~ archived since 2018 ~

Female plaintiff between ages 18 and 25 to act as the lead representative of a class-action lawsuit to force the federal government to include women in mandatory draft registration.

ugly_duck · 2014-10-19T03:25:41+00:00

In case you haven't seen the article. I don't know if the Honey Badgers or A Voice For Men can help. I don't even have contact info for...

ugly_duck

October 19, 2014

34 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	Female plaintiff between ages 18 and 25 to act as the lead representative of a class-action lawsuit to force the federal government to include women in mandatory draft registration.
Author	ugly_duck
Upvotes	34
Comments	11
Date	October 19, 2014 3:25 AM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/2jnwad/female_plaintiff_between_ages_18_and_25_to_act_as/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/female-plaintiff-between-ages-18-and-25-to-act-as.994503 https://theredarchive.com/post/994503

Comments

[–]WMO 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]ugly_duck[S] 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]autowikibot 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Rostker v. Goldberg:

Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), was a decision of the United States Supreme Court holding that the practice of requiring only men to register for the draft was constitutional. After extensive hearings, floor debate and committee sessions on the matter, the United States Congress enacted the law, as it had previously been, to apply to men only. Several attorneys, including Robert L. Goldberg, subsequently challenged the gender distinction as unconstitutional. (The named defendant is Bernard D. Rostker, Director of the Selective Service System.) In a 6-to-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that this gender distinction was not a violation of the equal protection component of the due process clause, and that the Act would stand as passed.

Image ⁱ

^Interesting: ^Conscription ⁱⁿ ^the ^United ^States ^| ^List ^of ^United ^States ^Supreme ^Court ^cases, ^volume ⁴⁴⁸ ^| ^List ^of ^United ^States ^Supreme ^Court ^cases, ^volume ⁴⁵³ ^| ^Bernard ^D. ^Rostker

^Parent ^commenter ^can ^toggle ^NSFW ^or ^delete^. ^Will ^also ^delete ^on ^comment ^score ^of ^-1 ^or ^less. ^| ^FAQs ^| ^Mods ^| ^Magic ^Words

[–]jtaylor73003 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Insula92 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]rg57 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdmiralKuznetsov 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]chavelah 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link