Research: Justice Harlan's Dissent

After studying and presenting a mock trial on the very historically famous case Plessy v. Ferguson, our class looked further into the dissent of Justice John Marshall Harlan.  What was found is a bold argument that stuck out from the social norm. 

In his dissent, Justice Harlan points out that our constitution is color-blind and our justice system should not rule on the separation of it.  He also draws reference to the very obvious: separate but equal would not be for the benefit of all people, it would be for the distinct benefit of white people who refused to treat those of color equally. 

I believe Justice Harlan was so moved to write about this losing argument because he knew the ruling was plain wrong.  I also think Justice Harlan knew that one day this ruling would be overturned and he wanted to be vocal that he was not a part of the majority who put it into action.

By writing this piece, I think Justice Harlan hoped for an expedited call for change.  Rather than remaining silent and hoping people realized the mistake that was made, he needed to cast the first stone toward speaking against this ruling.  With his very clear depiction of wrong, Harlan likely hoped some may change their mind on the matter. 

Obviously, this was a bold message for Justice Harlan to display in such a time as 1896.  Many in the period, including his fellow justices, likely disliked him for speaking out.  However, in today’s time, many would commemorate his boldness and honor him for not following the majority.

When looking at law today, I think Justice Harlan’s dissent left a lasting impact.  Our progress and push for a more inclusive way of life have certainly lead to constitutionally color-blind actions being established.  Since the outspokenness of Justice Harlan, law has undoubtedly shifted in a positive way.

Sources: http://fys1000.blogspot.com/p/plessy-post-prompt.html

Mock Trial Argument: Regents of University of California v. Bakke

For our final trial, the class is arguing the supreme court case University of California v. Bakke.  The side I fell on was an emotional appeal and fairness argument for the University of California.  Just as the case in real life concluded, our side lost a close fight. Below is the script I read when making my argument.

"Hello, your honor.  Today, I stand before you to argue the emotional appeal and fairness of the University’s decision for affirmative action.  Our country has been blemished with ugly discrimination for far too long and it’s this university’s obligation to assure adequate space is provided for minorities that wish to apply to this institution.  Yes, I see why Mr. Bakke is upset that he was rejected twice, but in all fairness your honor, his scores wouldn’t be accepted even if our program didn’t exist.  As mentioned, our university feels obligated to assure fairness for those individuals that may not have the same educational upbringing where they were raised, simply because of their color and social class.  We must use this program to remedy past discrimination and to facilitate health services in our underserved areas.  This program also helps us increase our academic diversity for the profession.  Let’s remember the notes of this case from a few of our court justices:  Justice Brennan believes programs that use racial classifications to remedy past discrimination serve a compelling state interest and are thus constitutional.  Justice Marshall also agrees that The Equal Protection Clause permits the use of racial classifications to remedy our past. Continuing with the trend, Justice Blackmun feels the court is ill-equipped to handle cases involving admissions programs but does point out that race must be taken into account in order to combat racism.  So your honor, as you can see, this process is one that is fair. As an argument on emotion, we must realize the lack of opportunity for our minority individuals and what this program provides.  Let’s not let them down, again.  Thank you."

Sources:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdQW5408DiE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukcC6JZKo0I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regents_of_the_Univ._of_Cal._v._Bakke

Research: Pop. Constitutionalism & Non-Judicial Precedent

Picture of the Author: Dean Smith

In class, we read an academic paper by Dean Smith regarding popular constitutionalism and non-judicial precedent.  As a way to better understand these two concepts, we’ve been tasked with briefly explaining them in a blog-post format. 

The theory of popular constitutionalism is one that says dialogue among the nation outside of the courtroom can have a direct change on the meaning of the United States Constitution. As the Constitution is frequently regarded as a “living document,” this very dialogue becomes a catalyst for change.  It is a representation of “more voices than those of judges alone.  That is the essence of popular constitutionalism” (Smith).

Non-Judicial Precedent is an idea that national dialogue found in Popular Constitutionalism leads to statutes preceding a Supreme Court decision.  You can primarily find these within a social movement that directly represents a wanted change in government. “A wide range of social actors-- activists, journalists, industry leaders, lobbyists, legislators, and others-- contribute to the creation of what he (Gerhardt) has dubbed non-judicial precedents” (Smith).

Sources: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/10811680.2014.860828

Class Video: The March

During a recent class, we watched a documentary covering the Civil Rights Movement in the early 1960s.  The short film was centered around the buildup and result of the March on Washington D.C.

One thing that immediately struck my attention was how the movement was saved by young people.  At a time where people, specifically in Birmingham, AL., were pushing every button they could, it is amazing that young people showed up to continue the fight.

Phillip Randolph, the founder of an all-black working railroad, knew that demonstrations needed to be expanded outside of Birmingham.  He specifically said that this fight was one that should be focused on Congress and other government, stemming the idea for a major march on Washington’s capital.

Randolph sent his right-hand man Bayard Rustin to Birmingham to pass this message and encourage a national fight, not just a southern one.  During this time, blacks were attempting to enroll at Birmingham University and were denied due to race.  This forced President John F. Kennedy to finally get involved, helping the fight.

To pull this off with national attention, the organizers needed anyone and everyone to show up.  Over on the West Coast, Harry Belafonte was the “pied piper” of Civil Rights within the Art’s Community.  Belafonte helped organize a plan for many famous personalities to speak, sing, and stand along-side those participating in the march to gain more attention.

On the day of the march, loads of people were swarming the nation’s capital for this peaceful demonstration.  By 9:30 a.m., over 40,000 people were on the grounds.  By 10:30 a.m., 100 busses an hour were arriving full.

One of the most important events of this day was the “I have a dream” speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.  This was King’s first start-to-finish speech televised on screens across America. As we all know, this speech and day have been remembered and noted ever since.

Following the march, proposals were presented by President Kennedy, but he soon after was assassinated.  However, in the year following the march, the act was finally put into effect as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This historical event sheds much-needed light on a first amendment right that has proven its ability to work.  The act of peaceful protest has forced the country to change time and time again.  When people can peacefully come together as a unified body to voice their desires, action will be taken.  Unfortunately, it seems our country is currently forgetting that quality as acts of violence and destruction is taking its place.

SOURCES: Video viewed in class. 

Class Video: Klansville, USA.

Last week, our class watched a video on the Klu Klux Klan in North Carolina.  The assigned name of this North Carolina chapter was known as Klansville, USA.  The person at the head of this chapter was a man by the name of Bob Jones.

Bob Jones was born in 1930 and grew up in Salisbury, N.C. as the son of a railroad worker.  His father and mother had both been in their local chapter of the K.K.K in the ‘20s.  Jones jumped around from job-to-job in his adult life and was considered “white trash” by most.  Before joining the Klan, Jones would not admit he was racist unless he felt a need.

After a dying down of the Klan in the 1930s due to bad press, the Klan began to rise again in the 1950s with the passing of Brown v. Education.  White men felt that they were not being paid enough attention as the progression of blacks continued.  After joining the Klan, Jones was quickly chosen to be the grand dragon.

Alongside radical preacher George Dorsett, Jones began holding rallies for thousands of people all across North Carolina.  There was live music, hotdogs, and many other amenities for an entire family.  With an intensified fight for equality in North Carolina on the rise, Klan recruiting became extremely important. 

In addition to the festivities at rallies, Dorsett would preach a powerful sermon proclaiming segregation was justified in the bible.  Following the sermon, members would set a gas covered cross on fire as the hymn “old rugged cross” played.

By the summer of 1965, Bob Jones grew the Klan to nearly 2,000 paying members.  However, as violent retaliation began among other Klans, Jones reminded his supporters that their fight was for political support against unwanted government, not violence. 

In 1965, a white housewife was gunned down by Alabama Klansmen, causing the Government to take a harsh stance on the group.  This struck a nerve in North Carolina, causing Klans to rally every night for four months straight proclaiming “we are unjustly being treated as an enemy.”

The House on American Activities Committee held hearings about the Klan on capital hill.  As things were not going their way, Klan members got upset when Bob Jones took the stand and did not speak up for them.  An FBI informant took advantage of the situation and urged Dorsett to create his own group, hoping this would dissolve the Klan.

Many did join Dorsett’s group but in favor of the FBI agent, the group did dissolve as Dorsett was not a good leader.  Shortly after, Jones was arrested and prisoned for one year for not presenting legal documents. His members quickly resented joining the once-powerful group, even so far as to staple membership cards to a cross and burn it.

Overall, the Carolina Klan did not obtain any of the goals they were striving to achieve.  Following his sentence, Jones went back to working as a lightning rod salesman. As time went on, many former members would go and record to say they felt shameful for their few years in the Klan.  This falling of Klansville, USA was a major step to the end of such a large outpour of racial discrimination.   

SOURCES: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gL-DFSKV8uU