Plessy V. Ferguson

1576 Words 7 Pages
Civil Rights Question:
Plessy v. Ferguson was a case in which the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation on the basis of “separate but equal” and was seen as not violating the 14th Amendment which guarantees equal protection under the law. Under the “separate but equal” doctrine each race as equal and would receive all public accommodations and other living resource but would be separated by race. However, the 14th Amendment, mainly the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect everyone no matter the race from being deprived “life, liberty, and property”. The biggest of the 14th Amendment limitations that were that not stated or implied is a race being inferior to another race. Moreover, this idea allowed them to keep different races
…show more content…
I believe that most people now the different titles or responsibilities of a president. Such as Commander in Chief, Chief of State, Chief Diplomat, and Chief Legislator. When you look at those you kind can get the idea that he controls a lot following the check and balance system. For example, another one is Chief Executive and Head of Government, he is what represents the United States Government to other countries around the world. An example of this is when the President meets with ambassadors or other presidents from other countries. That is what the people hear is the president it meeting with so-and-so president from some place. Another example of the power of the president that is express is him being the Commander in Chief. To the people, he is the head of the military. He has the right to put military powers where he pleases even though congress has the actual power to declare war. An example is when President George W. Bush put military personnel in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina to keep the peace. Part of the reason I believe people look more at the express power is cause that is what is covered more in the news. You are always here the president has done this and that which from my experience falls into one of the expressed powers of the …show more content…
The reason why the Bill of Rights is are there to protect their liberties from the government, but they can limit you on certain liberties. Take the 1st Amendment, part of it is to protect people’s freedom of religion and religious practices. The government, however, can limit this by saying you still must follow the laws. An example of the government limiting religious practice is when a religious practice includes illegal drugs. The court case Employment Division of Oregon v. Smith, the court decided that they could not use drugs for religious purposes because of legitimate state interest. Now look at a different part of the 1st Amendment about freedom of Speech. The government can restrict on what you can and cannot say. An example is the “clear and present danger” doctrine, which restricts what people can and cannot say. A court case that deals with this idea were seen in the Schenck v. United States case, when Mr. Schenck was handing out pamphlets saying to boycott the war, he was arrested him for violating the “clear and present danger” doctrine. The Bill of Rights is unconditional because the government has the ability to still restrict some of the civil liberties that people

Related Documents