DOC 2

DOC 2 - Dissenting Opinions Dred Scott v Sandford Roger...

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

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Dissenting Opinions Dred Scott v. Sandford Roger Taney: attorney general who delivered opinion that citizens are only citizens when the Constitution was written and back then, it didn’t include imported slaves and descendants, and therefore, Scott was not a citizen and was deemed a slave SANDFORD won Plessy v. Ferguson Court opinion was that segregation is not like slavery because is about involuntary servitude, and discrimination is not. They also say it doesn’t violate the 14 th Amendment because race doesn’t equate to unequal protection. They believe that the law protects blacks and whites from each other, and therefore, is better for the public. They did not see any sign of inequality by implementing the separate but equal law, and believe it is on the fault of blacks if they feel inferior because it’s “all in their head.” Justice Harlan dissents and says that maintaining segregation is not fair or wise because with them separated, we are denying elderly white people the assistance of African Americans, and therefore, it is detrimental for them to be separated. He also argues that separating races is just going to produce the opposite effects of keeping peace because it will encourage racial hatred and violence. The means to peace would be laws that enforce colorblindness in society. FERGUSON won Brown v. Board of Education Justice Warren delivers opinion of the court and concluded that an unequal education meant the violation of the 14 th Amendment. He focused on the social consequences of racial segregation and argued that it produced bad effects, because “separate but equal” is inherently unequal, and depriving equal rights and opportunities for Blacks. They wanted to challenged the “intangible inequalities” because if they just focused on tangible, then states could give more money to schools… showing that intangible = segregation. BROWN won U.S. v. O’Brien Warren delivered opinion of the court and came up with the O’Brien test to validate the constitutionality of laws that limit freedom of speech. He believes that the draft card incident was not a matter of expression, rather, a piece of paper to exist for communication means and purpose of raising an army. Douglas dissents and feels it isn’t necessary to raise an army right now because there’s no
Background image of page 1

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

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

{[ snackBarMessage ]}

Page1 / 3

DOC 2 - Dissenting Opinions Dred Scott v Sandford Roger...

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