The Constitution was twisted in many ways by the court in this case. Since slaves were considered property, the government couldn 't constitutionally justify taking me away from my owner. The government also couldn 't prohibit slavery or stop it from spreading to free states. This argument is from amendment 10 in the constitution that states that the federal government only has powers that are delegated to them by the states or the people through the constitution. In other words, if the constitution doesn 't prohibit something, the court can 't prohibit it.
Having this segregation caused fights, disagreements, and more cases brought into court because if race, but it was the start of a new world. The case of Plessy versus Ferguson started around the 1890s when the Separate Car Act statute was passed in Louisiana. This act stated that any companies carrying people in Louisiana must have separate but equal areas for the whites and blacks. Homer Plessy, in 1992, was one-eight black and purchased a ticket for first class and, sat in the white only area. He was then arrested for violating the new Separate Car Act and was taken to jail.
The court may claim that they are separate but equal, but they are not. Harlan follows up with stated some of the 14th Amendment, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This means, you can’t take away anyone’s rights when they were, “born or naturalized in the United States.” That is how Justice Harlan explains and shows his claim of how what happened on the train was unconstitutional.
Homer Plessy was the first to stand up and voice his opinion.The Plessy v. Ferguson Supreme Court case challenged segregation laws. The Plessy v. Ferguson case started when Homer Plessy was arrested for disregarding a segregation law. Plessy was arrested because he “refused to sit in a Jim Crow car, breaking a Louisiana law” (Plessy v. Ferguson). This explains that Plessy was arrested for not following the segregation law that he knew about but denied to comply to.The
Court Cases Response Paper The main idea of the first essay, dealing with the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, is that the U.S. Constitution must be read with a loose interpretation because if the Constitution contained “an accurate detail of all the subdivisions of which its great powers will admit, and of all the means by which they may be carried into execution, would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind” (66). The Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland dealt with the reoccurring issue of the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. In this case, the state of Maryland attempted to place a tax on the Second Bank of the United States and it was being determined if Congress could indeed create said bank. Maryland believed that under a strict interpretation of the Constitution it had the right to tax the bank. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implied powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause which made it constitutional to create the Second Bank of the United States.
The 14th amendment is split into five sections. Section one is the most important of them all and it states, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” (The Constitution 2014). However it was put to test in the south early on. Even though it granted Blacks citizenship it did not give them equality, and soon arose numerous
The Court said that a state law that “implies merely a legal distinction” between the two races did not conflict Fisher 4 with the 13th Amendment abolishing involuntary servitude by a seven to one vote (“Plessy v. Ferguson” par. 3) . The Court avoided discussing the protection granted by the clause in the 14th Amendment that prohibits the states to make laws depriving citizens of their “privileges or immunities . ” The Court said that the purpose of the 14th Amendment was “to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law… Laws … requiring their separation … do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race (“Plessy v. Ferguson” par. 4).” In my opinion, I do not agree with the majority ruling . If I lived in the time period when segregation was prevalent, I most likely would have agreed with the ruling. Blacks and whites were separated at the time, so many people were adapted them not being allowed to intertwine . Today, I believe that we are all created equally, and that we should not be judged by the color of our skin. The Plessy v . Ferguson case started the “separate but equal” statement, and it lasted for decades.
This clause states that “All persons born in or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” It then goes on to state that States are not allowed to make or enforce any law that takes away life, liberty, property, privileges, or immunities of US citizens without due process of law. The most important part of the clause though that is the most relevant is the final sentence which states “...nor deny to any person
But that does not mean that it is beyond the power of Parliament to do such things. If Parliament chose to do any of them the courts could not hold the Act of Parliament invalid” (Madzimbamuto v Lardner-Burke (1969) – Lord Reid) What the statute itself enacts cannot be unlawful, because what the statute says is itself the law, and the highest form of law that is known to this country. It is the law which prevails over every other form of law, and it is not for the court to say that a parliamentary enactment, the highest law in this country, is illegal.” (Cheney v Conn ) ord Denning: "can anyone imagine that Parliament could or would reverse these laws and take away their independence? Most clearly not. Freedom, once given cannot be taken away" (Blackburn v AG (1971)) 3) No body, including a court of law, can question the validity of an Act of
Abstract “Before any human rights declarations or treaties had been adopted, the UN General Assembly adopted resolution 59(I) stating "Freedom of information is a fundamental human right and...the touchstone of all the freedoms to which the United Nations is consecrated” (Calling Of An International Conference On Freedom Of Expression, 1946). It is believed that the “freedom of expression is essential in enabling democracy to work and public participation in decision-making” (Margaritis, September 2012). Citizens cannot exercise their right to vote effectively or take part in public decision-making if they cannot feel part of their society and cannot freely express their views. Violation of freedom of expression is the first step that leads to other violations. (Margaritis, September 2012) According to article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, “everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
Congress, trying to not make the same mistakes as Britain, wrote that all people could protest peacefully without any violent recompense, and that they had the freedom to do so. They said, in Amendment 1 of the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” (U.S. Cong.). This not only meant that Congress gave rights to the people to protest their issues, but also gave them freedom of speech, press, and the ability to petition the government, much as they tried to petition with Britain with their grievances. The colonists lastly complained about the presence of a standing army in the colonies, and petitioned Britain as
Civil liberties are freedoms stated in the Bill of rights that protect the people from unreasonable government interference while Civil rights guarantees protection by the government to protect an individual from another. When the Bills of Rights was made it was not created as a list of guaranteed rights for citizens but simply made to state what things the government was not allowed to interfere with (Steve Mount).Although some may say that the U.S constitution did not need to include a specific listing of civil rights and liberties because it was unnecessary, I would have to disagree. The Bill of Rights is in my opinion not specific enough to protect the rights of the people the way it should. It simply just states what cannot be interfered
I believe freedom of speech should not be limited. Nowhere in the constitution does it give the government the right to limit our freedoms ,that act is truly unconstitutional. If we let them limit our freedoms then that gives them the power to limit little by little until it 's eventually all gone. The people should not be suppressed they should be allowed to put forth their opinions and speak against anything they feel isn 't right. the constitution states that you can say whatever you want as long as it does not include anything profine, or violent.
There is no right or wrong when we choose to vote or not vote. Mandatory voting is an unconstitutional force by government in the United States. If the federal government passed the law to force American people to vote, then the political policies of the United States would certainly changed from democratic politics to dictatorial
Separation of powers protects liberty by making sure that all government powers do not fall in the hands of a single person or a group of people it also ensure that one branch does not exercise the powers of another branch. The legislative branch is mainly responsible for lawmaking, in article one of the constitution congress is granted limited but substantial legislative power. For Example, in section 8 it mentions “congress shall have the power to establish Post offices and Post roads meaning that neither the executive branch nor the Judiciary branch can exercise these powers. The Executive branch is mainly responsible for enforcing laws, Article II of the constitution grants executive power to the President, Some of the president’s powers are to veto legislation, recommend legislation, grant pardons and nominate judges. The Judicial branch is the law interpreting branch of government, article III of the constitution establishes a federal system of courts that are separate from the state courts, judges are appointed for life unless they are impeached and judges are also independent of the other two branches and through their exercise of judicial powers judges cannot be threatened by either the executive or the legislative branch.