Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
1
Chapter 1
Legal Heritage and the Digital Age
VI. Answer to Critical Legal Thinking Case
1.1 Fairness of the Law
one from acting morally. Moralists might label this ignorance as excusable in that it is “invincible,” i.e.,
an ignorance that cannot be destroyed or offers no moral reason for doing so. Of course, modern
experience and knowledge require that we question these premises. It almost certainly would not be
lawful today. Not only have the items relevant to the test of equal protection broadened under present
constitutional interpretations, but also Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits any
(Supreme Court of Illinois)
VII. Answers to Ethics Cases
1.2 Ethics Case
Minnesota as a state made no mention of Indian treaty rights. It was illegal for the state of Minnesota to
try to extinguish clearly delineated legal rights granted to the Ojibwe Native Americans more than 150
years before. The hunting, fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe Indians in the 1837
treaty are still valid and enforceable. The state of Minnesota did not act ethically when it tried to abolish
the hunting, fishing, and gathering rights guaranteed to the Ojibwe Indians by treaty. The Ojibwe relied
States)
1.3 Ethics Case
The better case is made by the dissent. The law has not been progressive in this instance. It is likely that
legislators entertained an unconscious premise that women should not be required to fight a war. This
speculation might be supported by the fact that the majority of the Supreme Court summoned a technical
(Supreme Court of the United States)
