Plessy v fergusson

The moment the first slave was brought to America a ball was set in motion
that one day somewhere and somehow a distinction between races had to be dealt
with. The Civil War helped to make a stand against enslavement. A few years
later in Plessy v. Ferguson another step was taken to give blacks equal but
separate treatment and access to public facilities. After taking a giant leap
into the future, fifty-eight years, we have another landmark case. In Brown v.
Board of Education, the separate but equal law was revised to bring the races
together in the same public facilities with access to the same public resources.

The decision of Brown released congress from the restraints that they had
been under with the previous decisions made by the Supreme Court. Congress was
now able to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibited discrimination on
the basis of race. Quotas were instituted to minimize the discrimination that
had been taking place. With quotas comes reverse discrimination. In Bakke v.
Regents of the University of California came the dismissal of quotas in schools.
Bakke challenged the University for letting black students into school with
lower qualifications. Quotas are an unfortunate necessity to help incorporate
blacks into the mainstream workforce.

The decisions in Plessy and Brown are similar because of how the decisions
affect the group instead of the individuals. The Court is continually ruling in
regard to race instead of the individual. If the Constitution is truly color
blind, then we would not have these distinctions between classes when the
rulings are made. Each ruling by the Court should be done on an individual basis
and by the merits of that particular individual instead of the color of ones
skin. The only reason the court rules in favor of Brown is because the
implications go beyond just the individual affected, the ruling will affect the
entire black race. The effects of the Brown case go a lot further than the
immediate case.

During the sixties the civil rights movement encouraged the Civil Rights Act
of 1964. This Act was already in the works due to the decision in Brown. Brown
released the flood gates which held back blacks from equal opportunities. Before
this decision blacks were in a psychological caste system. Even though they had
the “same opportunities” as whites the mere fact that they were forced into
separate quarters only thirty years after the release of their enslavement made
them feel as if they were in a lower class. A lot of people say that if the
blacks feel that way, then that is their own fault. The same people forget that
the Constitution is color blind and would not understand why we have to have
separate quarters in the first place.

After the Civil Rights Act of 1964, case after case was brought before
different courts throughout the land to test the limits of the law. In 1972,
Moose Lodge No.107 v. Irvis was brought before the Supreme Court. Irvis felt
that he should be allowed to join a private club because the liquor licence was
in limited supply in the city based on per capita, and the licence is supplied
by the state. The government can not sanction racism and, according to Irvis,
would be doing so by issuing a liquor licence to Moose Lodge No. 107. The right
of a private club to choose its own members is one of the main reasons behind
having a private club to begin with. To allow the government to invade the
private sectors through an insignificant means was denied and the Supreme Court
put their foot down and set some boundaries for civil rights activists.

Again in 1984 in Palmore v. Sidoti, we have a case where the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 will attempt to set some boundaries with bi-racial relationships and the
placement of kids affected in the process. The welfare of the child has always
been the courts number one priority when kids are involved. When Linda Sidoti
moved in with a Negro, Anthony Sidoti sought custody of their child based on the
child’s best interest. The question that was brought before the Supreme Court
was if the child living with a Negro might inflict private biases from the child’s
peers. This is one of the few cases that the child’s best interest is not what
the Court was considering. According to the Fourteenth Amendment, government is
to do away with classifying people according to their race. If we classify
someone according to their race it will do more harm in the long