1) During the New Deal and Great Society Eras the Supreme Court innovated a number of Constitutional law doctrines in order to fight the pervasive discrimination of Jim Crow. Describe two such doctrinal innovations—how did the law change from previous interpretations and what are the specific case examples?
Brown v. Board of Education is an excellent example of doctrinal innovation that changed its interpretation from previous precedent such as in Plessy v. Ferguson. This changed the interpretation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause. When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, the framers had a very narrow interpretation of equality and whom it pertained to. Unfortunately, at the time of ratification, the Equal Protection Clause …show more content…
The Federalist were against the Bill of Rights and believed it would limit the rights and it was dangerous to make narrow rights that would limit powers that were not explicitly granted. Hamilton, a federalist, said that it was dangerous to limit rights by writing them down and created a form of enumerated rights. Meanwhile, the federalist believed that the Bill of Rights were necessary because they were a guarantee to right them down. Also it was method to limit against the federal government because the constitution was meant to give the government power but the Bill of Rights is limiting that. By enumerating the rights and power it leaves all the rest of the rights to the …show more content…
The interpretation saw the precedent of “separate but equal” to be inherently unequal and diminished that doctrine. The influences from politics that shaped this interpretation were the new recognition on the importance of education. A good education is what would create a good citizen for the future, and if there is a segregated group getting a lower and segregated quality of education then this could impact students and their mentality in and out of the classroom as the future citizens. There was governmental interest in 1954 that there was not in 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. The implementation of Brown, and even after Brown II, was another issue within itself, despite the case the schools were still not desegregated at deliberate speed. The implementation of the case had to be enforced by President Eisenhower. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also helped push this movement of implementation forward because the government could cut off fund for those that did not comply with desegregation. In the New Kent County Case, Brennan had announced a new goal that was a unitary system saying that the time for ‘deliberate speed’ was over and the country needs to move forward with a realistic system that will work now. Swan v. Charlotte that further implemented Brown by redrawing school district lines in order to reintegrate
Brown v. Board of Education is an excellent example of doctrinal innovation that changed its interpretation from previous precedent such as in Plessy v. Ferguson. This changed the interpretation of the 14th amendment Equal Protection Clause. When the 14th amendment was ratified in 1868, the framers had a very narrow interpretation of equality and whom it pertained to. Unfortunately, at the time of ratification, the Equal Protection Clause …show more content…
The Federalist were against the Bill of Rights and believed it would limit the rights and it was dangerous to make narrow rights that would limit powers that were not explicitly granted. Hamilton, a federalist, said that it was dangerous to limit rights by writing them down and created a form of enumerated rights. Meanwhile, the federalist believed that the Bill of Rights were necessary because they were a guarantee to right them down. Also it was method to limit against the federal government because the constitution was meant to give the government power but the Bill of Rights is limiting that. By enumerating the rights and power it leaves all the rest of the rights to the …show more content…
The interpretation saw the precedent of “separate but equal” to be inherently unequal and diminished that doctrine. The influences from politics that shaped this interpretation were the new recognition on the importance of education. A good education is what would create a good citizen for the future, and if there is a segregated group getting a lower and segregated quality of education then this could impact students and their mentality in and out of the classroom as the future citizens. There was governmental interest in 1954 that there was not in 1868 when the 14th amendment was ratified. The implementation of Brown, and even after Brown II, was another issue within itself, despite the case the schools were still not desegregated at deliberate speed. The implementation of the case had to be enforced by President Eisenhower. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 also helped push this movement of implementation forward because the government could cut off fund for those that did not comply with desegregation. In the New Kent County Case, Brennan had announced a new goal that was a unitary system saying that the time for ‘deliberate speed’ was over and the country needs to move forward with a realistic system that will work now. Swan v. Charlotte that further implemented Brown by redrawing school district lines in order to reintegrate