reveal nothing specific. Nikita Khrushchev, the former Soviet premier, noted in his memoirs, however, that the Rosenbergs “provided very significant help in accelerating the production of the atomic bomb.” In 2008 Morton Sobell, then 91, gave an interview with the New York Times, in which he recanted his innocence and admitted he was a Soviet spy during World War II. Sobell also stated that Julius Rosenberg had knowingly participated in this espionage, which provided the Soviet Union with military and industrial information that included David Greenglass’s crude drawings. Sobell believed this material only corroborated what the Soviet scientists had learned from other spies. However, he also said that Ethel Rosenberg had known about her husband’s role in the espionage ring but had not participated. This assertion was reaffirmed in 2008 when the National Archives released portions of the secret GRAND JURY testimony. Ruth Greenglass never told the grand jury that Ethel had typed up the notes. In light of the murky questions that still surround the Rosenberg case, the jury’sguilty verdict and the judge’s death sentence remain a source of controversy. Supporters of the verdict and sentence point out that U.S. Supreme Court Justice WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS granted a temporary stay of the Rosenbergs’ execution so that the Court could consider whether to hear the case on appeal. After reviewing the Rosenbergs’ petitions to determine whether they presented any legal issues that were appropriate for appellate review, the U.S. Supreme Court denied CERTIORARI. Justice Hugo L. Black was the lone dissenter. On June 19, 1953, the day after their 22nd wedding anniversary, the Rosenbergs were put to death in the electric chair. FURTHER READINGS Burnett, Betty. 2003. The Trial of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg: A Primary Source Account. New York: Rosen. Jensen, Rita Henley. 1993. “Data Helps Rosenbergs Cheat Death.” National Law Journal (August 23). Parrish, Michael E. 2000. “Revisited: The Rosenberg ‘Atom Spy’ Case.” UMKC Law Review 68 (summer). Radosh, Ronald, and J oyce Milton . 1997. The Rosenberg File: A Search for the Truth. 2d ed. New York: Vintage Books. Roberts, Sam. 2001. The Brother: The Untold Story of Atomic Spy David Greenglass and How He Sent His Sister, Ethel Rosenberg, to the Electric Chair. New York: Random House. Roberts, Sam. September 11, 2008. “Figure in Rosenberg Case Admits to Soviet Spying.” New York Times. CROSS REFERENCES Cold War; Red Scare. v ROSS, JOHN As the head of the largest branch of the Cherokee nation from 1828 to 1866, John Ross led the Cherokee through a period of profound cultural change. Under Ross’s leadership, the Cherokee nation engaged in a historic and controversial legal battle to preserve their sovereignty and underwent a disastrous forced march from Georgia to Oklahoma. Ross was born near Lookout Mountain, Tennessee, on October 3, 1790. Although he was only one-eighth Cherokee by blood, Cherokee cultural identity in the early 1800s was as much a matter of upbringing and choice as genetics, and Ross was raised and considered himself a Cherokee. In 1809 at age 19, Ross was sent, at the behest of both U.S. officials and Cherokee leaders, to confer with the western Cherokee, who had accepted payments from the United States in exchange for an agreement to relocate to Oklahoma. Ross’s quiet and reserved manner inspired confidence among both whites and Indians, and his skill at easing the tensions with the western Cherokee greatly increased his influence within the Cherokee nation. Ross served as President of the National Council of the Cherokee from 1819 to 1826 and became principal chief of the easter n Cherokee in 1828. He thought the Cherokee could benefit from adopting certain aspects of European- American culture. Accordingly, with the help of two other Cherokee leaders, Major Ridge and Charles Hicks, Ross convinced many Cherokee to convert from an economy based on hunting and the fur trade to one of agriculture. Some Cherokee adopted the Southern tradition of slave-holding. By the 1830s many members of the Cherokee nation were among the wealthiest individuals in what is now north Georgia. Ross himself was a slaveholder with a 200–acre farm. A well-educated man, Ross promoted liter- acy and education, advocating that all Cherokee utilize the achievement of Sequoia, the Chero- kee who had created a written lexicography for the Cherokee language. Ross’s efforts brought the Cherokee from near illiteracy to over 90 percent literacy in less than three years. Ross also supported the efforts of Christian Congre- gationalist missionaries who wished to set up schools in Cherokee territory. When it becam e apparent that the missionaries’ primary objec- tive was religious conversion rather than GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 438 ROSS, JOHN education, however, Ross informed them that they could stay only if they focused on education. The missionaries complied. In addition to his emphasis on literacy and education, Ross encouraged the Cherokee to adopt a written system of laws, a bicameral legislative body, and a government with legisla- tive, judicial, and executive branches. In 1827 the Cherokee nation adopted a republican constitution, written by Ross and modeled after the U.S. Constitution. Under Ross’s leadership the Cherokee eliminated the blood feud as a primary means of settling criminal homicides. Under the customs of the blood feud, when a person was killed, the victim’s clan was obligated to kill a member of the murderer’s clan. This often resulted in years of feuding between clans. Through Ross’s influence the blood feud was replaced with a court system, trial by jury, and a written criminal code. Despite their embrace of many aspects of U.S. society, Ross and his people wished to preserve Cherokee sovereignty—a goal the U.S. and Georgia governments would not accept. Beginning in 1828, Georgia passed a series of laws declaring the invalidity of Cherokee sovereignty. Meanwhile, the U.S. governmen t, under President ANDREW JACKSON, was advocating removal of the Cherokee to the lands west of the Mississippi, even though treaties such as the Treaty of Hopewell (1785) recognized the Cherokee’s sovereign right to their lands. Ross refused to advocate violence as a means for the Cherokee to retain their land. Having grown up with warfare, ethnic violence, and GENOCIDE between various Indian tribes and the Cherokee and between European-Americans and the Cherokee, Ross had witnessed the destructive effects of violence on the Cherokee nation and had also seen the disastrous results of the armed struggles of other Indian tribes against the European-Americans. Putting his faith in the U.S. legal system, he believed that the U.S. Supreme Court would recognize the Cherokee’s right to their land and sovereignty. In two historic cases, Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 8 L. Ed. 25 (1831), and Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 8 L. Ed. 483 (1832), Ross and the Cherokee fought for legal recognition of their sovereignty. The Cherokee lost in Cherokee Nation. Then, in a stunning reversal, the Supreme Court recognized Chero- kee sovereignty in Worcester and ruled that the Georgia laws claiming jurisdiction in Indian Territory were void. Both Georgia and Jackson John Ross 1790–1866 ▼▼ ▼▼ 18001800 18751875 18501850 18251825 1790 Born, Lookout Mountain, Tenn. ◆ ◆ ❖ ❖ 1812–14 War of 1812 1813–14 Fought in Creek War 1819–26 Served as president of National Council of Cherokees 1828 Served as principal chief, Cherokee Nation; Andrew Jackson elected President 1830 Passage of Indian Removal Act 1838–39 Led Cherokees on "Trail of Tears" to Oklahoma ◆ 1839 Wrote constitution for United Cherokee Nation; elected chief of the new government 1846–48 Mexican War 1861–65 U.S. Civil War 1866 Died, Washington, D.C. John Ross. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROSS, JOHN 439 refused to abide by the Court’s decision, however. Instead, the U.S. government stepped up its efforts to relocate the Cherokee. The Reverend John F. Schermerhorn, who was appointed by Jackson as commissioner in charge of convincing the Cherokee to leave Georgia, met with the Cherokee leaders and offered to pay them for ceding their lands. The Cherokee were split between the treaty party, led by Major Ridge, who were willing to accept the government’s offer, and those like Ross, who were against the offer. When the ruling body of the Cherokee, led by Ross, refused to sign the agreement, Sch ermerhorn ordered Ross to be arrested. On December 29, 1835, while Ross was being held without charge, Major Ridge and 74 others out of a tribe of 17,000 signed a treaty in what is now New Echota, Georgia, by which theCherokeecededalllandseastofthe Mississippi River in return for western lands and other consideration s. All who signed received paymen t and land. In protest, Ross went to Washington carrying a petition with 15,000 signatures, 90 percent of all Cherokee. The treaty passed the U.S. Senate by one vote. David (“Davy”) Crockett lost his seat in Congress for opposing Jackson’spolicyon Indian removal. When Ross returned home, he found that the Georgia government had granted his property to a Georgian. In the summer of 1838, Jackson, who had refused to send U.S. troops to enforce the Supreme Court’s Worces- ter decision, sent 7,000 soldiers to remove the Cherokee. Rather than leave their homeland, more than a thousand Cherokee fled to the Great Smoky Mountains, where their descen- dants still live. During the winter of 1838–39, the remain- ing Cherokee were forced to march from Rattlesnake Springs, Tennessee, to Tahlequah, Oklahoma, in what became known as the “Trail of Tears.” Four thousand Cherokee, including Ross’s wife, Quatie, died on the march. Once in Oklahoma, Ross was reelected principal chief. Major Ridge was killed the same day for his part in the signing of the Treaty of New Echota. In Tahlequah, land was set aside for schools, a newspaper, and a new Cherokee capital. During the Civil War the Cherokee aligned themselves with the Confederacy, be- lieving the U.S. government untrustworthy. They also ratified a declaration repudiating all treaties with the federal government, a move that led to bad relations with the U.S. govern- ment in the first months after the defeat of the Confederacy. In September 1865, however, Ross attended the Grand Council of Southern Indians at Fort Smith, where a new treaty between the Cherokee and the federal govern- ment was prepared. This treaty declared that it rejuvenated all prior, valid treaties between the Cherokee and the government. Despite his failing health, Ross accompanied the delegation to Washington, where the treaty was signed on July 19, 1866. Less than two weeks later, on August 1, 1866, Ross died in Washington, D.C. RESOURCES Blair, Jack. 1995–96. “Demanding a Voice in Our Own Best Interest: A Call for a Delegate of the Cherokee Nation to the United States House of Representatives.” American Indian Law 20. Ehle, John. 1997. Trail of Tears: The Rise and Fall of the Cherokee Nation. New York: Anchor Doubleday. Moulton, Gary E. 1978. John Ross, Cherokee Chief. Athens: Univ. of Georgia Press. ———., ed. 1985. The Papers of Chief John Ross. Norman, OK: Univ. of Oklahoma Press. Norgren, Jill. 1996. The Cherokee Cases: The Confrontation of Law and Politics. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: McGraw-Hill. CROSS REFERENCES Cherokee Cases; Native American Rights; Worcester v. Georgia (Appendix, Primary Document). v ROSS, NELLIE TAYLOE On January 5, 1925, Nellie Tayloe Ross became the first female governor in U.S. history. Ross’s election in Wyoming occurred less than five years after U.S. women were granted the right to vote by the NINETEENTH AMENDMENT to the U.S. Constitution. As governor, Ross was known as an exceptional administrator and a polished public speaker. Although she lost her bid for reelection, Ross’s single term as Wyoming’s top official led to other important state and federal positions. It is thought that she was born on Novem- ber 29, 1876, in St. Joseph, Missouri. The daughter of James Wynn Tayloe and Elizabeth Blair Green Tayloe, she had distin guished ancestors on both sides of her family. Her father came from an influential Southern family that had included the builder of the famed Octagon House in Washington, D.C., the home of President JAMES MADISON and First Lady Dolley Madison after the burning of the White House IF IT HAS BEEN OUR MISFORTUNE TO SUFFER WRONGS FROM THE HANDS OF OUR WHITE BRETHREN , WE SHOULD NOT DESPAIR OF HAVING JUSTICE STILL EXTENDED BY THE UNITED STATES. —JOHN ROSS GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 440 ROSS, NELLIE TAYLOE in the WAR OF 1812. Her mother’s family boasted a distant relationship to President GEORGE WASHINGTON . Despite such a background, Ross’s early years were not remarkable. She attended both private and public schools and in addition received some private instruction. After her family moved to Omaha, Nebraska, she entered a teacher training program for two years and then spent a short time teaching kindergarten. While visiting relatives in Dover, Tennessee, she met her future husband, attorney William Bradford Ross, whom she married in 1902. Ross’s husband had political ambitions, and the couple moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming, where he was elected state governor in 1922. In 1924 he died unexpectedly while in office. Ross was approached by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY to run for the remaining two years of her late husband’s term. Although Wyoming w as a Republican state, Ross won the election by 8,000 votes. Ross’s victory came on the same day that Miriam (“Ma”) Ferguson was elected governor of Texas. Because Ross was sworn into office two weeks before Ferguson, she is recognized as the first female governor in the United States. As governor, Ross carried on her late husband’s policies, which supported tax cuts, government assistance for farmers, reform in banking, and new laws protecting children, miners, and working women. She advocated for the state RATIFICATION of a federal amendment that would prohibit child labor and backed progressive public education measures. She also managed to reduce the state debt by more than $1 million. Ross supported PROHIBITION and opposed professional prizefighting, two unpop- ular positions that contributed to her defeat in the 1926 gubernatorial election. Her affiliation with the Democratic party was also a factor in her loss. Ross later was elected to the Wyoming state legislature and rem ained active in Democratic politics at both the state and national level. In 1928 she was an influential supporter of unsuccessful Democratic presidential nominee Alfred E. Smith and gave a speech seconding Smith’s nomination. She in turn received 31 votes from 10 states at the Democratic National Convention supporting her nomination as vice president. Following the convention, Ross Nellie Ross. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. ▼▼ ▼▼ Nellie Tayloe Ross c.1876–1977 18751875 19251925 19501950 19751975 19001900 ❖ ❖ 1876 Born, St. Joseph, Mo. ◆ ◆ ◆ ◆◆ ◆ ◆ 1914–18 World War I 1902 Married William Ross and moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming 1920 Nineteenth Amendment ratified, gave suffrage to women 1922 Husband elected governor of Wyoming 1924 Husband died in office; Nellie Ross elected to fulfill the remainder of his term 1925 Sworn in as first female governor in U.S. 1939–45 World War II 1950–53 Korean War 1961–73 Vietnam War 1977 Died, Washington, D.C. 1932–53 Served as first female director of the U.S. Mint 1937 Supervised the construction of the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Ky. 1928 Served as vice-chair of the Democratic National Committee, seconded Alfred Smith's nomination GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROSS, NELLIE TAYLOE 441 served as vice chair of the Democratic National Committee and as director of the committee’s Women’s Division, a position she held for four years. In 1932 Ross scored another first for women when she was appointed by President FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT to head the U.S. Mint. Ross became the Mint’s first female director. She stayed there for 20 years, overseeing the Mint during the economic throes of the Great Depression and throughout a critical paper shortage during WORLD WAR II. Ross also supervised the construction in 1937 of the U.S. Bullion Depository in Fort Knox, Kentucky. She is honored on the cornerstone of the fortified building and was the first woman to have her likeness printed on a medal made by the Mint. In 1953 Ross retired as director after Republican DWIGHT D. EISEN- HOWER was elected presiden t. An early role model for women in govern- ment, Ross served both Wyoming and the United States with distinction. She died in Washington, D.C., in 1977, at the approximate age of 101. FURTHER READINGS Sherr, Lynn, and Jurate Kazicka. 1994. Susan B. Anthony Slept Here: A Guide to American Women’s Landmarks. New York: Times Books. Weatherford, Doris. 1994. American Women’s History. New York: Prentice-Hall. ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG A U.S. SUPREME COURT decision, Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57, 101 S. Ct. 2646, 69 L. Ed. 2d 478 (1981), upheld the constitutionality of a male-only draft registration law enacted by Congress in 1980. Emphasizing its traditional deference to Congress in the areas of military affairs and national defense, the Court refused by a 6-3 vote to apply precedent that might have invalidated the law be cause of gender DISCRIMI- NATION . Even the dissenters, however, did not challenge the right of Congress to exclude women from combat. Rostker v. Goldberg actually began years before Congress enacted the Military Selective Service Act (MSSA) (50 App. U.S.C.A. § 451 et seq.) in 1980 . In 1971, during the last part of the Vietnam War, Robert Goldberg and several other men challenged the male-only draft policy, arguing that equal protection of the laws, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, had been violated. When Cong ress discontinued military conscription in 1972, the lawsuit became inactive, but it was not dismissed. It was revived in 1980 when Congress, acting at the request of President JIMMY CARTER, revived the registration process. Carter was concerned about the Soviet Union’s invasion of Afghani- stan and believed that the government had to be ready to draft soldiers if the situation warranted it. In his proposal to Congress, Carter asked for the authority to register both men and women. Congress refused to allocate funds to register women but did fund the registration of males. Carter signed MSSA, and on July 2, 1980, he ordered the registration of specified groups of young men pursuant to the authority conferred by Section 3 of the act. Registration was to commence on July 21, 1980. At that point Goldberg’s lawsuit took on new life and became a CLASS ACTION lawsuit. A three-judge panel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ claims against Bernard Rostker, director of the SELECTIVE SERVICE SYSTEM, the agency that administers militar y registra- tion. The plaintiffs again asserted that the law violated EQUAL PROTECTION. The panel agreed, declaring it unconstitutional three days before registration was to start. Rostker requested that the court’s order be stayed (temporarily lifted) pending appeal. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. granted the stay, allowing registra- tion to proceed. In his majority opinion, Justice WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST rejected the idea that MSSA violated the FIFTH AMENDMENT in authorizing the presi- dent to require the registration of males and not females. Rehnquist noted that the statute involved national defense and military affairs, areas in which the Court traditionally had deferred to Congress. Under the Constitution, Congress has broad powers to raise and regulate armies and navies. More important, Rehnquist stated, the Court’s “lack of competence” had to be considered when assessing legislation in this area. Rehnquist concluded that Congress had not acted unthinkingly or reflexively in rejecting the registration of women. He pointed out that the question had received national attention and was the subject of public debate in and out of GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 442 ROSTKER V. GOLDBERG Congress. Congress heard testimony and col- lected evidence during the legislative process. All these actions persuaded the Court that the decision to exempt women from registration was not the accidental by-product of a tradi- tional way of categorizing females. The key issue for Congress in planning a future draft was the need for combat troops. Rehnquist noted that “women as a group, unlike men as a group, are not eligible for combat” under statute and established policy. These combat restrictions meant that Congress had a legitimate basis for concluding that women “would not be needed in the event of a draft.” Therefore, there was no need to register women. Turning to the issue of equal protection, Rehnquist ruled that because of the combat restrictions on women, men and women “are not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft.” The law did not violate equal protection because the exemption of women from registration closely related to the congressional purpose of registration as a way to “develop a pool of potential combat troops.” Rehnquist concluded by noting that the “Con- stitution requires that Congress treat similarly situated persons similarly, not that it engage in gestures of superficial equality.” Justices Brennan, BYRON R. WHITE, and THURGOOD MARSHALL dissented. In his DISSENT, Marshall lamented the majority’s failure to apply the “heightened” scrutiny test announced in Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190, 97 S. Ct. 451, 50 L. Ed. 2d 397 (1976). In that case the Court held that gender-based classifications “must serve important governmental objectives and must be substantially related to achievement of those objec tives.” The burden is on the party defending the classification to meet these requirements. In Marshall’s view, there was a difference between registration and CONSCRIPTION. He did not agree that exclusion of women from draft registration “substantially furthers the goal of preparing for a draft of combat troops” or that the registration of women “would substantially impede its efforts to prepare for such a draft.” The majority had crafted a “hypothetical program for conscripting only men,” w here “conscripts are either assigned to those specific combat posts presently closed to women or must be available for rotation into such positions.” He noted that only two-thirds of those persons conscripted in a future draft would serve in combat roles. There appeared to be no important or substantial government objective in not registering women for the draft. Marshall, however, did not discuss the more fundamental issue of excluding women from combat. Both the majority and minority opi- nions assumed that it was legitimate to exclude women from the front lines. In other contexts, this type of gender-role classification has been ruled unconstitutional. FURTHER READINGS Kamens, William A. 2003. “Selective Disservice: The Indefensible Discrimination of Draft Registration.” American University Law Review 52 (February). Oberwetter, Ellen. 1999. “Rethinking Military Deference: Male-Only Draft Registration and the Intersection of Military Need with Civilian Rights.” Texas Law Review 78 (November). Solaro, Erin. 2006. Women in the Line of Fire: What You Should Know about Women in the Military. Berkeley, Calf.: Seal Press. CROSS REFERENCES Armed Services; Sex Discrimination; Women’s Rights. ROTH V. UNITED STATES The U.S. SUPREME COURT,inRoth v. United States and Alberts v. California, 354 U.S. 476, 77 S. Ct. 1304, 1 L. Ed. 2d 1498 (1957), issued a landmark ruling on OBSCENITY and its relation to the FIRST AMENDMENT. The Court held that obscenity was not a protected form of expres- sion and could be restricted by the states. In addition, the Court announced a test for courts to use in ev aluating whether material is obscene. The U.S. Supreme Court consolidated the appeals of Samuel Roth and David Alberts. Roth had been convicted of violating a federal statute (18 U.S.C.A. § 1461) that made it a crime to mail obscene advertising and reading materials. Alberts, a California mail-order seller, was convicted of keeping obscene books in violation of California law. Both the federal and state courts of appeals had upheld their respective convictions. The issue before the Court was clear: Was obscenity entitled to protection under the First Amendment guarantees of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and press? Until Roth, the Court had largely ignored the constitutionality of obscenity sta- tutes, creating the assumption that obscenity was not protected speech. Consequently, GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROTH V. UNITED STATES 443 the lower courts routinely upheld obscenity convictions. Justice William J. Brennan Jr., in his majority opinion, reviewed the history of freedom of expression and concluded that not every type of utterance was protected in the thirteen original colonies. Libel, BLASPHEMY, and profanity were among the statutory crimes. In addition, that every state and the federal government had obscenity statutes showed that the First Amendment “was not intended to protect every utterance.” Obscenity is denied protection because it is “utterly without re- deeming social importance.” Having ruled that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press, Brennan noted that sex in art and literature was not, by itself, obscene. Indeed, “sex, a great and mysterious motive force in human life” had interested “mankind through the ages; it is one of the vital problems of human interest and public concern.” In the past, however, mere sexual content was enough to have a novel banned under the test that courts used in assessing whether something was obscene. For a legal definition of obscenity, U.S. courts looked to the English case of Regina v. Hicklin, L.R. 3 Q.B. 360 (1868). The Hicklin test was “whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscenity is to deprave and corrupt those whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose hands a publication of this sort may fall.” This test permitted prosecutors and judges to select objectionable words or passages without regard for the work as a whole and without respect to any artistic, literary, or scient ific value the work might have. Brennan rejected the Hicklin test as being “unconstitutionally restrictive of the freedoms of speech and press.” It was essential that the work as a whole be evaluated before being declared obscene. Brennan endorsed the test used in both Roth’s and Alberts’s trials: “whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the domi- nant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to a prurient [lewd or lustful] interest.” The new test was applicable to both state and federal government obscenity prosecutions. The Roth test did not settle the question of what is obscenity, however. The Court took up the matter again in MILLER V. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15, 93 S. Ct. 2607, 37 L. Ed. 2d 419. The explicitly rejected the “utterly without redeem- ing social value” standard. Chief Justice WARREN BURGER announced a reviewed standard: The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be (a) whether the “average person, applying contemporary community standards” would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest , (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. Later, in Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 107 S. Ct. 1918, 95 L. Ed. 2d 439, the Court refined the community standards element. It held that the “proper inquiry is not whether an ordinary member of any given community would find serious literary, artistic, political, and scientific value in allegedly obscene material, but whether a reasonable person would find such value in the material, taken as a whole.” However, the Court has never resolved whether these stan- dards apply to the entire country as a whole or to individual states and localities. FURTHER READINGS Barron, Jerome, and Thomas Dienes. 2006. First Amend- ment Law in a Nutshell. 6th ed. St. Paul, Minn.: Thomson West. Mackey, Thomas C. 2002. Pornography on Trial: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO. CROSS REFERENCES Freedom of Speech; Freedom of the Press; Obscenity; Pornography. v ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES Jean Jacques Rousseau achieved prominence as a philosopher and political theorist in eighteenth-century France. A talented musical composer and botan ist, Rousseau’s ideas on the nature of society made him an influential figure in Western thought. His belief that civilization had corrupted humankind was a central part of his philosophy. His work elevated the importance of the individual and personal liberty, providing support for U.S. revolutionary ideology. Rousseau was born on June 28, 1712, in Geneva, Switzerland. By the age of 16, he had left home. In Savoy he met Baron ne Louise De Warens, a wealthy woman who took Rousseau GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 444 ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES into her home and transformed him into a philosopher through a rigorous course of study. Rousseau also studied music during his time with De Warens. In 1742 he moved to Pari s, where he became associated with Denis Diderot, a philosopher who was editor of the French Encyclopédie, a monumental work of scholar- ship about the arts and society. Diderot commissioned Rousseau to write articles about music for the work. In 1750 Rousseau won a prize for his essay Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts. The essay announced one of Rousseau’s life-long tenets: human beings are inherently good but have been corrupted by society and civilization. In 1752 he won fame as a composer for his opera The Village Sage. Despite the accolades, Rous- seau abandoned his musical career, believing it was morally unworthy to work in the theater. Instead he pursued his investigation of society, writing Discourse on the Origin of Inequality among Mankind in 1752. He enlarged on his first work, criticizing civilization for its corrupt- ing influence and praising the natural, or primitive, state as morally superior to the civilized state. Rousseau left Paris in 1756 and secluded himself at Montmorency, so as to be closer to nature. He did not return to writing until 1761, when he wrote the romance Julie, or the New Eloise. The following year he wrote one of his most enduring and influential works, The Social Contract. The book opens with the famous sentence, “Man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains.” Rousseau believed that society and government created a social con- tract when their goals were freedom and the benefit of the public. Government became the supreme ruler, but its existence depended on the will of the people. The social order was based on the general will, a shared belief in a common set of interests, which he believed was the natural choice of rational pe ople. The general will was also a form of freedom, and the purpose of law was to combine the general will with the desires of the people. Rousseau was convinced that laws co uld not be unjust if the general will of the people was followed. The Social Contract was suffused with the belief that freedom and civil liberty are essential to a just society. Society should not be ruled by elites but by the general will of all people. Rousseau, like the English philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. AP IMAGES ▼▼ ▼▼ Jean Jacques Rousseau 1712–1778 17001700 17501750 17751775 18001800 17251725 ❖ 1712 Born, Geneva, Switzerland ◆◆◆ ◆◆◆◆ 1742 Moved to Paris 1752 Composed the opera The Village Sage; published Discourse on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality Among Mankind 1750 Won a prize for essay entitled Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts 1756–61 Went into seclusion at Montmorency 1762 The Social Contract and Emile published 1761 Published Julie, or the New Eloise 1768 Returned to France under assumed name 1770 Published autobiography Confessions 1778 Died, Ermenonville, France 1775–83 American Revolution ❖ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROUSSEAU, JEAN JACQUES 445 JOHN LOCKE (1632–1704), provided justification for the idea of a liberal soci ety based on popular will that would be embraced by the American colonists in the years leading up to the U.S. Revolution. The American colonists believed that the social contract with England had been broken. Rousseau’s belief in the primacy of the individual, however, has proved to be an idea that found its greatest acceptance in the United States. Rousseau wrote the novel Émi le in 1762, which was a platform for his ideas on education. He believed that the purpose of education is not to impart new information but to bring out what is inherently within each person and to encour- age the full development of the human being. Children should be allowed self-expression and the opportunity to develop their own views about the world, rather than to submit to repression and conformity. Rousseau’s ideas were radical for the time but have proved enduring. The poli tical climate was hostile to Rousseau following the publication of The Social Contract and Émile. The French Catholic Church banned both books, and Rousseau was forced to begin a period in exile. Driven from Switzerland for his ideas, he eventually arrived in England, where he was befriended by the philosopher DAVID HUME . While in England he prepared a treatise on botany. In 1768 he returned to France under an assumed name. In 1770 he completed his Confessions, an autobiography of relentless self-examination in which he documented the emotional and moral conflicts of his life. He died on July 2, 1778, in Ermenonville, France. FURTHER READINGS Galanter, Marc. 1999. “Farther Along.” Law & Society Review 33 (December). O’Hagan, Timothy. 1999. Rousseau. London, New York: Routledge. Wintgens, Luc J. 2001. “Sovereignty and Representation.” Ratio Juris 14 (September). ROYALTY Compensation for the use of property, usually copyrighted works, patented inventions, or natural resources, expressed as a percentage of receipts from using the property or as a payment for each unit produced. When a person creates a book, song, play, or painting, the work is considered INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY . Similarly, when an inventor receives a patent on his invention, the inventor has intellectual property rights in the thing created. Typically, authors, songwriters, composers, playwrights, and inventors do not have the financial ability to fully exploit the commercial use of their creations. They must turn to businesses that specialize in the marketing of intellectual property. When a business obtains the right to market the creation, the creator usually receives compensation in the form of a royalty. A royalty agreement is part of the contract that the creator of the work negotiates with the business that seeks to exploit the creation. A royalty can be as simple as a fixed amount of money for each copy of a book or compact disc sold by the business. For example, a novelist agrees to let a publisher publish her new book. For granting the publisher the rights to the book, the novelist will receive $3 for each copy sold. If the novelist is a best-selling author, the publisher may agree to a higher royalty rate. Book and music publishers sometimes give an advance against royalties to an author or musician when the contract is signed. For example, the novelist might receive $5,000 as an advance against her royalties. In this case the publisher will keep the first $5,000 of the royalties to cover the cash advance. Typically, if the book failed to produce enough royalties to cover the advance, the publisher would write off the difference as a loss. However, a publisher might sue an author to recover an advance if the author never produces a publishable manuscript. A playwright’s royalty may be based on a percentage of the box office receipts from each performance of the play. An inventor’s royalty might be an amount per unit sold or a percentage of the profits generated by the invention. In some cases it might be both. Because a royalty is one of the terms negotiated in a contract, the type and amount will depend on the bargaining power of the parties. Under the law royalties are PERSONAL PROP- ERTY . When a person dies, the heirs receive the royalties. For example, when Elvis Presley died, his estate went to his daughter Lisa Marie, who now collects the royalties from the music company that sells her father’s recordings. Royalty agreements are also used in the mineral and gas industries. These agreements have much in common with the origin of the term. For many centuries in Great Britain, the AS SOON AS ANY MAN SAYS OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE STATE, ‘WHAT DOES IT MATTER TO ME ?,’ THE STATE MAY BE GIVEN UP FOR LOST . —JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION 446 ROYALTY Crown owned all the gold and silver mines. A private business could mine these “royal” metals only if it made a payment, a royalty, to the Crown. When, for example, a petroleum company wants to drill for oil on a person’s land, the company negotiates a royalty agreement with the owner of the mineral rights. If the company strikes oil, the owner of the mineral rights will receive a royalty based on a percentage of the barrels pumped out of the wells. The owner may receive the royalty in kind (the actual oil) or in value (the dollar amount agreed to in the contract), based on the total production from the property. The schedule for royalty payments is speci- fied in the contract. Quarterly or annual payments are typical. The royalty owner has the right to make an independent accounting of the business records to ensure that the figures upon which the royalty is based are accurate. CROSS REFERENCES Copyright; Entertainment Law; Literary Property; Mine and Mineral Law; Music Publishing; Patents; Publishing Law. RUBRIC OF A STATUTE The title of a statute indicating the objective of the legislation and providing a means of interpreting the body of the act. RUBY, JACK Jack Ruby was a nightclub owner from Dallas, Texas, who shot and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President JOHN F. KENNEDY, two days after Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas. Millions of people watched on national television as Ruby shot Oswald while the Dallas police were attempting to move Oswald from the police station to another location. Questions about how Ruby was able to gain access to the police station and why he killed Oswald have never been fully answered. These questions, as well as the silencing of Oswald himself, are among the reasons why some believe that Oswald was part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy. Ruby was born Jack Rubenstein on March 25, 1911, in Chicago, Illinois. He quit school after sixth grade and lived a life on the streets during adolescence. He was known for his explosive temper and willingness to fight. In the early 1930s he lived in California but soon moved back to Chicago. He tried short-lived careers as a salesman, union organizer, and boxer. In 1943 he was drafted into the Army Air Force and served until 1946. In 1947 Ruby moved to Dallas to help his sister manage a nightclub she owned. He served as manager and unofficial bouncer of the club and soon became acquainted with members of the Dallas police force. He later moved to the Carousel Club and, anxious to be accepted, befriended many police officers by giving them free drinks and hospi- tality. The police regarded Ruby as a harmless figure who enjoyed the aura of law enforce- ment. Those in the criminal world considered Ruby an informer, who told the police every- thing he knew about criminal activity. On Novemb er 22, 1963, President Kennedy was shot and killed in Dallas. Ruby was distraught at the news of the assassination and headed for the Dallas police headquarters. A well-known face at the police statio n, he was allowed into headquarters on November 23. On Sunday, November 24, Oswald was scheduled to be transferred to the county jail around 10:00 A.M., but a series of events delayed his move until 11:00 A.M. Ruby, who had parked his Jack Ruby. AP IMAGES GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION RUBY, JACK 447 . the Georgia laws claiming jurisdiction in Indian Territory were void. Both Georgia and Jackson John Ross 1790– 186 6 ▼▼ ▼▼ 180 0 180 0 187 5 187 5 185 0 185 0 182 5 182 5 1790 Born, Lookout Mountain, Tenn. ◆ ◆ ❖ ❖ 181 2–14 War. Eloise 17 68 Returned to France under assumed name 1770 Published autobiography Confessions 17 78 Died, Ermenonville, France 1775 83 American Revolution ❖ GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROUSSEAU,. the new government 184 6– 48 Mexican War 186 1–65 U.S. Civil War 186 6 Died, Washington, D.C. John Ross. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. GALE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF AMERICAN LAW, 3RD E DITION ROSS, JOHN 439 refused to