Argumentative Essay On Brown Vs. The Board Of Education

Brown v. The Board Of Education

Issue

In the world we are living today. We cannot imagine any child black, white, brown, blue or yellow succeed without having an education. That is true for our country or any other country in the world. Education is the pillar for success for any member our communities. Every State in our union has for duty to provide a well meaningful education to every citizen under its jurisdiction. However, does that education have to be offered in a separate, but equal environment remains a contentious issue which brings us to the question before the court: Does segregation of children in public schools Solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors May be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of educational opportunities?

We believe that it does not. The states can constitutionally enact legislation

requiring persons of different races to use “separate but equal” segregated facilities
The statute so called “separate but equal” enacted in most states in the south does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime. Slavery was forced labor implemented against the will of the Negro it implies involuntary servitude and a state of bondage. The Thirteen Amendment of the Constitution seeks only to abolish the practice of slavery and; therefore, recognized the right of the Negro to live as a free man without being bound to force labor. The Thirteenth Amendment; however, was regarded as insufficient to protect former slaves from certain laws which had been enacted in the south which imposed upon them onerous disabilities and burdens and curtailed their rights in the pursuit of life, liberty and property to such an extent that their freedom was of little value, and that the Fourteenth Amendment was devised to meet this problem. The Fourteenth Amendment as it stands was never intended to make the races equal, but to give the Negro the same right as the white

man.
The 14th Amendment which overruled Dred Scott v. Sanford guaranteed that all persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside, and that no state shall abridge the privileges and immunities of citizens, deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person the equal protection of the law. The Fourteenth amendment simply guarantees that the Negro is a citizen of the United States and the State in which he was born. However, nowhere in the Thirteenth and The Fourteenth amendment did it mentioned that the States cannot legally set aside separate seating for the Negro and the white man. The 10th Amendment ratified 12/15/1791 stated, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Here we are talking about the police powers of the states. In cases where the state finds it necessary to protect the peace and the welfare of its citizens it has according to the 10th Amendment of the Constitution the right to implement reasonable laws to do so.
The proper construction of the Fourteenth Amendment involves a question of exclusive privileges rather than race. Its main purpose was to establish the citizenship of former slaves, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States and of the States, and to protect the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States from hostile legislation of the states. The spirit of the Fourteenth Amendment was to put the races in equal grounds, but not render them equal or force them to cohabit with each other. The proper application of the fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution in this case is to uphold the constitutionality of the present legislation, and allow each individual state the ability to make laws that protects each and every citizen in its territory according to the law and the necessity of the circumstances presented. In its present form this legislation although imperfect as every law is meets the requirements of the constitution which recognized that the states as parties of the union have certain rights and privileges when it comes to protecting their citizens. The Fourteenth Amendment does not in itself limit that power granted to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution was intended to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but it was intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social equality, not a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either. Laws permitting and even requiring their separation in places where they are liable to be brought into contact do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race. Such laws have generally been recognized as within the scope of the states’ police powers. The most common instance involves the establishment of separate schools, which has been held to be a valid exercise of the legislative power even by courts of States where the political rights of blacks have been longest and most earnestly enforced.
As mentioned previously The Fourteenth Amendment intention was sole to recognize the civil rights of the Negro across the land in every state. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 which guaranteed Blacks basic economic rights to contract, sue, and own property did nothing to force the races to commingling with each other nor the Thirteenth, and The Fourteenth Amendment. The intention of this law was to protect all persons in the United States, including Blacks, in their civil rights. Not the right to live, to cohabit, ride and share the places with the white man.
In the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 these cases narrowly defined federal power and make less effective the Fourteenth Amendment by asserting that most of the rights of citizens remain under the control of the states. The Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875, and declared that the Fourteenth Amendment does not prohibit discrimination by private individuals or businesses. The court time and time again overturned the attempt by many activist judges to rewrite the constitution without using the proper amendment channels, and it is to our opinion that this court should uphold the constitutionality of this law.