Third Exam Review Sheet

Third Exam Review Sheet - Chapter 9 Racial Equality and...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Chapter 9 – Racial Equality and Equal Protection PRE-BROWN ERA [1868-1954] I. Traditional/Intentional/Explicit Use of Race [to harm minorities] a. Early analysis of Equal Protection concerning race[1880-1950s] 1) Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857), p.224, also brief 9.1 on p. 226 2) Strauder v. West Virginia (1880) brief 9.2 on p. 228: Laws that discriminate on their “face” violate equal protection; Struck down; a statute intentionally and purposely forbidding jury service for one racial group obviously leaves no possibility for such a particular racial group to be impaneled on a jury and is unconstitutional 3) Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1884), brief 9.2 on p. 228: No explicit racial criteria; Held to be intentionally employed in a discriminatory manner violating the 14 th amendment; Facially neutral laws applied in a discriminatory fashion are unconstitutional 4) Civil Rights Case (1883), 229: The 14 th amendment was meant to regulate only “state” government actions- not private actions by privately-owned business or individuals; This rule has never been overturned and still stands; section 5 of the 14 th amendment cannot be used by congress to regulate private discrimination; use the commerce clause as a way around it instead 5) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), p. 229.: separate but equal; race receives no special consideration= “reasonable” and “rational”; Rule: may be separate, but must be equal; that is ok; Separate” is “equal” under the 14 th amendment’s equal protection clause b. Race and Education 1) Sweatt v. Painter (1950)r, p. 235: Higher education facilities, though “separate,” must also be truly “equal”; From this point on the court begins to take seriously the “equal” requirement in “separate but equal”; Court says: this “law school” is not even close to equal, must be truly equally; can still be separate but court really focuses on equality of things now 2) Brown v. Board of Education (1954),p. 235: Assuming facilities are equal, does it really violate equal protection clause? Court strikes down racially segregated public schools whose facilities are equal as required by Plessy; One class is seen as inferior presumably psychological effect effect on education and performance in society not equal protection; Court strikes down racially segregated public schools whose facilities are equal as required by Plessy; “Separate but Equal” is unconstitutional under the 14 th amendment; Evidence showed that such segregation laws generated a feeling of inferiority as to one’s minority race status in the community 3) Bolling v. Sharp (1954), p. 236: 14 th amendment not operable over District of Columbia (not a state); court overturns segregation policies by using the 5 th amendments’ due process clause; equal process is a component of the due process clause; “Separate but Equal” unconstitutional at the federal level under the 5 th amendment Ruling is same as Brown, except for the fact that DC is federal jurisdiction and thus the 14
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This test prep was uploaded on 04/15/2008 for the course PSC 101 taught by Professor Thomas during the Spring '08 term at Baylor.

Page1 / 10

Third Exam Review Sheet - Chapter 9 Racial Equality and...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online