Landmark cases, cspans special series produced with the constitution center, explore and the human story and constitutional dramas behind 12 Supreme Court decisions. Number 759, Petitioner Versus arizona. Number 18, roe against wade. Quite often in many of our famous decisions were quite unpopular. Lets go through a few cases that illustrate are very dramatically and visually what it means to live in a society of 310 million different people who helped stick together because they believed in the rule of law. Welcome to landmark cases. Our series of looking at the 12 most important cases in Supreme Courts history. We will learn more about the people in the issues behind them. Tonight, lochner v. New york, 1905. It is one of the controversial cases of the Supreme Court, and in fact the story of a baker from new york whose case gave rise to an era that defined Supreme Court cases for the next 30 years. Let me introduce you to our two guests who would tell us more about this important case
And sewer pipes overhead and there were suers in the ground and sometimes were wood, rats ran freely and so did roaches. Bakers worked exceedingly long hours and exceedingly difficult work. It wasnt as difficult as a lot of work during that time, its true, but the title of my first chapter, by the way is not my grandma used to bake. They were handling 100 to 200 pounds of sacks of flour and its hard work and it was dirty and filthy and difficult work for long hours. But it wasnt just that it was difficult conditions for the bakers. There was also the Public Health was endangered by the conditions that these people were working in because the bread wasnt very sanitary. What was also happening in the country that people were beginning to look with Public Health and public safety. Well, i think this is a really good time after that clip to talk about the bake shop act and what the legislature of new york did to address the conditions that you so there were so well described in the video.
The first lecture in this years series. This year, we are examining dissents opinions. Different aspects thereof. You have already been warned about your cell phones and your apple watches and so forth so i will not repeat that. But you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the period of our evening. I also want to thank this evening our host, Justice Stephen breyer, who against all odds was able to come and introduce our speaker on the first day of a busy term. Justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends of the society. Whenever we have called on him to help us out, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. Him for taking time away from his busy schedule on first day of term. To impose too much on his time so i will abbreviate the introduction of Justice Breyer. Francisco. In san he received an a. B. From stanford. Aba from mod lang college, oxford and an ll. B. From harvard. He served as a law clerk to Justice Arthur goldberg of the Supreme Court of the United States d
Professor is introduced by Justice Stephen breyer, then discusses the dissenting opinions delivered in cases between 1810 and 1927. Good evening. I from atlanta. Serve as president of the Supreme Court Historical Society. I am pleased to welcome you to the first lecture in this years series. This year we are examining dissents, not majority opinions, different aspects thereof. You have been warned about your cell phones and apple watches so forth, so i will not appear that, but you will be in the doghouse if it goes off during the period of our evening. I also want to thank our host , Justice Stephen breyer, who against all odds agreed to come and introduce our speaker this evening on the first day of a busy term. Justice breyer is one of the most faithful friends of the society. Whenever we have called on him to help us out, he has shown up and done a wonderful job. I want to thank him for taking time away from his busy schedule on first day of term. I dont want to impose too much on
Test. Land speculators would push for recognition of title for 50 years. The purchases were in 1773 and 75. And eventually, theyd get before the Supreme Court, and what the Supreme Court did in that case was to hold the purchases invalid on the grounds that the tribes didnt own their own land. And this is the point at which, 1823, the federal government does adopt a rule about indian occupancy rights being the limit of tribal land rights. And its a construct of this case. And what the court finds is that when europeans discovered the new world, they found it in the possession of native peoples. And the question arose, who owns the discovered lands . The europeans says John Marshall for the court in johnson versus mcintosh, determined that the way it should work is as follows upon discovery, the underlying title to all discovered lands becomes the property of the discovering european sovereign. Thats the king of england, fine. If its the king of france, fine. That european sovereign own