User talk:Tschoultz/sandbox

PEER REVIEW: Drafting Edits '''I like the structure. Organizing by case makes sense, and it helps to keep the reader focused and transitions are clean.''' Weinberger v Wiesenfeld This case gave widowed men the opportunities to collect Social Security for their dependent children, which was only allowed for widowed mothers to collect before this court case. Like men, women could now have their Social Security benefit their families if they passed away.[4] (The Wiki page states that the court rules unanimously for Wiesenfeld, but this is false. I would change this to say: Eight of the nine justices voted in favor of Wiesenfeld and the other judge abstained from voting.) '''Great change, glad that you were able to catch this. It definitely changes the tone of the passage!''' Reed v. Reed Reed v. Reed was the first major Supreme Court case that addressed that discrimination based on gender was unconstitutional because it denies equal protection. The director for the ACLU, Mel Wulf, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 38 years old at the time, wrote Sally Reed's brief. They recognized Pauli Murray and Dorothea Kenyon as co-authors of the brief, giving them credit even though they did not help on it because Ginsburg wanted to acknowledge the debt she owed them for their feminist arguments that had created a basis for her arguments.[1] Hundreds of laws were changed after the Reed v. Reed ruling. "Congress went through all of the provisions of the U.S. Code and changed almost all that classified overtly on the basis of gender. So Congress and the Court were in sync."[2] This court case created the opportunity to analyze laws that dealt with sex-based classifications. Phillips v. Martin Marietta reached the Supreme Court as the first case about Title VII gender discrimination in 1971, the same year Reed v. Reed was decided. (329- reed v reed at 40) Reed created a basis to analyze sex-based discrimination, “so when we see people concluding in policy or in law that there needs to be a line between the treatment of men and the treatment of women because men are a certain way or women like certain things, or don’t like certain things, that’s the thing that raises the constitutional red flag under equal protection.” (331- reed v reed at 40) No Constitutional Right 'Was there no description previously for No Constitutional Right''? Wow! The chapter summaries and respective analysis are a bit dense/a little long, but they are well-written and the content is good. I would consider shortening them for the sake of concision, which seems to be the style of Wikipedia, but up to you!''' Kerber's book, No Constitutional Right to be Ladies, discusses through (in?) 5 chapters the different court cases and laws that have impacted women throughout history. Chapter 1 is about the court case involving Anna Gordon Martin's property, Martin v. Commonwealth. Anna Martin was an American citizen who owned property in the United States. After the Revolutionary War, she moved to England with her husband, William Martin, because he was a loyalist and was in the British army. They fled the country with their children and left all her property behind. James Martin, their son, later sued for the property because it was not granted to him once he moved back to America. Martin's place in society was ambiguous because he believed that he was an American citizen since he was born in Massachusetts, but a court stated that he was a British citizen. This was a problem because "under the common law, only citizens could own or inherit land."[1] Through this court case, there is a discussion about women's obligations and their duties to their families and the state. Due to coverture, women’s property was owned by their husbands once they were married. There was a loophole in this for Anna Gordon Martin’s family. William Martin only controlled the property once they had children, but the property would go back to Anna Gordon Martin once he passed away and would be given to her heirs once she died. In the court case, James Martin was claiming that the property was rightfully his because his mother was a citizen of the United States and it belonged to her and gave her the ability to pass it on to her heirs. “Yet because she had fled the Revolution, the state of Massachusetts did not think the property should be returned to her.” (19) It was argued that Anna did not have a choice in fleeing the country because she had an obligation and the duty to follow her husband. The importance of feme-covert in society created the belief that women's obligations to their husbands came before their obligations to the state. “The judges spoke in terms of deference, of obligation, if what women owed to their husbands, what men had a right to demand of their wives.” (30) James Martin was able to gain ownership over his mother’s property because the court agreed that she followed her obligation to her husband, which took precedence over her obligation to the United States. Chapter 2 discusses vagrancy laws after the Civil War and the actions of the Freedman’s Bureau. The Bureau was created to help freedpeople, but “its agents held varying ideas of what independence and ultimately citizenship ought to mean for freedpeople.” (49) Harriet Anthony was a pregnant woman who

'''Your article looks phenomenal! Your tone remains consistently objective, and the focus doesn't remain on positive or negative language for an excessive period of time. There also seems to be a good variety of sources, and your work is well-cited.''' Mnedak (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Weinberger v Wiesenfeld This case gave widowed men the opportunities(1) to collect Social Security for their dependent children, which was only allowed for widowed mothers to collect before this court case. Like men, women could now have their Social Security benefit their families if they passed away.[4] (The Wiki page states that the court rules unanimously for Wiesenfeld, but this is false. I would change this to say: Eight of the nine justices voted in favor of Wiesenfeld and the other judge abstained from voting.)

1) opportunity?

Reed v. Reed

Reed v. Reed was the first major Supreme Court case that addressed that discrimination based on gender was unconstitutional because it denies equal protection. The director for the ACLU, Mel Wulf, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 38 years old at the time(1), wrote Sally Reed's brief. They recognized Pauli Murray and Dorothea Kenyon as co-authors of the brief, giving them credit even though they did not help on it because Ginsburg wanted to acknowledge the debt she owed them for their feminist arguments that had created a basis for her arguments.[1] Hundreds of laws were changed after the Reed v. Reed ruling. "Congress went through all of the provisions of the U.S. Code and changed almost all that classified overtly on the basis of gender. So Congress and the Court were in sync."[2] This court case created the opportunity to analyze laws that dealt with sex-based classifications. Phillips v. Martin Marietta reached the Supreme Court as the first case about Title VII gender discrimination in 1971, the same year Reed v. Reed was decided. (329- reed v reed at 40) Reed created a basis to analyze sex-based discrimination, “so when we see people concluding in policy or in law that there needs to be a line between the treatment of men and the treatment of women because men are a certain way or women like certain things, or don’t like certain things, that’s the thing that raises the constitutional red flag under equal protection.” (331- reed v reed at 40)

1) not sure if this detail is necessary?

No Constitutional Right Kerber's book, No Constitutional Right to be Ladies, discusses through 5 chapters(1) the different court cases and laws that have impacted women throughout history. Chapter 1 is about the court case involving Anna Gordon Martin's property, Martin v. Commonwealth. Anna Martin was an American citizen who owned property in the United States. After the Revolutionary War, she moved to England with her husband, William Martin, because he was a loyalist and was in the British army. They fled the country with their children and left all her property behind. James Martin, their son, later sued for the property because it was not granted to him once he moved back to America. Martin's place in society was ambiguous because he believed that he was an American citizen since he was born in Massachusetts, but a court stated that he was a British citizen. This was a problem because "under the common law, only citizens could own or inherit land."[1] Through this court case, there is a discussion about women's obligations and their duties to their families and the state. Due to coverture, women’s property was owned by their husbands once they were married.(2) There was a loophole in this for Anna Gordon Martin’s family. William Martin only controlled the property once they had children, but the property would go back to Anna Gordon Martin once he passed away and would be given to her heirs once she died. In the court case, James Martin was claiming that the property was rightfully his because his mother was a citizen of the United States and it belonged to her and gave her the ability to pass it on to her heirs. “Yet because she had fled the Revolution, the state of Massachusetts did not think the property should be returned to her.” (19) It was argued that Anna did not have a choice in fleeing the country because she had an obligation and the duty(3) to follow her husband. The importance of feme-covert in society created the belief that women's obligations to their husbands came before their obligations to the state. “The judges spoke in terms of deference, of obligation, if what women owed to their husbands, what men had a right to demand of their wives.” (30) James Martin was able to gain ownership over his mother’s property because the court agreed that she followed her obligation to her husband, which took precedence over her obligation to the United States. Chapter 2 discusses vagrancy laws after the Civil War and the actions of the Freedman’s Bureau. The Bureau was created to help freedpeople, but “its agents held varying ideas of what independence and ultimately citizenship ought to mean for freedpeople.” (49) Harriet Anthony was a pregnant woman who

'''1) "discusses through 5 chapters" awkward 2) maybe cite this from somewhere 3) dont need the "the" before duty''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briellebudroe (talk • contribs) 22:34, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know! I have made all the changes you both wrote. These were very helpful. Tschoultz (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)