Example research essay topic: The Civil Rights Cases - 1,097 words

NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote

... intuitional is if the States are forbidden to legislate on a particular subject, and power is then given to Congress to enforce the prohibition, that gives Congress power to legislate generally on the subject and not merely power to provide modes of atonement against such a State action. This assumption, according to Bradley, is incorrect and is in violation of the 10 th Amendment that declares powers not delegated to the federal government, nor prohibited from the States, are reserved to the States or to the people. The law instead applied equally to all states, regardless of their current enforcement and safeguards against individual violations, and steps into the domain of local jurisprudence. It supercedes the states constitutionally given right to govern its private entities and police their actions.

This power is not given to Congress within the boundaries of the 14 th Amendment, but is given, as previously mentioned, in the confines of the 13 th Amendment. In that case, the federal government has to power to legislate regardless of the current legislation of the states as to the issue of slavery and involuntary servitude. Since these cases, however, cannot be construed in any matter to be held as issues of slavery the 13 th Amendment thus does not apply. Justice Harlan, however, notes that the States right to legislate domestic affairs is not infringed upon with the enforcement of this law. It simply recognizes the enlarged powers conferred on the federal government by the two amendments. The States still retain their right to regulate the civil and social rights of its citizens; however, it is not subject to the expressly granted power of Congress to enforce to provisions of the 14 th Amendment by legislation if deemed necessary.

For Congress to be held from protecting the very rights that are the principle of Republican citizenship the foundations upon national supremacy rests will be greatly disturbed. It will allow, he added, for the very rights and freedoms of American citizenship to be in jeopardy while previously those same rights were afforded without any indecision to white slave owners in the protection of slavery. One of the most common issues in US Supreme Court cases is the conflict of strict versus broad constructional interpretations. This is previously illustrated in the Dred Scott case where in Justice Taney's opinion he stressed the strict interpretation of the word citizen in accordance with slaves (free or not). This same interpretation is implemented in Justice Bradley's interpretation of the 14 th Amendment. The Amendment specifically states that no state shall make or enforce any law and makes no mention of the regulation individual or private wrongs.

Therefore according to Bradley, this reserves the right to create such legislation to the states, and any other interpretation exceeds the boundaries of the amendment. He relies in his argument of strict conservatism on many of the same issues previously mentioned. First of all, any abridging of the protected rights of a citizen by an individual not affiliated with the state is a private wrong, and correction and repercussion of that wrong lies in the power of the state. If the laws of the State do not correct the wrong, then that State is held in violation of the 14 th Amendment. The 14 th Amendment is only to be corrective in nature and does not encompass regulation of the social rights of citizens. This power to regulate discrimination is also not found in the 13 th Amendment, which only allows Congress the power to prevent the practice of slavery and involuntary servitude, by legislation.

All of these arguments exist in part in the constitutional issues previously mentioned. The strict construction argument that Justice Bradley relies upon is the fundamental argument of the case as it was in the Dred Scott decision. The most convincing and powerful arguments of Justice Harlan exist in his basis for the loose interpretation of the Constitution, the spirit upon which the amendments were intended. The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism. It is not the words of the law but the internal sense of it that makes the law: the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul.

Harlan felt the Court in its opinion abandoned the familiar rule that the full effect be given to the intent with which the amendment was adopted. To illustrate the basis of this argument he pointed to Chief Justice Marshalls words in his opinion in Mcculloch v. Maryland which established the precedent of judicial review, the basis of the power of the Supreme Court. Justice Marshall noted that the national legislature must be allowed the discretion to enable it to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to be people. This doctrine should not be abandoned now, Justice Harlan said, when the issue involved is not dealing with masters rights, but the protection of the very rights of citizenship that embody freedom. The 14 th amendment was created for a purpose to ensure equal rights to all citizens so that they may exercise those rights.

That purpose, interpreting the amendment so it most benefits the people, grants Congress the power to enforce its provisions by appropriate legislation. No interpretation of the words in which those powers are granted can be a sound one, Harlan strongly urges, which narrows down their ordinary import so as to defeat those objects. The ruling in the Civil Rights Cases still holds true today. If the state does not assist the discrimination against another individual it is purely a matter between the two individuals, and subject to the laws of the state. It is one of the few examples of the prevalence of state sovereignty in modern times disregarding the recent trend of the assertion of national supremacy. Though the famous argument of Justice Harlan's opinion that the Constitution should be interpreted to the spirit of which it was intended seems to be the prevailing opinion of the day.

It allowed for the expansion of civil rights in gay rights, AIDS discrimination, etc. The fundamental argument of the case strict versus loose construction continues to be a battle fought in the country, and it seems imminent that with the election (mostly likely) of President Bush and era of a more conservative court will begin. Bibliography:

Research essay sample on The Civil Rights Cases