Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
John f kennedy civil rights act of 1964
The civil rights act of 1964 essay
United states government federalism and seoeration of powers
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: John f kennedy civil rights act of 1964
The Commerce Clause derives out of Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution. This Clause was established in 1787 and gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” (The Legal Information Institute). This is to ensure that the Constitution is balancing certain powers for the federal government. On the other hand, the Tenth Amendment states that “[t]he 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” (The Legal Information Institute). In past cases, such has Heart of Atlanta Motel vs. United States, United States v. Lopez and United States v. …show more content…
Early on, the Supreme Court ruled that the power to regulate interstate commerce encompassed the power to regulate interstate navigation. Despite these decisions, the Commerce Clause could still effectively be used to limit the federal government’s power. During the 1960s, America face turmoil due to constant uproars and riots that segregation and integration spurred. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a large movement, which prohibited segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, that passed the act under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge foreign users with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up until this point because of the Fourteenth Amendment’s limited request to those within the state. This is vital to the outbreak of discrimination that occurred within the case Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States 379 U.S. 241 (1964). Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States was a case that questioned whether Congress had the ability to regulate commerce? The issue with this action formed Heart of Atlanta Motel stated that they are a private entity and the Fourteenth Amendment, Section Five regulate government entities. Congress tried to fight back stating that the discrimination done within the motel affected interstate markets, which the courts agreed. The courts went in the manner to solve such a fragile topic because the courts believed that African Americans would be reluctant to travel and go on vacation to other towns because they would be unsure as to where they would reside during their time of vacation. The courts stated this type of discrimination interfered with interstate economic
According to William E. Leuchtenburg, along with other successors, West Coast Hotel v. Parrish was the case that constituted a constitutional revolution. Leuchtenburg gives evidence of the main arguments of his opinion concerning the shift in the Court during this particular case as well as others that came after it. The significance of this case was that it upheld the “minimum wage” legislation passed by Washington State even though there was the uprising issue of “liberty of contract.” The presented case of West Coast Hotel v. Parrish provoked a constitutional revolution in the United States (Leuchtenburg, pg. 163). This case was not an open-and-shut case and encountered much opposition especially from the review of Tipaldo. As a result, it overturned the decision made by the trial court, which was based on the case, Adkins v. Children’s Hospital (Leuchtenburg, pg. 164).
.... Madison was applied to this decision because the actions committed were unconstitutional. According to the Supreme Court the 8th Amendment was broken because the District Court of Appeal was giving a cruel and unusual punishment to Graham. The 8th amendment claus does not allow a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in jail without a parole for a non-homicidal crime. Therefore Terrance could not fall through with this punishment.
The Case of Arizona v. Hicks took place in 1986; the case was decided in 1987. It began on April 18th 1984, with a bullet that was shot through the floor in Hick’s apartment; it had injured a man in the room below him. An investigation took place. Officers were called to the scene. They entered Mr. Hicks’ apartment and discovered three weapons and a black stocking mask.
The Commerce Clause is referred to as an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution. The clause states that the United States Congress
Instead, the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass legislation regulating all commerce bar intrastate trade (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Coupled with the subsequent clause enabling Congress to pass any legislation they deem necessary in order to carry out the laws passed by dint of the body’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18), the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international commerce endows Congress with a significant capacity to control the nation’s
Groups of people soon received new rights. Congress passed the Civil Rights Act. It gave black Americans full citizenship and guaranteed them equal treatment. Also, it passed the Fourteenth Amendment to make sure that the Supreme Court couldn’t declare the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. The amendment made blacks citizens of the United States and the states in which they lived. Also, states were forbidden to deprive blacks of life, liberty, or property without due process. Additionally, blacks could not be discriminated by the law. If a state would deprive blacks of their rights as citizens, it’s number of congressional representatives would be reduced. The Civil Rights Act as well as the Fourteenth Amendment affected both the North and the South.
Narrow construction is not found in the Constitution, but the powers granted to Congress to regulate commerce are found. Exactly stated, “Congress shall have power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes.” This clause has no definite interpretation, but has included many aspects of regulating. The word “commerce” is defined as the exchange or buying and selling of commodities on a large scale involving transportation from place to place (Webster 264). Congress has exercised this delegated power in many cases. The nature and basic guidelines of Congress’ power over commerce is first laid out in the case of Gibbons v. Ogden. In addition, the case United States v. Lopez is a prime example of Congress’ ability to carry out the Commerce Clause to the furthest extent. Lastly, the case National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corporation brings to light the Wagner Act of 1935. Through a review of these three cases, it can be concluded that there are no real limitations on Congress when regulating commerce.
... many other things! “The object of the [Fourteenth] amendment was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute quality of the two raves before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinction based upon color, or to enforce social as distinguished from political quality, or a commingling of the two raves upon terns unsatisfactory to either.” This is a quote from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court thought that the two raves should be separate but equal. But even though the two races were separate, it was still not equal because there were much less public restrooms, restaurants, and other things for the blacks in America.
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The commerce clause gives power to the government over the states. This was established in the Gibbons v. Ogden case in 1824. Gibbons and Ogden both were running their steamboats along the same route, on the Hudson River, which was between New Jersey and New York. Ogden got an injunction through a New York state court. This injunction concluded that Ogden had got exclusive rights by the state to operate that route. Gibbons had received his permit from the federal government. The New York court sided with Ogden and ordered Gibbons to stop operating his steamships. Gibbons then preceded to take this to the Supreme Court. John Marshall sided with Gibbons and said that New York’s grant to Ogden violated the federal licensing act of 1793 and for the first time the commerce clause was interpreted. It was concluded that the government had the power to regulate this because of the commerce clause. Since then the commerce clause has expanded the power of the government furthermore than the states would like it
...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.
Throughout history, there has been a struggle for equality and justice. The oppression that African Americans have received throughout the generational period in which they first arrived in America has continued to be a raging war. Article I, Section 8 of the American Constitution enabled Congress to have certain rights and authorities over the laws. In the evaluation of the 1700s, 1800s, 1950s, and 1990s, the prolific effects can be seen through specific Congressional Acts.
Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, segregation in the United States was commonly practiced in many of the Southern and Border States. This segregation while supposed to be separate but equal, was hardly that. Blacks in the South were discriminated against repeatedly while laws did nothing to protect their individual rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 ridded the nation of this legal segregation and cleared a path towards equality and integration. The passage of this Act, while forever altering the relationship between blacks and whites, remains as one of history’s greatest political battles.
Shifting focus from religeon to segregation, the court decision of ‘'separate but equal' in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), had allowed segregation to thrive. The only racial progress made, was by African-Americans themselves, known as accommodationists. The basis of their idea was to advance through work and eventually the white man would come to accept the need for change. Yet, racial tensions were no longer limited to the South. In their attempts to find work in the North, the constant American phobia of job competition led to even greater social
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbid businesses connected with interstate commerce to discriminate when choosing its employees. If these businesses did not conform to the act, they would lose funds that were granted to them from the government. Another act that was passed to secure the equality of blacks was the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This act, which was readopted and modified in 1970, 1975, and 1982, contained a plan to eliminate devices for voting discrimination and gave the Department of Justice more power in enforcing equal rights. In another attempt for equal rights, the Equal Employment ...
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act was ratified making it illegal to deny anyone of full and equal enjoyment in railways, other form of transportation, hotels, theaters, and places of amusement including race, gender, national origin, and religion. Though discrimination was removed throughout the states due to the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to outlaw it in private businesses was not a power Congress obtained. Only the states themselves held this power in which Congress encouraged them to take into action for the common discrimination against African Americans to be demolished ("Key Supreme Court Cases”). The owner of the Heart of Atlanta Motel, Moreton Rolleston, was opposed to allowing anyone of the African American culture to reside in the