1A. An unjust law is no law at all.
2A. A law that uplifts human personality is just, a law that degrades human personality is unjust.
3A. All segregation laws are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality.
4A. Segregation laws are not laws and therefore do not need to be followed and can be broken.
1B. Laws come about through democratic processes and their lawfulness stems from the democratic process in which all peoples are represented in a vote.
2B. Segregation laws were set up in Alabama by voters.
3B. Negroes are prevented from voting in Alabama.
4B. The segregation law is unjust and therefor does not need to be followed because it did not come about by democratic process, as the Negro vote was excluded.
…show more content…
King goes on to say that there are two types of laws, just and unjust and unjust laws are not laws at all, and should be, based upon moral duty, broken. King gives this as a reason for preaching that the “morally right” 1954 Supreme Court decision be followed because it is morally right and therefore just, but the laws of segregation be broken because they are unjust (King, …show more content…
King outlines the basis of American values, saying that the goal of America is freedom, and inherently, America’s destiny runs parallel with equality for all, because the end goal of both parties is freedom. King goes on to say that freedom will definitely be won because “the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands,”(King 6). All in all, King is arguing that all laws in America need to be democratically obtained, and until then, laws which are not willingfully agreed to by the minority are unjust and can be broken, until the minority or underrepresented minority (Alabama) has a proportionate say on the matter in due democratic
Throughout history, segregation has always been a part of United States history. This is showed through the relationships between the blacks and whites, the whites had a master-slave relationship and the blacks had a slave-master relationship. And this is also true after the civil war, when the blacks attained rights! Even though they had obtained rights the whites were always one step above them and lead superiority over them continuously. This is true in the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson”. The Court case ruled that blacks and whites had to have separate facilities and it was only constitutional if the facilities were equal. this means that they also constituted that this was not a violation of the 13th and 14th amendment because they weren 't considered slaves and had “equal” facilities even though they were separate. Even if the Supreme court case “Plessy v. Ferguson” set the precedent that separate but equal was correct, I would disagree with that precedent, because they interpreted
King insist that all of the laws ought to reflect the societal moral concerns. In this particular letter, he is making that point in the most explicit manner. He touches on sameness and equivocally states that the law is a form that expression of morality. For instance, he says that separation is a sin yet the law encourages it, and that laws itself is not only unjust, but also sinful. Dr. King also makes a number of dissections which bring out the good quality any legal mind must possess.
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
There were a set of laws about segregation and discrimination called Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow laws were state and local laws that enforced racial segregation in the South. The reasoning for the making of these laws are to keep African Americans and Caucasians “separate but equal”. Some prime examples of Jim Crow Laws are: “It shall be unlawful for a negro and white person to play together or in company with each other in any game of cards or dice, dominoes or checkers”(n.d.). “It shall be unlawful for any white prisoner to be handcuffed or otherwise chained or tied to a negro prisoner”(n.d.). “No colored barber shall serve as a barber to white women or girls”(n.d.).These may seem cruel and unusual and indeed they were. That was there intent. Fortunately, these laws have ceased and no longer remain thanks to the Civil Right
He stated that” privileged groups seldom give up their privileges voluntarily”. He illustrated that Negroes realize from their bad experience that they need to confront the society by non-violence tension to persuade whites with their rights otherwise, white people can’t perceive what segregation means. In addition, King supported his claim that delayed justice is never attained. King defended his claim of breaking the laws as there are just laws and in–just laws. He explained that the law, which degrades human personality isn’t a law. He mentioned that” all the segregation status are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damage the personality”. King asserted that there is no democratic law when it doesn’t concern with a part of the society. King provided historical support for the in-just law. He referred to what Hitler did with the Jewish community in Germany was a law. However, no one nowadays is doubtful that Hitler’s law was in-just because he persecuted and killed Jews and prevented any one to assist and comfort them. Consequently, he implied that white clergymen should think about what they did with Negroes and help them as their brothers against
King clears up any idea that he’s just someone who has broken the law for no reason. He does this by saying; “I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” (Para 15) This statement tells us that Dr. King is simply adhering to his moral responsibility by doing as he’s supposed to. He knows that following a one-sided makes no sense, and it would be submitting to evil. He even goes on to quote St. Augustine, declaring that, “an unjust law is no law at all.” (Para 15) Therefore, the segregation laws that were implemented in Birmingham at the time were by St. Augustine’s logic, no law at
The legality of racial segregation was the result of a deeply flawed belief held by the majority of Americans that blacks were inherently inferior and would never be treated the same as whites. African Americans had been regarded as property for centuries prior to the Civil Rights Movement, and that mindset had to be changed for the creation of new laws or abolition of old laws to have any ...
Separate but Equal doctrine existed long before the Supreme Court accepted it into law, and on multiple occasions it arose as an issue before then. In 1865, southern states passed laws called “Black Codes,” which created restrictions on the freed African Americans in the South. This became the start of legal segregation as juries couldn’t have African Americans, public schools became segregated, and African Americans had restrictions on testifying against majorities. In 1887, Jim Crow Laws started to arise, and segregation becomes rooted into the way of life of southerners (“Timeline”). Then in 1890, Louisiana passed the “Separate Car Act.” This forced rail companies to provide separate rail cars for minorities and majorities. If a minority sat in the wrong car, it cost them $25 or 20 days in jail. Because of this, an enraged group of African American citizens had Homer Plessy, a man who only had one eighth African American heritage, purchase a ticket and sit in a “White only” c...
...did not follow these rules they still followed Jim Crow laws. These laws segregated the south and made life extremely hard on coloreds. The Supreme Court knew that some states wouldn’t comply so they made each attorney general send in a plan for desegregation. “Rather, it asked the attorney generals of all states with laws permitting segregation in their public schools to submit plans for how to proceed with desegregation”(Supreme Court 1955). Even though desegregation was in the process life for coloreds was still not easy.
Although many individuals believed that segregation was wrong, many southern states continued to practice racial segregation. Racial segregation is the separation of humans into racial groups in daily life. Segregation may apply to a variety of situations. Before the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s laws, policies, and practices were aimed at segregating blacks. After the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery in America, Jim Crow Laws regulated racial discrimination. Many states and local governments passed legislation to separate people of color from whites in many areas, such as, schools, housing, jobs, and public gathering places to name only a few. While millions of former slaves hoped to become equal citizens, some people continued to view African Americans as second-class citizens (Spartacus Educational).
Our Constitution is color blind, ...but the practices of the country do not always conform to the principles of the Constitution... Equality before the law has not always meant equal treatment and opportunity. And the harmful, wasteful and wrongful results of racial discrimination and segregation still appear in virtually every aspect of national life, in virtually every part of the nation (Loevy, 5).
Throughout the years there has been limitless legal cases presented to the court systems. All cases are not the same. Some cases vary from decisions that are made by a single judge, while other cases decisions are made by a jury. As cases are presented they typically start off as disputes, misunderstandings, or failure to comply among other things. It is possible to settle some cases outside of the courts, but that does require understanding and cooperation by all parties involved. However, for those that are not so willing to settle out of court, they eventually visit the court system. The court system is not in existence to cause humiliation for anyone, but more so to offer a helping hand from a legal prospective. At the same time, the legal system is not to be abuse. or misused either.
even if they thought this, the Supreme Court couldn’t help them. As long as the laws were “separate but equal”, they were considered to be constitutional. Time passed and it seemed like African Americans learned to live with these laws, but that soon changed after the World War II
While the government the founding fathers established had a purpose of protecting the divine rights granted to man, more issues arose due to the inability of the government to fully protect all human rights. Jefferson stated in The Declaration of Independence “that all men are created equal,” (Jefferson, 2014, p. 108). However, the government did not uphold this ideal. Martin Luther King Jr., one of the leaders of the civil rights movement, encouraged Americans to practice civil disobedience to attempt to make a change in the treatment the African-American people endured under the ideals of the government. Segregation laws were considered unjust under the divine law. They encouraged the unfair treatment of American citizens based solely on the color of their skin. A portion of the American identity established by the revolution, was an intolerance to unjust laws and actions. King explains in his Letter from Birmingham Jail that “injustice anywhere is a treat to justice everywhere,” (King, 2014b, p. 141). Therefore, the citizens had a duty to disobey injustice to achieve justice. However, disobedience only applies with unjust laws. According to King, “an unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law,” (King, 2014b, p. 144). Kings considers any law that does not align with the teachings of the Lord or the natural rights that all men possess as unjust. This echoes the ideas of the Founding Fathers that the British government defied the rights of the colonists. The American identity established during the founding of the nation, seems to accept the use of disobedience of unjust laws as a method of improving the American state. Without this disobedience, American citizens would lack an effective way to establish their dissatisfaction with the state of the
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.