Slavery was 'politically' abolished during the Civil War in 1863 by the 'Emancipation Proclamation' of President Lincoln, who used his formal powers in order to deprave the south of its first source of income. This was rather a pragmatic declaration than a real political decision. Slavery was then 'constitutionally' abolished by the 13th Amendment of 1865. Finally, the 14th and15th Amendments of 1868 and 1870 respectively established citizenship on 'jus solis', and no more limited franchise to White people. Nevertheless, the Democrats who were in favour of slavery and White supremacy, restricted the blacks rights in the South, advocating racial and legal distinctions and separation between the Blacks and the Whites.
[...] But, if the segregation had been in the Whites' disfavor, they would not have behaved like that and felt in an “inferior position” l.40. Why not? There should be no “enforced commingling” l.43 equal rights for both races. Indeed, social equality could exist only in case of “natural affinities” l.45, and wants of each other to appreciate mutually. Social equality can not be ruled by any legislation. It is about voluntary consent of the individual. On the other hand, there would be no obligation to be put on an equal foot. [...]
[...] He was then tried in first instance and condemned to jail. The Procedure of Appeal In his case Homer Adolph Plessy v. The State of Louisiana, Plessy argued that the East Louisiana Railroad had denied him his rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution, the 14th Amendment taken on the fact that it prohibits any restrictive legislation on the part of the States. He questioned the constitutionality of the Separate car Louisiana law in the light of these two amendments. [...]
[...] Once more, the Supreme Court refers to the States, in taking arguments of its decision on State Courts' precedents. The Supreme Court totally relies on social practice, and on states' power to act and enforce state legislation. It highlights states' independence and rights, through a real “rightist” legacy. B. Judicial consequences and legal critics to the decision The real problem showed by the case is that this “enforced separation” l.34 makes Black people feel inferior, and stamp themselves with badge of inferiority” l.35. [...]
[...] All these arguments and legal basis make the decision a racist one. There is a last very interesting distinction between “civil, political and social” equality l.55-58. As the first two are under the Constitution's protection, the last one is not. So, social equality remains in the states powers to manage. All what deals with social matters is the people's thing, and is under the sates control and power. The federal State and Courts is not concerned by such a matter. [...]
[...] Besides if there are racial distinctions, and therefore separation, created by state laws, it only means that there are different races in the United States. However it does not mean that Laws permitting their separation . imply the inferiority of either race to the other . as the Supreme Court says so on line 11-12. By saying so the Supreme Court rejects the argument that laws, such as the Louisiana act, creating racial separation, are an infringement to the 14th amendment. [...]
Bibliographie, normes APA
Citez le doc consultéLecture en ligne
et sans publicité !Contenu vérifié
par notre comité de lecture
