These were the days of Reconstruction, and Texas had a military government; it did not yet have representatives in the United States Congress. Was Texas a state within the meaning of the Constitution so that it could bring this suit? Second, the bonds had been sold during the Civil War by the duly organized government. If Texas was at that time no longer a state of the Union in legal contemplation, then the sale was perfectly proper. If, on the other hand, Texas was legally a state, then its government during the Confederacy was a usurpation and its action was void.
First, Buckley’s argument that the government needed to prevent instances of corporate corruption did not befit the case. It is because quid pro quo corruption interests limited the government’s the precautions. Second, the government’s interest as outlined by the constitution restricts direct associations of the candidate on the expenditure, but not independent corporate expenditures. Third, the indigence of elected officials in the process of expenditure does not deem them corrupt. Finally, twenty six states in the United States do not restrict independent corporate expenditures and the government failed to prove that the absence of the restrictions in the states resulted in corruption.
Speechnow.org’s most leading argument was in the fact that they did not give donations to political candidates or political parties, a major component that is thought of be traditional standards to be labeled as a political committee. This argument was flawed, however, because the FEC defines a political committee as “any committee, club, association, or other group of persons that receives contributions of more tha... ... middle of paper ... ...There was no clear corruption in the past election season. It would make the most sense to wait until there is statistical evidence before worrying about the effects of these rulings. If there are issues some options for reform can be done by: making a constitutional amendment that applies to campaign finance, have the states enforce their own laws, or better enforce the laws we have now.
This case starts with the Civil Rights Act of 1965 which was the response to decades of voting discrimination, in specific, racial discrimination. However, in this Act, it required parts of the country to deliver tests as a perquisite to voting, this was known as Section 4 of the act. These locations had lower voter turnouts. Districts are prohibited from changing their election laws without gaining authorization in court, this is stated in Section 5 of the act. Shelby County wanted to argue if the renewal of all sections of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 are out of Congress’s jurisdiction, specifically Section 5 which does not allow for the district to revise Section 4.
The most effective barriers created by the South to prevent African Americans from voting were grandfather clauses, poll taxes, and white-only primaries because they were legal and therefore did not directly keep a certain race from voting. After the Fifteenth Amendment was passed the states in the South started to enact grandfather clauses which made it necessary for anyone who wanted to vote to show that before January 1, 1867, their ancestors were eligible vote (Corbin 43). This disqualified most, if not all blacks from voting because in the year 1866 they did not have the right to vote. If a person had no way of showing whether or not their relatives were able to vote in that year they would have to pass a literacy test (Pendergast et al. 306).
The Constitution was also used in the majority opinion to support the striking down of Section 4(b). Justice Roberts said that the constraints of Section 4(b) are in violation of the Constitution, which gives the power to regulate elections to the states, not to the federal government. Section 4(b) is a federal act that singles out the voting processes of certain states and jurisdictions. It can be said that the regulation of Section 5 and the coverage of Section 4(b) allow for the federal government to control in the elections of the covered areas. This case struck down Section 4(b), and effectively eliminated the use of Section 5, of the Voting Rights Act, which many consider to be an extremely significant act in the Civil Rights Movement.
Following the Civil War, Congress passed a number of laws designed to put former slaves on an equal level with white people. The Fourteenth Amendment made the freedmen citizen and prohibited states from enforcing any law which took away the privliges of any citizen, depriving men of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law, or denied men equal protection of the laws. In 1875, Republican majority in Congress, aware that reconstruction would soon end, passed a civil right act to secure by law semblance of equality for Black Americans (Urofsky 19). Many white Americans really did not like the idea of equality for the Black Freedmen. “Gideon Welles, who had been prevailing sentiment when he wrote in 1871: ‘Thank God slavery is abolished, but the Negro is not, and never can be the equal of the white man.
Harlan once said, “But in the view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens. There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” The state of Louisiana passed a law that required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. It was all based around accommodations being “separate but equal”, meaning that public facilities were split up by races but the place had to serve the same purpose. In 1892, Homer Plessy was one eighth African American and he took a seat in a "whites only" car of a Louisiana train.
Lastly, because slaves were considered possessions, slave-owners were protected under the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution. This de... ... middle of paper ... ...urt ordered the university to stop enforcing its quota system, but the university appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court reviewed this case in 1978. The Court ruled that the use of racial quotas in its admissions process is unconstitutional. Although the Supreme Court ruled that racial quotas were unconstitutional, in certain cases, more minority applicants could be accepted constitutionally.
He believed that the federal government was intruding on state rights, when they were trying to register blacks for voting. When an investigation ensued into voter discrimination against blacks in his district, Wallace refused to allow the federal government access to the records. This was his first act against the federal government for their intrusiveness into state... ... middle of paper ... ...000). The American Experience: George Wallace. Retrieved December 2, 2011, from PBS: Public Broadcasting Services: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/peopleevents/pande07.html Pearson, R. (1998, September 18).