In contrast, the government made more considerable efforts to reshape American democratic ideals. During this time, the government had the ability to enact changes as reactions to the objectives of other groups seeking to redefine these ideas, however, it often recognized the lack of social and economic equality for all groups and approached reform during this era broadly so that many minority groups became democratically equal to the majority. For example, many politicians recognized the need for new policies and thus directed their political agenda to conceiving and instituting such legislation. According to Robert F. Kennedy in his speech announcing his candidacy for the Democratic nomination for President, he recognized that the United
…show more content…
consistently votes overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, thus Kennedy was likely to win the electoral votes there if he was the Democratic nominee; however, he adapts to the time and exposure of the American public to the events of the election by prioritizing the future of the nation’s ideals over the competition caused by the multi-party system. Additionally, laws passed during the 1960s reveal that the government actively sought to redefine American democracy to restore social equality. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing discrimination in employment, people were subject to a trial in court if they were, “engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title.” (Doc G) The purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to eliminate any injustices in society caused by the denial of certain rights to select groups of people and to ensure the continued enforcement of these rights. This is significant because it explicitly reveals that the government is willing to go to great extents to enforce the enjoyment of these rights, as any small offense of this act can result in a court …show more content…
Arizona case, which ruled that law enforcement officials are required to inform the accused of their legal rights, the notable efforts of the Supreme Court to reshape these concepts are evident. According to the opinion of the Court, the case caused the Supreme Court justices to, “raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence.” (Doc D) The Supreme Court delivered this opinion in the context of a resurgence in social and economic equality for minority groups through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however as of 1966, the government had only passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed tests to deny the vote to minority groups, to enforce legal equality. This context is significant because it illustrates that the government believed legal equality was necessary to guarantee the social equality a democratic system offers. Before the Miranda v. Arizona decision, minorities that did not fully understand the laws of the United States, such as immigrants, were not legally equal to those who understood the basics of what was lawful and what was not; however, the Miranda v. Arizona case was a landmark decision in enforcing legal
consistently votes overwhelmingly for the Democratic candidate, thus Kennedy was likely to win the electoral votes there if he was the Democratic nominee; however, he adapts to the time and exposure of the American public to the events of the election by prioritizing the future of the nation’s ideals over the competition caused by the multi-party system. Additionally, laws passed during the 1960s reveal that the government actively sought to redefine American democracy to restore social equality. According to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawing discrimination in employment, people were subject to a trial in court if they were, “engaged in a pattern or practice of resistance to the full enjoyment of any of the rights secured by this title.” (Doc G) The purpose of the Civil Rights Act was to eliminate any injustices in society caused by the denial of certain rights to select groups of people and to ensure the continued enforcement of these rights. This is significant because it explicitly reveals that the government is willing to go to great extents to enforce the enjoyment of these rights, as any small offense of this act can result in a court …show more content…
Arizona case, which ruled that law enforcement officials are required to inform the accused of their legal rights, the notable efforts of the Supreme Court to reshape these concepts are evident. According to the opinion of the Court, the case caused the Supreme Court justices to, “raise questions which go to the roots of our concepts of American criminal jurisprudence.” (Doc D) The Supreme Court delivered this opinion in the context of a resurgence in social and economic equality for minority groups through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, however as of 1966, the government had only passed the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlawed tests to deny the vote to minority groups, to enforce legal equality. This context is significant because it illustrates that the government believed legal equality was necessary to guarantee the social equality a democratic system offers. Before the Miranda v. Arizona decision, minorities that did not fully understand the laws of the United States, such as immigrants, were not legally equal to those who understood the basics of what was lawful and what was not; however, the Miranda v. Arizona case was a landmark decision in enforcing legal