race - Constitutional Law II RacialDiscrimination...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–10. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Constitutional Law II Racial Discrimination
Background image of page 1

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall  2006 Con Law II 2 Loving v. Virginia   (1967) Anti-miscegenation law “God created the races [and]  placed them on separate  continents … he did not intend for  the races to mix.” The race gene
Background image of page 2
Fall  2006 Con Law II 3
Background image of page 3

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall  2006 Con Law II 4 Loving v. Virginia   (1967) Facts: VA law prohibits miscegenation  (interracial marriage) Claim: Discrimination on basis of race Discrimination wrt exercise of Fund’tal Right Suspect Class analysis Does the law discriminate, or treat all equally? Legal formalism vs. realism Who is the burdened class? Whites are burdened more than minorities (on face)
Background image of page 4
Fall  2006 Con Law II 5 Loving v. Virginia   (1967) VA law is clearly discriminatory But does it discriminate on account of race? No, if what matters is that penalty is the same for all  races ( cf. Pace v. AL  (1882)) Yes, if what matters is that application of the law  depends upon a person’s race VA law discriminates not against one race vis a vis another but on the basis of race Facial racial classifications Exception to rule requiring discrim. impact
Background image of page 5

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall  2006 Con Law II 6 Palmore v. Sidoti    (1984) Facts: White custodial mother divested of custody  because of remarriage to black man Best interest of child undermined by social stigma  associated with black step-father Claim: Race-based decision violates EP Class-wide discrimination not req’d; single instance Discrimination by any branch of gov’t Discrimination need not be based on state animus Court merely acknowledges social prejudices ( de facto )
Background image of page 6
Fall  2006 Con Law II 7 Palmore v. Sidoti    (1984) Can state actor give force to private bias? Only state action covered by EP clause Private discrimination not  unconstitutional Can state enforce private discrimination? Ex. 1: trespass enforcement Ex. 2: child custody enforcement Rule: Neutral state enforcement of private decisions Discretionary enforcement of private actions State action was race-conscious (even if not racist) No state  action State  action
Background image of page 7

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Fall  2006 Con Law II 8 Korematsu v. US   (1944) Exclusion Order No. 34: Congress’ ENDS Protection against Espionage/Sabotage  (Mischief) MEANS (Classification): Persons of Japanese ancestry (Trait) Closeness of fit Some Japanese-Americans are loyal  (overincl.) Some non-J-Amer. are threats (underinclusive)
Background image of page 8
Fall  2006 Con Law II 9 Korematsu v. US   (1944) Closeness of fit How close is the relationship? Between classification and state goal?
Background image of page 9

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

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 10
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2010 for the course LAW LAW5502 taught by Professor Stern during the Spring '10 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 31

race - Constitutional Law II RacialDiscrimination...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 10. Sign up to view the full document.

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