Previously we were exploring the timeline and historic events that lead women to be granted the right to vote. Read the first article here.
The Court session of 1922 responded to the three main opposition arguments to the ratification of the constitutional amendment granting women the right to vote with three main counter arguments.
In response to the argument that the amendment was unlawful simply by nature, the Court drew similarities between the stereotypes and prejudice against women with those against African-Americans. Since the laws in place enforcing equal rights to African-Americans had held for 50 years, it was unjust to block the similar amendment justifying women’s rights simply because of its nature.
In opposition to the argument that other states had conflicting laws imposed in a State capacity, the Court responded that the Federal decisions made when ratifying the amendment transcended any laws made on a state level.
The same argument was used to counter the claims that the votes of Tennessee and West Virginia were void, with the added argument that those same laws were unsuccessful when they were attempted to be passed into law in other states.
This, along with the full and extensive documentation provided which justified the desisions of the Court, it became immediately clear that the 19th amendment would be enforced by the Judicial system.
The struggle, as you no doubt well know, did not end there. The power that the Judiciacal system had in both upholding and creating new laws was such that many, many issues were brought before court by both the advocates of women’s rights, and the opposing parties.
Perhaps one of the most famous and influential was the Griswold v, Connecticut (1965) case which centred on Privacy. The Court ruled in favour of a woman seeking Privacy rights, and in doing so the implications were great enough that they changed the constitution. In fact, the ruling changed the very meaning of Privacy for many people. Particularly, the case in question involved a woman’s right to contraception. The laws against the use of contraception were dismantled in direct response to this ruling.
Then along came the ERA and the controversy that it brought with it. The ERA was essentially a body that stood for equal rights for women, and yet it was not whole-heartedly supported by women for various reasons.
Perhaps the most concise way to summarize the situation would be that many women thought that the ERA would in fact take away rights, and not provide benefits. For example, it would essentially take away the right for women to be supported by their husbands, and lead to women being drafted for war – which naturally the women of the time fiercely opposed.
Today women’s rights have progressed to levels that were even unsought for by many people in the beginning of the movement. While there is no doubt still improvements and progress to be made, the progress so far is worth celebrating. Women have the right to vote and legal enforcements to ensure that their treatment is equal to males. The workplace is becoming more and more balanced, the entrepenurial class is no longer made up solely of men, or women born to wealth.
