The Statutes
Analysis of two Anti-Miscegenation cases
In the Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967) is the landmark ruling that nullified anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. In June 1958, Mildred Loving, a black female, married Richard Loving, a white male, in Washington, DC. The couple traveled to Central Point, Virginia and their home was raided by the local police. The police charged the Loving’s of interracial marriage, a felony charge under Section 20-58 of the Virginia Code which prohibited interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the couple pled guilty and received a suspended sentence with the agreement that they would Virginia and not return for 25 years. In November 6, 1963, the couple filed a motion in the state court to vacate the original judgment on the grounds it violated the Fourteenth Amendment.
…show more content…
A unanimous Supreme Court decision overturned the Lovings convictions on June 12, 1967. The Supreme Court ruled that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute violated the Fourteenth Amendment, specifically the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause. Chief Justice Warren’s opinion stated that the Constitution provide citizens “the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”
The Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1883) was an earlier anti-miscegenation statute case that was ruled constitutional. Tony Pace, an African-American male, and Mary Cox, a white female, were resident of Alabama. In 1881 the couple was arrested because of their sexual relationship violated Alabama Code 4189, an anti-miscegenation statute. They were convicted and the couple was sentenced to two years of prison in 1882. The conviction was appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court under the motion that it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the
On July 11, 1958 a couple of hours after midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom. One of the three officers demanded from Richard to identify the woman next to him. Mildred, full of fear, told the officers that she was his wife, while Richard pointed to the marriage license on the wall. The couple was then charged and later found guilty in violation of the state's anti-miscegenation statute.
Cohen appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on the basis that marriage is a fundamental right, and there is no danger to society if interracial marriages exist. Mr. Cohen also spoke about interracial couples’ constitutional rights to be able to have children, and their rights to inherit land. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Richard and Mildred Loving, which ended the country’s last segregation law, ultimately, setting precedent that marriage is a human right in the United
In the case study, “Is This Child Mislabeled?” the reader is introduced to Serge Romanich, who is a third-grade Serbian refugee. Upon Serge’s enrollment in Oakwood Elementary, it was said that he barely knew any English and never started school due to his mother’s hospitalization and the Serbian war. Serge was placed into the Limited English Proficiency (LEP) program at his school, where he was soon labeled as a non-reader with no aptitude. Adding onto that, due to Serge’s inability to make academic progression and catch up, the faculty at Oakwood Elementary suggested to his mother, Byona Romanich, that Serge had a learning disability. According to the article, “On the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Cognitive Abilities, he scored at least 2 standard
The opinion of the court was held by Justice Kennedy, in that the Colorado amendment was held unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment on the United States Constitution. Kennedy argued the amendment singles out a specific group in which, it would make it so only homosexuals cannot receive the protective rights that are available to anyone else. This idea makes homosexuals unequal to everyone else because they are not guaranteed the same protection that anyone else could get if they needed it. Furthermore, the amendment burdens the homosexual community by not allowing them to seek protection against discrimination though the use of legislation. Additionally, Kennedy claims “In and ordinary case, a law will be sustained if it can be said to advance a legitimate government interest…” (632) By this he means that a law will be considered valid as long as it has a ...
This case was brought to the Supreme Court with Plessey’s argument being that his 13th and 14th Amendments was being violated. But Louisiana argued that the 14th Amendment states that everyone is to be treated equally and that is exactly what happened. They said that the cars were separate but equal and that abided by the Constitution while keeping the Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court decided that no law was violated and took the state’s side. The Court upheld Plessey’s conviction, and ruled that the 14th Amendment guarantees the right to “equal facilities,” not the “same facilities.” In this ruling, the Supreme Court created the principle of “separate but equal,”(“Judicial Review”,
NAACP v. Alabama. 377U.S. 288, 307, 84 S.Ct. 1302, 1314, 12 L.Ed. 2d 325. (1958).
In 1971, Norma McCorvey or Jane Roe, filled a case against the district attorney of Dallas County, Henry Wade, because he enforced a Texas law that prohibited abortion unless the abortion was needed medically, to save the mother’s life. Being a single, pregnant woman , Roe did not have the choice to have an abortion because the pregnancy was not endangering her life. Plus, Roe could not afford to travel to have the operation done safely. As a result, Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two lawyers that graduated from the University of Texas Law School, claimed a lawsuit against the abortion laws in Texas because they violated Roe’s constitutional rights. Besides Roe’s two laywers, Hallford, a licensed physician, and a childless married couple known as the Does supported Roe’s case. The lawsuit against Wade was filed in a Texas Federal Court. The Texas Federal Court heard the case on December 13th, 1971 and again, on October 11th, 1972. After the examination of Weddington and Coffee’s argument against Jay Floyd’s, the lawyer for Wade during the first argument, and Robert C. Flower’s, the lawyer for Texas in the second argument, the court ruled in Roe’s favor by claiming that the law did violate the Constitution. Consequently, Wade appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
...icant. This one for many families today is very important. These cases are also the reason why during a census you have the opportunity to check multiple races, instead of just one. This case stirred debates of gay marriage, which is a matter of personal opinion. It is up to you whether that is a pro or a con.
The case started in Topeka, Kansas, a black third-grader named Linda Brown had to walk one mile through a railroad switchyard to get to her black elementary school, even though a white elementary school was only seven blocks away. Linda's father, Oliver Brown, tried to enroll her in the white elementary school seven blocks from her house, but the principal of the school refused simply because the child was black. Brown went to McKinley Burnett, the head of Topeka's branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) and asked for help (All Deliberate Speed pg 23). The NAACP was eager to assist the Browns, as it had long wanted to challenge segregation in public schools. The NAACP was looking for a case like this because they figured if they could just expose what had really been going on in "separate but equal society" that the circumstances really were not separate but equal, bur really much more disadvantaged to the colored people, that everything would be changed. The NAACP was hoping that if they could just prove this to society that the case would uplift most of the separate but equal facilities. The hopes of this case were for much more than just the school system, the colored people wanted to get this case to the top to abolish separate but equal.
In the case Lawrence v. Texas (539 U.S. 558, 2003) which was the United States Supreme Court case the criminal prohibition of the homosexual pederasty was invalidated in Texas. The same issue has been already addressed in 1989 in the case Bowers v. Hardwick, however, the constitutional protection of sexual privacy was not found at that time. Lawrence overruled Bowers and held that sexual conduct was the right protected by the due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The effects of the ruling were quite widespread and led to invalidation of the similar laws throughout the United States that tried to criminalize the homosexual activity of adults which were acting in privacy. The case attracted much of the public attention and quite a large number of briefs were filed in the cases.
The Roe v. Wade case originated in the state of Texas in 1970 at the suggestion of Sarah Weddington an Austin attorney. Norma McCorvey otherwise known as "Jane Roe" was an unmarried pregnant woman seeking to overturn the anti-abortion law in the state of Texas. The lawsuit claimed that the statue was unconstitutionally vague and abridged privacy rights of pregnant women guaranteed by the first, fourth, fifth, ninth, and fourteenth amendments to the constitution. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade)
For some background, this case escalated to the Supreme Court since several groups of same-sex couples from different states, sued state agencies when their marriage was refused to be recognized. As it escalated through appeals, the plaintiffs argued that the states were violating the Equal Protection clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Equal Protection, according to the Constitution refers to the fact that, “any State [shall not] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…” (23). The opposition of this case was that, 1) The Constitution does not address same-sex marriage as a policy, and 2) The sovereignty of states regarding the decision. Ultimately, and according to the Oyez project, the Court held that “[the Amendment] guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples,” and therefore, same-sex marriage is a fundamental liberty.
Constitutionally, the case at first appears to be a rather one-sided violation of the First Amendment as incorporated through the Fourteenth. The court, however, was of a different opinion: "...
On 2013-JUN-26, Section 3 of that act was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in a famous lawsuit Windsor v. United States. Overnight, legally married same-sex couples whose marriages were recognized where they lived suddenly were recognized by the federal government. They gained access to 1,138 federal programs, benefits, and protections that had previously been denied them. Perhaps of even greater importance, the majority ruling in Windsor contained arguments that other federal courts and state courts could use to justify the legalization of marriage equality. Within months, there were lawsuits seeking marriage equality in every state where gay marriages were
After completing my family genogram, I was able to notice the history of a couple of patterns of fusion in particular. One of the relational patterns that stood out was emotional abuse which for the sake of this assignment I have only traced it back three generations, starting with my paternal grandfather Marciano, who endured the aftermath of the WWII and who conceived out of wedlock (COW) from Spanish and Mestizo parents and who married a woman Fidelina, of Chinese and Indian origin, born in El Salvador like him. Based on anecdotal accounts, Marciano was particularly emotionally abusive towards Rosa, my mother, who is also the first born of the couple and COW. Marciano had very high standards of beauty and intellect, which often triggered name calling, insults, and other forms of humiliation aimed towards my mother, causing her to feel belittled and resent his treatment towards her.