digitalcommons.nyls.edu
Faculty Scholarship
11-2015
The Law Book: From Hammurabi to the
International Criminal Court, 250 Milestones in
the History of Law (Sterling)
Michael H. Roffer
New York Law School
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books
Part of the Business Commons, Education Commons, History Commons, Law Commons, and
the Legal Studies Commons
Recommended Citation
Roffer, Michael H., "The Law Book: From Hammurabi to the International Criminal Court, 250 Milestones in the History of Law
(Sterling)" (2015). Books. Book 8.
http://digitalcommons.nyls.edu/fac_books/8
This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at DigitalCommons@NYLS. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Books by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@NYLS.
Books
Contents
To Susan, Jillian, and Ben- my most important milcstonesancl to the memory of my parents, Celia and Jerry
......
,,,
, .. ,,
7 sTERLING
New York
An Imprint of Sterling Publishing
1166 Avenue of the Americas
New York. NY 10036
S 11'.RI l\JC and lhl· di,li11l'l1\c Sterling logo arc regi,krccl tr.1clc111.1rk\ ofS1erl111g l'uhfohing Co.. Inc·.
Introduction
7
\11 righh re,crvccl \Jo parl of llm p11hlicatio11 111;1) be rcpro<l11t·cd,
,lcm:d in a retrieval "'lt•m, or lram11111lcd in a111 form or by an1 111cam
(ind11d111i: electronic, mechanical, photot·op)mg. rcC'ording. or olhl'r\\ i<c)
without prior \Hillen pcr111i"1on from lht• p11bli,her.
\lanufactured 111 Ch111a
2-16!il09 7 5s
165 I Leviathan
72
12
16711 Bushel\ Caw
c. 1792 BCL The Code of Hammurabi
14
16i9 The llabea' Corpm \ct of 1679
c. 1300 BCI•: The 'lcn Commandments
16
16S5 The Black Code of Lm1i' XIV 78
c. 480 BCE 'I11e Corlyn Code
39913CI
26
90
92
1765 Blachtonc 's Comme11turies 94
I is7 l'he l.S. Constitution 96
1789 The Judiciary Act of 1789 98
1761 The Writs of Assistance Case
30
32
34
36
100
I7S9 The Declaration of the Rights of \l.111
1790 \merica \ F1r~t Coprnght L'l"
40
1140 Canon La\\ and the Deere/um Gratia11i
104
106
ln03 The Power of Judicial Re,icw
1275 The Statutes of Wesh11instcr
50
1804 The l apolconic Cod<.·
I JO
114
116
I h I 9 f'he Supremacy of Federal Lm
54
1821 The Suprenl:lC} of Federal Courh
56
108
112
I so:; I'he Supenonl) of Po"e"ion
52
1431 The Trial of Joan of Arc
1492 The \lhambra Decree
1791 The Bill of Rights
102
1-9s l'he Tnple \\sessmcnt (Income la\. )
48
c. 1350 I he Star Chamber
42
1792 The Coi11agc i\ct of I""92
44
1166 'I 'he Assize of Clarendon
c. 1200 Lex \Iercalona 46
152~ Le.~
86
1751 The Gin \ct of 1~51
38
1215 The Magna Carta
84
l iH l'he 'I nal of John Pctu /.<.ngcr 88
28
e. 250 The Brehon I .1w~ of Ireland
652 I'he Quran
1720 The Bubble Act
24
e. 250 The First Law School
624 'I he 'lang Code
1710 The Sta lute of 1\nnc
22
f'he Trial of Socrates
e. 180 The Talmud
"'6
80
1695 Lapse of thc I.1ccnsing i\ct 82
20
594 BCI• !'he Laws of Solon
74
1692 The Salem Witchcraft Tri,ils
18
62 l BCE The Draconian Code
1481 Lill leton's Tenures
"''"·sterl111i:p11hli,hing.co111
70
c. 2100 RCE The Code ofUr-Nammu
561 The Irish Copyright War
hir 1nformaho11 aho11l cu\lom cclitiom, 't>ccial '"k', and pre111111111 and corpor;1lc purchase'
plt:;l\C conli1ct Sterling Special Sale- al 800-805-541!9 or spcd;1J,al1:s(as1crlingp11hlishing.co111.
lM"i Peaceof\\'c,tphalia
10
529 I he Jmtinian Code
Dl'lnhukd in Canada hy Stcrlinr; Publ"hing
c/o Ca11.1cl1.111 :\lancla Croup. 664 .\nnctk Street
' loronlo. Onlano, ( .111ada \16S ~C:~
Dl'lrih11tcd in lhc l i111lcd Kingdom h1 G\1C Dl'lrib11hon St:n1ce'
Ca,tlc Place. 166 I ligh Street, I .ewe,, East StMc\, J·:11r;land B'-17 IXU
Dl\lnhutcd 111 \11,lralia b1 C:•1pm·orn Lin!.. ( \mtralia) Ph I.Id
P.O lie" 'CH, \\ incl,or '\S\\ 275(i \1htralia
68
c. 2550 BCE The Oldest Written W ill
450 BCE The Twelve Tables
© 20 15 b) \lid1ael 11. RofTt:r
1629 The Fir't Blue Laws
118
IS24 Congres~wnal Rei;ul.1!1011 of Conum:rcc
58
Iennes de la l ..ev 60
1824 \dministcring '\all\ e Peoples
160 I An Acl for the Rei ief of the Poor 62
1839 Thef\mistad
I 22
124
1616 Compulsol) Education 1,..,,.,
64
IS42 Recognitwn of Labor l lniom
1625 011 the La11 o(\\'ar and Peace
66
IS43 l'hc\l"\aghtcnRule
128
126
120
1848 The Field Code
1911 Busting the Trusts
130
132
1854 The l\leasure of Contnict Damages
}8;7 The Dred Scott Decision
1913 The Federal Reserve \cl
186 l The Go\ernment Printing Office
1863 The Emancipation Proclamation
19H The Exclusiona11 Ruic
142
1916 'I11eChild
146
1868 lmpeachmg President ,\ndrc\\ Johnson
150
1869 Prohibition of Racial Voter Discnminahon
1872 l..a\\ Reporting and I .egal Publishing
1873 Admission of Women lo the Bar
Defense 164
166
168
1S86 Equal Protcchon Rights
170
I 72
183'; The Interstate Commerce \ct
174
188S The Brazilian Slave Emancipallon Act
1k90 The Right to Pm;icy
226
228
I 893 '\e\\ Zealand Women's Suffrage
180
1897 Corporate Pcrsonhood and Liability
182
184
186
1901 The Cuban Comtilution of 1901
188
.190
1910 The While· Slave Traffic Act
1910 Workers' Compensation I .;t\\
250
1935 The Social Securil) Act 252
1936 TI1e Federal Hegister 254
194
196
192
296
298
260
1938 The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 262
264
35-f
1970 Baseball\ Rcscrw Clamc
356
1971 The Pentagon l'of1erN
362
364
366
197 I Court-Ordered School Bmin~ 368
l 9';'2 Banning the Death P<.:nalt) 370
1956 lhe lntcrshtk ll1glma) \c.1
1972 The Equal Rights Amendment
1972 The l ~qllal Emplop11e11t Opporturnty i\ct
306
308
1972 The Trail of Broken Treatic'
3i6
rR
310
1973 The l~ndangcred Specie' ,\ct
1959 The Luropcan Court of I luman Right~
312
1971 £he I 'ir~t Ban on Ca\ \larriag<.
1973 \ '\c\\ Obsccmh Standard
1961 States and the bclus1onaf\ Ruic
316
1964 Limits on 1.ihcl Laws
1965 The Vo ting Righi\ Ac t
320
380
382
38-f
1973 The \\'ar Po\\er' \ct of 19-3
386
1974 Presidential Subpoena Compliance
322
324
19-5 Attorney,' l'ec \\\arcb
388
390
19"'5 Restrictiom 011 Im olu11l<11) Commitment
326
1975 Racism and U.N. Resolution 3379
328
1965 Conscicntiou~ Objection
1973 Roe v. \\ode
1976 The Right to Die
330
1965 The Bod) and the Right of Privac}
332
372
374
19)/ The \ \olfcnclen Report and Ga) Rights
314
358
360
19-0 The Trial ofCharlcs \lamo11
1951 The li:.LJ. and the Treat\ of Pnri\ 300
1954 Brown i·. Board of Ld11catio11 302
1954 'I he Communist Control \cl 304
1964 The Ci\'il Righh \cl of 1964
1938 Rule 23 <md Modern Class A<'tion
1970 The RICO \ct
l 971 Employmenl Discmninal ion
1963 The Right lo Counsel 111 Slale Courl
256
348
1970 ' I lie Court-~ lartial of William Calley Jr. 3 50
1970 Public I lcalth and Cigarettes 3 52
1971 Enfrn11clming Eighteen Year-Olds
294
1963 The Trial of l\clson t\ landela
258
1938 The Fair L..abor Standards Act
292
1961 The l~ichma nn Tria 1 318
1937 FDR and the Court-Packing Plan
346
1970 The Occupahonal Saft'l, and I IC'alth \ct
1941> Universal Declaration of I luman Rights
1959 \o \Ian\ l~md
248
1935 The Nuremberg Laws
1937 Cameras in the Courts
1909 Congressional Power lo 'Ihx Income
246
28-f
Ten 290
195- The Limit~ on Obsccnil)
244
1935 The '\Jational Labor Relations ,\ct
1896 Ples~y v. Ferguson. Separnle hut l•.qual
282
195 I Rejection of tlae Alien Registration Act
1928 The Danger Zone 111 ' ICirt l,;1w 232
1928 Wiretaps 234
1933 Hitler's Rise to Power 236
1933 Wall Street Regulation 238
1933 Censorship and Ulysses 240
1933 The Repeal of Prohibition 242
344
1970 Tht '\ataonal En\'ironmental Policy Act
286
1948 The U.N. Comention on Genocide 288
I 95 I The Rosenberg Trial
342
1969 The h11mess Do<:trinc·
278
280
1948 General \grcc·mcnt on 'fariff~ and Trade
1948 The Jlolhwood
HO
l 969 J.rec Speech and 'l'hrcab of\ 1olence
1948 The Displaced Persons Act
230
19H The Securities Exchange \c:t
178
1890 The Sherman 1\ntitrmt \ct
1908 Women in Factories
224
19H 1ne Federal Commun1cahom \cl
176
1900 The German Civil Code
222
1921 The Chicago "Blad, Sox" Trial
1926 The United Stales Code
218
1969 ;'\o-l'ault Dirnrte
274
194- Colonialism and Post\\~1r Independence
220
338
l 96- The Vietnam-Era Draft Lt\\s
272
Ball r6
19.f'> 'lite '\urc111h1.:rg ·1rial~
1919 Yelling "Fire!" in a Crowded Theater
1921 The ErncrgcnC) Quota Act
162
1883 The Civil Rights Cases
1946 Rent Control
216
1925 The Scopes "Monkey" Trial
1882 The Cl11ncse l«xclusion Act
212
336
1967 lntcrrac1al \lamage
1946 The Protection of I raclc111arb
1921 Censorship and the I lays Office
160
1878 The Berne Convention
1881 The Insanity
154
156
158
1873 Obsccnil) and the Co1mloek Act
1944 'Ilic C.I
214
1920 'lew York State Legali1es Boxing
152
1870 l'he L.a" School Revolution
1918 Prohibition
1919 Women's Right to Vote
148
1868 The Fourteenth \mcndment
208
210
1916 The Expansion of Consumer R1ghh
144
1S66 The Civil Rights .\ct of 1866
1966 i\lirancla Warnings
1942 Internment of J.ipane~c \mcricm1s
1915 TI1e Prohibition of lllcgal \.;ircolics
f~,bor,\ctof1916
268
1941 California's \nta-Okie Statute
334
1966 The Freedom of Information Act
270
1941 Strict Products l.iabilil)
140
I S64 The Cene\'a Convention
1876 Legal Aid Societies
1940 The Alien Regi~tralion Act
202
204
19H The Clayton Antitrust .\c:I 206
136
l 38
266
1939 Militias and the Righi to Bear Arms
200
1911 The Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
134
I 1>65 The Abolition of Sla,cry
198
394
396
I976 I lea Ith Care and th~· Duty lo \Varn
1976 The Copyright '\cl of 19-6 400
398
392
1976 The Death Penalty Returns
1976
l 9i7
1971-i
1971-i
1978
1978
1983
1984
I91H
1997 The Communications Decency Act
402
Palnnon~
404
Attomcr ,\dverfoing 406
·\ffinnativc Action 408
The FCC and Filthy Words 410
The Son of Sam Law 412
The Entrapment Defemc 414
'lhe .\lct\lartin \lobtallon Case 416
First .\landatol) Seal Belt Lm 418
Administrative AgenC) Determinations 420
1984 Parody and the First J\111c11dmcnl
422
199"' Physic1an-Assistccl Suicide 474
1998
1999
2000
2000
2001
2001
2001
2002
2002
1986
2005
1%6
1%7
1987
1988
1988
19S9
I 989
1989
1990
1990
1991
1991
1992
1992
1993
1994
1995
1995
1996
1996
1996
1997
476
lnclictrncnl of \ugusto Pinoch<.'1 478
Copyright in the Digital Age 480
Bush v. Core 482
The \-I 1crosoft Monopol> 484
Coif Carts on the PCA 'lour 486
Expanded Cop} rights 488
The USA PATRIOT Act 490
The Sarbm1es-Oxley Act 492
'l11c International Criminal Court 494
Public Purpose and Eminent Domain 496
'll1c Legality of Gun Control 498
Google Books and Fair Use 500
Wall Street Reform 502
The Future of juvenile Punishment 504
The Affordable Care Act 506
1998 l11e Linc-Item Veto
1984 Time-Shifting and l•:11r Use
424
Peremptory Challenges to Jun Selection 426
The First faidcntiary Use of D A 428
Pregnm IC} Discriminal ion 4 30
Robert Bork's Supreme Co11rt Nomination 432
Surrogate Motherhood 434
Women's Admission to Pnvatc Clubs 436
The lii1twa against The Satanic Verse.~ 438
Cclcbril) Tax Prosccutwn 440
The First Gay Marriage I .aws 442
The Americans with Disabilities Act 444
The Encl of Apartheid 446
Confirming Clarence Thomas 448
lhc Trial of \ilanud 1\loriega 450
S111ok111g Litigation 4 52
The Rio Conference 454
Creation of the E11ropca11 Union 456
The I lot Coffee Case 458
Stem Cell and Cloning l.cgl\lation 460
The O.J. Simpson \iturder Trial 462
Limih on Punitive Damages 464
Soutl1 Africa's Constitution 466
Legalization of Mari1w111a 468
PrcS1Clrnhal lmmunil) 470
472
200&
2010
2010
2012
2012
2015 The Legal Fight for Ga) Marrwge 508
Acknowledgments 5 J 0
Notes and Further Reading 511
Image Creclih
Index 526
525
Introduction
The law surrou1Hh us. It affects the food we cat, the waler \\'e drink, and the air \\'C
breathe. It travch \\1th us. It defines our relationships \\ ith the people "ith whom wc
live, \\'Ork, and sh,irc space. It affecb our homes and schools, cmr offices and stores. The
law touches even aspect of our li,·cs and C\Cll our deaths. This boo!.: explains how much
of tint came to pass
I I1storians trace the first formal colllp1lation of laws to l\.ing Ur-Namn111 of S11lllcr,
circa 2 I 00 BCK Several centuries thereafter came King I lalllnmrabi's better known
rnclc, famous for its rctributi\'e "eye for an eye." Later notable laws include th<: Ien
Commandmenb, the 1.:1\\s of Solon. the I \\eke 'fables of Rom,111 hm, and the Justinian
Code. F nglish hms existed prior to the '-lonn,111 Conquest 111 1066, but their dcn·lopmcnt
in the context of modern hm began" 1th the \ higna Carla in 1215 and its implelllcntation
through the Statutes of Westminster (I and II} in 1275 and 1285. Anglo-Amcrican la\\
began lo lake shape in the American colonies i11 the early 1600s, which laid the foundation
for the Constitution in 1'"'87.
O\'er the centuries that followed, \merican law look root. \s it dc,clopcd and
lllatured, two competing principles emerged: stabili~ and change. The Im' prm icb
slabilil) in a changing world, and a world 111 Oux changes the la\\ to maintain st;1hilih.
\ hallmark of the \mcrican tradition, prcccdenls 1)1)icall} s<..'J'\.C as the basis for judicial
decisions. As Suprcllle Court Justice Betl)mnin Cardozo observed, "What has onc·c hc..•l'n
settled by a pr<..'c<..'dcnt ''ill not be unsctlkd m·crnight, for C'crtaint) and 11nifonnit\ .ire
gains not lighth lo be sacrificed." )ct th<..' hm docs change Sime~ was pcrn11t1ccl ,111d
then outlawed; the death penal!) \\<Js barred and then re1mtatcd; books were banned
<llld then comht11tio11alh protected. Dramatic changes like these sometimes may seem
inconsistent, but Ihey cmbocl)' legal scholar Roscoe Pound's aphorism Lhal the "1;11,· must
be stable, and yet ii ca1111ol stand still."
I've taken an eclectic approach in c:ompiling the 250 milestones in this hook. \s
you'll sec, 111) choices fall predominant I~ within the Amcncan trndil1011, and the 111;11011~·
of the essays focus on the last two centuries, \\ hich intcntionalh rcAccts the law's skad)
expansion over time and more recent cxplom e growth. Some essays cmboch h·,· court
decisions while others examine import;ml statutes. Man) deal "ith c,·cnts that ha\e
become a part of histof) - including i11fomo11s trials-and several speak to kc\ texts that
hmc shaped legal though I and thcol).
l"\TRODl!G 110'\
7
The Salem Witchcraft Trials
William Phips (1651-1695), Cotton Mather (1663 1728)
'I he l:m doesn't ah\:l)S perform admirabh. The Salem witchcraft trials reAect one of
the mmt egregious instances of Im\ o\·ertaken b) mass hysteria. resulting in a complete
failure of impartial justice.
In colonial Salem, \lassachusetts, more than h\O lrnndrecl people stood accused
of prac:ticing "itch<: raft and were subject to court-ordered torture, lengthy pnson terms,
or execution. The c:ases began in January 1692, \\hen a loc:al minister's daughters
heg<lll having fib, uttermg strange sounds and contorting their bodies. \Im\ n doctor
"diagnosed" the malad) :1s witchcraft. Soon other ymmg girls began h,mng outbursts,
accusing certain women of cursing them. Dozem of women and men were brought in
for questioning.
Bv Ma) 1692, wit h fear and paranoia rampant, Cc)\·ernor Wi ll iam Phips established
the Court of Oyer mid Tcrminer for cases alleging" ilchcraft. None of the appointed
judges, however, had had any legal training. In the first case, brought against an older
town gossip na111cd Bridget Bishop, the defendant was fou nd guilt) despite scant
C\ick11cc. An account of the case from preacher Collon !\lather dcmcmslralcs liow
eurson the proceeding was: 'There was lillle occ.ision lo pro\'c the witchcraft, it being
e\'idcnt and notorious to all beholders."
B\ the foll of 1692, man) in the communit) were grcm ing concerned and started
ques!lo111ng the legitimacy of the court's rulings.\\ hen 1.ach Ph1ps. the gO\ernor's wife,
c:a111e under smpicion, the go\·emor called a halt to the hysteria, banning further arrests
and dissohing the Court ofO}er and lenniner. In 169~. he pardoned all ''ho had
been charged\\ ith "itchcraft. \\'hate,er the under!) ing c:auses, the 11njmt per5ecutions
of those considered "different" in the to\\ n of Salem reAecled a legal S) stem\ failure
to protect ih constituents from hysteria-dri,·en prosecultcm 'I hree centuries later, on
\ugmt 5, 1992, Salem dedicated the \Vitchcr:1ft Victims' \kmorial to honor those
<lCCllSccl and executed. In 2001, the .\lassachmetts legislatme p:mecl \ 11 \ct Relati,·e to
the Witchcraft Tri aI of 1692, further extending an earl icr formal exoneration.
SI•:!>: \I.SO I he ' I ri;1t of Socrak' (W9 BCE); The Trial of Joan of \rt ( tHt ).
'/Iris IH<J2 litlmp,riiph hr /o-'cp/r I.. Baker ( 1837- 1914) drc1111e1t1c<1/lr de/nets 011e o/ tll<' 11·1tclrcrt1fl lrrals lreld in
Se1/c111, " '"'<1dr11•<'ll'
80
'I 11 l I \ \\ BOOI(
The Cuban Constitutio11 of 1901
C hristopher Columbus (c. 1451-1506), Maria C ristina of Spain
(1858 1929), \\illiam \1cKinley (1843-1901). Leonard \\oocl ( 1%0 1927).
On ille Platt (182:'-1905), Domingo ~1ende:1, Capote ( 1863 19H)
- - -- ---
On Christopher Columbus's first voyage in October 1492. he first made landfall in'' hat
1s nm' the Baham;h before proceeding and la~ ing claim to'' hat \\mild become Cuba.
Spam ruled Cuba until I 898, when the USS \Jaine smpicioml) e\ploded and sank in
I l.1\ana I !arbor earl) three-quarters of the ere\\ died. 'I he innclcnt drc\\ \mcrica,
under the leadership of President \le Kin le). and Spam, ruled b\ Queen Regent \!aria
Cmtina, into the Spanish-. \mcrican \Var, itself an outgrcm th of the Cuban \\ar for
lndcpendenc:e, in" hich the U.S. had intenencd on Cuba's behalf.
\fter Spain surrendered, American forces, under the command of \lililal)
Cm·ernor I .eonard \\Ood, continued to occup) the island, helping lo establish
fou nclalional infrastructure. Cuba's proximity lo the United Stales, its position al the
enlrnnce of the Culf of Mexico, and its status as the largest island in the Caribbean gave
it i111port;111 I strategic value that America sought to protect. U.S. Scnalm Orvi lle Plntt of
Co1111ccticut introduced l cgi~lation that called for Cuba to recoe11i1<· i\nwrica\ right to
1ntcn·ene in Cuban affairs and to "sell or lease to the United Slates lands necessary for
toa !mg or n;l\ ,11 staliom." ('l'h is latter prm is ion a!lowed for Cuba\ perpetua I lease of
Cuanl<ina1110 B;l\ lo the U.S. go,ernment. )
President \lcK1nlc) signed the Platt legislation into law. and the Comtilulional
i\\\t:111bl) 111 Cuba. h<.:aded b, Domingo .\lcndez Capote, inc:ludecl the Platt
1\mend111ent as an appendix to the constitution it adopted in June 1901 . 'I hat
c:onstit11tim1 bc.:;m man) similarities to the U.S. Comtitution: c:alling for a president. a
bicameral legislature. an independent jud1c1an headed b) a !>upreme court, and a bill of
righh. But the Platt Amendment permitted •\merica to dominate Cuban political affairs.
'I hat dominance laid the groundwork for hostilities and resentments that produced three
more..· Cuban comtilutions over the next sc\enty-fi,·c years and fort,·er altered Cuba's
rclahons "ith the U.S. and the rest of the world.
Sl'.I'. \I ff' iO I ht• ,\Jh,1111br.1 nccrcc l 1492). ·1·ht: Bubble 1\cl ( 1720); 'I/re \mi,tad ( IhW).
IIr" /Ii% p11/iltn1l />m/>agcmda cc1r/0011 publislted in Puck 111c1gc1zi11e s/r1111., U11clt· Sc1111 1whl\' de/e11di11v, c1
rnpp/1n111/ Cuba /mm l!rl.' nr/ 11"1/es of Spam The lrulh of/Ire mailer 11·0 .s rcitlrer "'""~ c11m/1/ical<•cl
18S ·1111 . 1 \\\' 11001>:
The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Ac!_
\lcdie,al kings often employed food taslcrs-c:allecl '\e\\ers," from the \nglo-Frenc:h
asseour meaning to <:ame to sit, as at a clin111g table-to emure their meab c:onta1m:d
no poison. From 1902 to 190-, twehe men knm'n as the Poison Squad pla)ed ,1
similar role. 'I he\ worked for llane) \\'ile). c:hicf chemist for the U.S. Department of
\griculturc's Bureau of Chemistrr, predecessor to the Food and Drug /\dministration
(FDA). The rnh1nlcl•rs agreed lo eat foods lreakd wi th chemical preservatives lo assess
their health cffcch. Through his work, Wile) persuaded President Roosevelt :111d
Congress lo c11,1d the Pure Food and Drug \ct in 1906. ~FDA historian \V:1llace
Janssen obsen cs, " o smgle C\ ent has had greater s1gmficance in the hislOI) of
consumer protccl1011 laws or the industries they regulate"
Concerns O\ er food aduller:1tion and the federal gO\-crnment's ne" focm 011
protecting c:onsunH:rs from the consequent health dangers primaril) spurred the 1906
act. Upton Sinclair\ The Ju11gle had just been p11bll\hed, and its powerful descriptions
of squalid sla11ghterho11ses helped focus attention on the need for O\'ersight. It <1lso
reAected growing all\icty about drug puril) and labeling and helped pave the wa} for
later legislation that a11lhorizecl regulators lo sei1.e adulterated or misbranded drugs ;111cl
to rcmmP 11nsafe drugs from the market.
B) J9j I, tht• B11rt•au of Chemistry had become the I• D.\, but the I 906 slal11te
was prm ing inach:quatc \s Janssen notes, "the onnl\h of technological change" ould
soon make it outmoded." 'I he i'ood, Drug, and Cosmetic: \ct arri,·ed in l 93b parlh in
response to the deaths of more than a hundred people from Elixir Sulfonilanmlc, a new
antibiotic lhal tht: \ h1S\cng1ll Comp<lll) brought to market\\ ithout sufficient testing.
Among other points, th<.: 193& act rc:quired 111anufoc:lurcrs to submit a "new drug
application" and prme the drug's safely before sell ing it. 'l'hc act also authorized the
FDA to remmc 1111safe drngs from the market and marked the beginning of specific:
labeling requirements. 1lealth and science author Philip). I lilts describes the la" as "a
landmark m ci' ii gm ernanc:e, not just for the l nitcd Stales, as it turned oul, but for the
democratic gmernn1cnls around the \\oriel .. I \Cr~ dcn~loped nation came to adopt the
act's principles, requiring :.cienlific e' 1denc:e to support drug apprmak
Sl•,E \L')O I ht I \p.1m1011 of Comumer Righh ( 1916); Stntl l'rod11t·h L1abilil) ( 19-11 ); 'I ht I Int Cofkc
Ca't 19'>-I
·1 /ri1 1909 c1d /or \ lc1il lfoi11ia, <I 111c1/t /011ic produced hr tilt' Seattle Brewing C> \la/ting C:ompmt\', misleac/1111J!l'
claimed to prol'icle "11,·11 ngnr ancl 1/re11gth i11 Cl'el'\' drop.
262
1111 I \\\ HOOi(
The First Gay Marriage Laws
-------
The institution of marriage as a civil union bet\\'een t\\'o parties ts universal, occurring
throughout the world in widel) \'al)ing cultures and legal systems. Of an ancient
heritage. it has existed in all pre\'ious societies knmrn to humankind . But equall)
uni\ersal has been the contro,·ersy about whether the 111stilution properly may include
ga) couples.
In 198-f. the Danish go,·ernment commissioned a stuch and report on eliminating
discrimin,ttion against gays and lesbians. As enacted by the Dantsh parliament, the hm
held that, on registering their relationship with an official regislT\, ga)S and lcsbiam
were to ha\c the same rights as their heterosexual counterparts. I lowe,·cr. 1t express!)
prevented thosc registered parh1ers from adopting children or conduc:ting wedding
ceremonies in the Church of Denmark.
One of lite most important steps on the wa) to recognition of gm n1<1rriage,
Denmark's groundbreaking Registered Partnersh ip Act followed in 1989 and became a
worldwide media event. It also served as a model for the man) natiom that subsequen tly
enacted similar legislation. The remaining Nordic nations- orway, Sweden, Iceland,
and Finland each enacted parallel registered partnership laws, as did other European
countries: the 'Jet herlands in 1998, France in 1999, mul ( :1•rnrn11y in 200 I.
In 1999, Denmark eliminated its prohibition on ga) adoption. The follm' ing year,
the '\etlterlands became the world's first countl) to permit ga) couples lo marr), as
opposed lo registering a domestic parh1ership, starling the following \pril Jml after
midnight on April I, 200 I, Amsterdam's then-mayor, Job Cohen, married four ga)
couples al cit) hall : l Ielene Faasen and Annc-~laric ·1 ·hus, Dolf Pasker and Cert Kasteel,
' Ion Jansen ,mcl Loms Rogmans, and Frank \Vittebrood and Peter Lemke. I \\O years
later, Belgium passed snmlar legislation. Spain, Canada, and South Afric~1 followed smt
in 2005, as did '\om-ar in 2008 and Sweden in 2009.
'\one of these enactments happened o,·crnight, ho\\e\·cr. Each resulted from mall)
years of effort and incremental progress in recognizing the nghts of gays and lesbians.
Despite almost three decades of enormous progress, ga) marriage hasn't yet achic' eel
uni\ ersalth became of the complicated relationship between the hm and religion.
SU •; \1 ~'>0 lntcrr,1t:1al \larriagc ( t967 ), I he first Ban on Ga\ \hirriagc ( 1973); 1111: I .cgal Fii;hl for Ca)
\l,1m,1gc (20!H).
Protester srgm 111 support of gcr)' marriage during Lo11do11\ 2012 C<t)' Pride p11rade. /\11 est1111atecl twenlY·fil'e
tlwuse111d people tcxik part in the 11wrch.
4-+2
I Ill-. I ..\\\' B001'
Legalization of Marijuana
I listoricallr. the use of marijuana for medical or recreational purposes has al\\'ays
generated polarized opinions. ,\(though federal la\\ contmues to chmi~ marijuana
(Camwbis salil'CI) as an illegal substance. some states ha\c decriminalized or legalized
its possession for medicinal or recreational use.
Jn 1996, California became the first state to legal11e marijuana for medical purposes
,, hen 56 percent of' otcrs approved Ballot Proposition 215. eliminating cmmnal
penalties on the use, possession, or cultivation of marijuana b} patients'' hose physicians
recommended ii for medical treatment of a 'ariel) of cond1liom. \\ of \pril 201 5,
l\\cnly-lhrcc slates and the District of Columbia haYc enacted ht\\\ C\Cmpting medical
marij;wna mcrs from penalties imposed under state law; four of those stales have also
legalized recreational marijuana use. These laws resulted from the efforts of physicians
and lobbyist\ who argued convincingly that cannabis can prO\ idc effective lrcalmcnt
for vario11s S\mptoms of AIDS, cancer, epilepsy, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, and other
serious diseases and conditions.
Jn ovcmbcr 20 12, building on the momentum of lega lization for medicinal
11sc, Colorado and Wash ington became the first sta tes to legalize possession of sma ll
quantities of marijuana for recreational use by those above age twenty-one. Alaska and
Oregon followed in 2014.
'\otwithstanding increased legalization, marijuana still remains a banned substance
under the federa l Controlled Substances Act, giving federal Im\ enforcement agencies
the leg.11 basis to intervene. Despite the inconsistenc\ between state and federal
hm. those state laws arc legall} irrelevant to federal prosecution . Indeed, in earl)
2012. federal prosecutors in California instituted a crackdo\\ non hm ful marijuana
dispemaries to enforce the federal Controlled Substances \ct.
\lore than a }car later, it remained unclear whether or lo "hat e:1.tenl the federal
gO\·ernmenl '' ould continue to challenge marijuana me that comports'' 1th re(e,·ant
slate hms, ;1llho11gh Janual) 2013 news accounts reported that "President Obama has
said the federal gm ernmcnt has 'bigger fish to fl)' and \\On't aggressl\eh prosecute
tokers in stales ''here its use is legal."
SU'. \LS() I he l'rol11b1hon of Illegal 'arcotics ( 1915); Proh1hilto11 ( 19 I8); 'I he Rl'Pl'<ll of Prol11h1tio11
119\ \ ); P11bltc I It.11th and Cigarette\ ( 1970).
Ct1!tfomw hC'c't1111r tire first slt1te to legalize tire use of medical 111e1rijumw, and tll'r11l\'-lwo other .\fates 1111d the
/)1slrrd of Col11111bw followed suit. \\'aslri11gto11, Colorado, J\laska. 1111d Orrgo11 ll'e11I 0111' strp {11rtlrrr, legalizing
rrcreat1mwl 1m•
.+68
1111. ! . \\\'BOOK
N
0
The Legality of Gun Control
District of Columbia v. H eller, M cD onald v. C hicago
\ftcr the.; a'>sassinatiom of President Kenned). \lalcolm \., \lmtin Luther "-ing Jr., .md
Srn,1tor Robert l\:enned) in fewer than fi\·e years. Congress passed the Cun Control \ct
of I96h, 'cttmg important restrictions on gun purch,1scs. The conAuenc:e of these factors
triggered a gun control debate that would continue for decades.
Beh\ een I9SS and 1992, notwithstanding that it had one of the strictest gun
c:ontrol la\\ s in the countf). the District of Columbia \\<IS called the murder capital of
the United Stal<.:s, m·eraging rough I) se,·enty-two murders per one hundred thomand
residents in each of those \Cars. It held that status again in 1996, 1998. ,111d 1999 Dick
l lcller, a securil) officer authorized to carr) a gun but not keep ti at home, challenged
the comtitulionalit\' of the D.C. statute. The Court of \ ppcals for the District of
Coh11nbia Circuit struck do\\11 the la\\'. llcaring the case, the Supreme Comt obsenecl
that "fc" hms in the histor) of om . ation have come close to the sc\ere restriction
of the Di<ilricl \ handgun ban," "'h ich it fou nd uncomtitutiona I in that it \ iolated the
"inheren t right of selfdefcnse ... central to the Second Amendmen t right." T he Court's
decision' indicated the individual-rights vie'' of the Second /\mendment, ,,hich, it
held, protected an inchidual's right to O\\'n a gun for personal protection.
Two years later the Court ruled in \ lcDonald 1'. Chicago that the Second
\ 1m:ndnwnt applies to the states, thereb) requiring state gun control laws lo
accommodate Second \ mendrnent rights. But since the I feller and \ fcl)onald
cleci,ions, i\m<.:nca has witnessed an unimaginable ~pree of mass shootings, many
imohing schools and children. \ December 2012 report from \BC \e1n, days
after h\ en!\ ·SC\ en people \\'ere shot and killed at Sand) I look I lcmentan School
111 '\ e\\ lo" n. Connecticut, noted that since the 1999 massacre of thirteen people at
Columbine I l1gh School. there ha,·e been thirty-one school shootings in the l S rhere
were an additional eight school shootings in 2013 and 2014, with a total of thirteen
deaths. ' I hose e\(.'nts ha, e heightened the gun debate, prompting nc\\ laws, "h1ch likel)
\\'ill lead to nc\\ legal challenges. Whether the Supreme Court will re\ isit the meaning
of the Second \ mendment remains to be seen.
SEI•, \t ~C,O I hl lJ S Comlih1llon ( 1787); 1 'he Bill of R1ghh ( t 791): \ hlih,1' .ind llil· R1i;ht to Bear \nm
() 9~9).
S 11 prcmr Co11r/ prcccde11!1 tlrat 11plrold citizens' right~ lo mrn mid po11e.11 {irccir111.1 i11 tlir face of re1trictire 1/ale
stat11tc1 /1<mm'/ ended the debate O\'er the Second A111eridme11t.
498
1 llE I.,\\\' BOOJ..: