Old Dominion University Brown v Board of Education of Topeka Case Law

User Generated

fret_vb07

Writing

Old Dominion University

Description

2500 words single space

YOU MUST TYPE THE QUOTES AS IT IS ON THE TEXT.

DO NOT USE OUTSIDE RESOURCES.

Quotes with page number and case and justice name


User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

Attached. Please let me know if you have any questions or need revisions.

Surname1
Student’s Name
Instructor’s Name
Course Number
Date
Constitutional Law on Individual Rights
The various rulings of the circuit courts and the Supreme Court across the U.S.
handled various discrimination cases ranging from racial, sexual, nationality, etc. The judges'
opinions and dissent were based on either the judicial precedence, the constitutional
provision, or various amendments. The purpose of this essay is to establish and analyze with
reasoning the various rulings based on the U.S. constitutions with a view of establishing if the
rulings were executed as envisioned by the founders of the constitution.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka
This case's handling was critical because it required a direct application of the
contents of the 14th amendment of the constitution on equal rights. Under the fourteenth
amendment, the Supreme Court found out that the students of black descent were deprived of
their rights through various forms of Segregation, which was vilified by the doctrine of
"separate but equal." Justice Warren on his ruling wrote; "In the field of public education the
doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place," as segregated schools are "inherently unequal."
(Brown v. Bd. of Educ., Justice Warren, Opinion, 4). As per the ruling, the court decided that
the plaintiff was deprived of their rights guaranteed by the 14th amendment, which states that
no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection laws. Reasoning in
perspective as to whether the judges practiced will or judgment, and it is apparent that the
consideration relied heavily on the emotional and psychological feeling of the Negro
students, which was not properly underlined in the constitution. The part of the ruling read,
"Segregation of white and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon
colored children. The impact is greater when it has sanctioned the law, for the policy of
separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the Negro group. A
sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of
law, therefore, tends to retard the educational and mental development of Negro children and
to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racially integrated school
system". (Brown v. Bd. of Educ., Justice Warren, Opinion, 5). This ruling indicates an
expansion of judicial will that extends the constitution's requirements through the precedent
cases and majorly offers the ruling in terms of humanitarian ground. The constitutional
requirement is well versed, but the ruling exercised an act of judicial will more than just
judgment. The application of the constitutional law as per the 14th amendment paves the way
for manipulating the law's general requirement by realizing other factors such as human
psychology. It is apparent that Warren considered a general overview of the 14th amendment
and incorporated his analysis and "will" to reach a conclusive decision. This analogy can also
be viewed in terms of his failure to completely abolish the doctrine of "separate but equal"
despite his ruling against blacks' discrimination.
Cooper v. Aaron
In Cooper v. Aaron of 1958, the Supreme Court ruled against the case of
desegregation as pursued by the plaintiff on the reference to the 14th amendment as per the
constitution. The desegregation plan in question was meant to safeguard students of AfricanAmerican descent against cases relating to racial Segregation, which as at the time was

Surname2
legally allowed. The Justices the Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice
Brennan, and Mr. Justice Whittaker unanimously gave the opinion of the court. The judgment
as accepted by the majority of the Supreme Court incurred a sense of agreement to the
constitutional requirement as per the 14th amendment allowing equal protection of the law.
All Supreme Court decisions bound every state. The case of Brown v. Board of Education
mandated a desegregation window which school authorities sought to be postponed. The
court decision to uphold the appellate decision that allowed desegregation to proceed was not
as desired by the school authorities nor the State of Arkansas, but followed the ardent
constitution about the protection of the school children against Segregation and
discrimination. The court asserted that the constitution is the supreme law in the land, and no
other law can subvert or take over authority as laid down in the constitution." (Cooper v.
Aaron, Justice Black, Opinion, 9). Part of the ruling by Chief Justice Black reads, "While
giving weight to these public and private considerations, the courts will require that the
defendants make a prompt and reasonable start toward full compliance with our May 17,
1954, ruling. Once such a start has been made, the courts may find that additional time is
necessary to effectively rule out the ruling. The burden rests upon the defendants to establish
that such time is necessary for the public interest and is consistent with good faith compliance
at the earliest practicable date. To that end, the courts may consider problems related to
administration, arising from the physical condition of the school plant, the school
transportation system, personnel, revision of school districts and attendance areas into
compact units to achieve a system of determining admission to the public schools on a nonracial basis, and revision of local laws and regulations which may be necessary for solving
the preceding problems."(Cooper v. Aaron, Justice Black, Opinion, 9). As the court declared
in the ruling, it's evident that the federal court displayed absolute authority in deciding civil
rights proceedings. As per the judges' unanimous decision, it was an absolute judgment on
the merit of the case concerning the constitution instead of a will.
Regents of the University of California v. Bakke
In this case, the University of California violated the fourteenth amendment protection
clause under the civil right act of 1964. This was the finding of the superior court of Yolo
County. The University's reluctance to admit Bakke to the institution was racially motivated
and contravened the equal protection rights provisions. Under the provision of the California
Constitution, and further the proscription under Title VI of the Civil Rights that racial
discrimination in any program in schools receiving federal financial assistance. Therefore the
school's admission program was unlawful, and the judges act as per the provision of the
constitution, which is superior to the school's admission laws and any law in the land. The
affirmation of the court holding that the University's special admission program was unlawful
was purely based on the constitution's guidance. For the race factor to be considered in the
admissions, other characteristics such as academic competition were necessary; part of the
ruling reads; "Besides, the University may function properly as it does, consider other factors
in evaluating an applicant, such as the personal interview, recommendations, character, and
matters relating to the needs of the profession and society, such as an applicant's professional
goals. In short, the standards for admission employed by the University are not
constitutionally infirm except to the extent that they are utilized in a racially discriminatory
manner. Disadvantaged applicants of all races must be eligible for sympathetic consideration,
and no applicant may be rejected because of his race in favor of another who is less qualified,
as measured by standards applied without regard to race. We reiterate, because of the
dissent's misinterpretation, that we do not compel the University to utilize only 'the highest
objective academic credentials' as the criterion for admission."(Regents of Univ. of Cal. v.

Surname3
Bakke, Justice Powell, Opinion, 20) Justice Powell delivered an opinion of the court with the
majority of the justices dissenting. The provision of the special admission program ought to
have considered every applicant with equality under the constitution and further scrutinize the
candidate's competitiveness in a separate selection process. Part of the ruling quoting the
constitution read; "No person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or
national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to
discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance."
(Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke, Justice Powell, Opinion, 24) This portion formed the
basis of the ruling since the applicant was not subjected fully to the admission process and the
point of discrimination was discrete at the point of application, whereby no space for
interviewing and thoroughly vetting the application was conducted.
Frontiero v. Richardson
The case constitutes a classification of discrimination or unequal treatment based on
sex, just the same as discrimination based upon race or national origin. The challenged statute
is unconstitutional. This is because the female military personnel and their counterparts (male
and female) were treated differently despite sharing a similar situation. The court's
unanimous decision read by Justice Brennan has guided the provision of the Due Process
Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Because of the statutory requirements, the discriminatory
impact was defined based on two analogies; firstly, as a matter of procedure, the female
military personnel was required to prove the spouse's dependency, while the male members
had no such burden to prove. Secondly, as a substantive matter, a male member that did not
provide more than one-half of their wife's support received benefits, whereas the similarly
situated female military personnel were denied the benefits. A section of the ruling by Justice
Brennan reads, "Man is, or should be, woman's protector and defender. The natural and
proper timidity and delicacy that belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of
civil life occupations. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the
divine ordinance and like things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs
to the domain and functions of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and
views which belong, or should belong, to the family institution is repugnant to the idea of a
woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband... "(Frontiero v.
Richardson, Justice Brennan, Opinion, 3) The ruling of this case, which was unanimous was
rather judgmental as it can be viewed in the above quotation. The constitutional close that
guides such matter did not specifically give guidance on how the case should be handled and
decided; also, the lack of judicial precedence regarding such matter was consequential and
formed the basis of judgment in this case.
Romer v. Evans
The backbone of this case is on determining whether the state constitutional
amendment that forbade all the executive, legislative and judicial action at any state-level or
local government designed for the protection of homosexuals violated the equal protection
clause. The answer is yes. The United States constitutional amendment XIV is particularly
protecting people against the uneven application of the equal protection laws. It particularly
asserts that the laws mus...


Anonymous
Awesome! Made my life easier.

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Content

Related Tags