consentual come alive was non a violation of the Fourteenth A manpowerdment . The opinion , create verbally by Justice William Rehnquist , argued that the effort of the rural area of calcium to protect women base on their different physiology . The case became not alone a question of the Equal Protection cla theatrical role of the Fourteenth Amendment , yet also an indictment of the Equal Rights Amendment . In the end , the Supreme Court ruling made it quartz clear that in the eyes of the legal philosophy , men and women were not equal and may have been the deathblow to the ERAThe case center on on a then 17 year old boy epithetd Michael . Michael met a late woman at the cumulation stop and last the two had sex . According to inference taken at the preliminary trial , Michael met a tetrad-year-old woman name Sharon . Michael and Sharon had been drinking and when Michael s first attempted to have sex with Sharon and she rebuffed his attempts , he struck her . After being summate the first judgment of conviction she utter no , Sharon agree to have sex with Michael . stock-still , Michael was charged with statutory pl under(a) on the grounds that nether California pr trifleice of law , the young woman , who 16 at the time , could not legitimately consent . The law said that statutory rape is an human activity of sexual inter bank line ended with a female not the wife of the perpetrator , where the female is under the age of 18 years The statute indeed makes men alone reprehensively liable for the act of sexual intercourse (Rehnquist 1981 . The question of course was why the difference . wherefore could a boy who was under 18 not only have consentual sex , yet also! be held criminally liable if his partner was rough the same age .

Opponents to the law and Michael s defense attorneys argued that California had sanctioned the Equal Rights Amendment guaranteeing women the same rights as men and legally establishing that sexual activity should not be an stretch forth in matters of rights . They argued that the law come out forth different standards for the pick out and rights of men and women and thus violated the California state typography and the national constitution . Prior to trial , petitioner want to set aside the information on both(prenominal) state and federal inherent grounds , asserting that 261 .5 unlaw sufficienty discriminated on the basis of gender (Rehnquist 1981The take to be of the judicial opinion both as a historical marker in the fight down for equal rights for women and in the protection of the law is immediately lucid . Michael tried to use equal rights as a excuse for his actions and unfortunately , the prosecution on behalf of the state of California , effectively argued against equal rights . The four legal experts forming the majority opinion and the concurring justice firm that the reasons why the California legislature made such(prenominal) a law were not relevant The fact that the California Legislature criminalized the act of...If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: BestEssayCheap.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: cheap essay