LawExamReview - Lord Sankey's decision regarding Edwards et...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lord Sankey’s decision regarding Edwards et Al. 1930 The Persons decision was brought down which impacted women’s role in society completely. In the “roaring 20’s” however times were changing for women, women could wear skirts, wear bikinis, etc. The 20’s were revolutionary, all men were off to war and women pretty much ran the country. This lead to them gaining an important status in Canadian society. Women were working in factories, running hospitals, helping the sick, helping the war effort on many different levels. The 20’s were also a time of sexual revolution; Victorian era was out the window and lead to a huge liberation for women. Thus when the persons case went to court, the judges had to take a look at law from a different era, not reflecting what society had/was going through in the 20’s and forth. Lord Sankey thus passed his decision deeming women as persons, thus reflecting the change in society (social change). The 1929 decision made history, not only because it established the equality of men and women to be appointed to the Senate, but also because it has become the benchmark decision that states that the Constitution should not be interpreted in the same way as one would interpret a simple statute, but in a manner that will assist in the evolution of this fundamental document that dominates all others, and from which each act takes its constitutionality. Believed the law generally works to represent powerful interests in a society. He was really interested in the relationship between law and social change. • He suggested that in order to understand the law as a tool of social change, we need to understand the law’s capacity to serve as an authority in our society. He talks about the idea of rational legal legal authority; here what he is interested in is what is it about the law that gives it so much authority in our society and why is it that when the law says something we follow it? He says that because the law has so much authority in our society, if the law says this part of society should change we have a tendency to accept that and follow it. • His question is what is it about the law that is so compelling to us that it makes us want to follow the moral order set out for us? His answer, the “social contract”, when we make this agreement with a governing body that they are going to take care of us if we give up some of our rights and freedoms, part of that agreement is that we generally assume that governing institutions are right, we generally assume that they will take care of us by doing the right thing. So we assume that if the law tells us something is wrong that it is probably wrong. Weber says that there is some kind of inherent respect within the law that makes us follow the moral
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 08/13/2008 for the course LAWS 1000 taught by Professor Kuzmarov during the Fall '08 term at Carleton CA.

Page1 / 18

LawExamReview - Lord Sankey's decision regarding Edwards et...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online