"This case was the consolidation of four cases arising in separate states relating to the segregation of public schools on the basis of race. In each of the cases, African American minors had been denied admittance to certain public schools based on laws allowing public education to be segregated by race. They argued that such segregation violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiffs were denied relief based on the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, which established the “separate but equal” doctrine that stated separate facilities for the races was constitutional as long as the facilities were “substantially equal.” In the case arising from Delaware, the Supreme Court of Delaware ruled that the African American students had to be admitted to the white public schools because of their higher quality facilities.

Conclusion:

Chief Justice Earl Warren delivered the opinion of the unanimous Court. The Supreme Court held that “separate but equal” facilities are inherently unequal and violate the protections of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also held that the segregation of public education based on race instilled a sense of inferiority that had a hugely detrimental effect on the education and personal growth of African American children."

     The decision for this case was made simply upon following the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It had been agreed that since the white public schools had higher quality facilities that African Americans were to be admitted to them. It had not been fair or equal that African American schools did not offer better facilities to the students as where white public schools had only the best facilities. 

     This case is important because everyone should have access to the same quality of facility and education. No one should be denied upon their race. Education has been made equal to anyone and everyone who has the desire to learn. Racism is not something one should stumble upon nor struggle through in order to be educated. Everyone deserves an equal opportunity to attend school. 

What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?

"For the present, it is enough to affirm the equal manhood of the Negro race. Is it not astonishing that, while we are ploughing, planting and reaping, using all kinds of mechanical tools, erecting houses, constructing bridges, building ships, working in metals of brass, iron, copper, silver and gold; that, while we are reading, writing and cyphering, acting as clerks, merchants and secretaries, having among us lawyers, doctors, ministers, poets, authors, editors, orators and teachers; that, while we are engaged in all manner of enterprises common to other men, digging gold in California, capturing the whale in the Pacific, feeding sheep and cattle on the hill-side, living, moving, acting, thinking, planning, living in families as husbands, wives and children, and, above all, confessing and worshipping the Christian’s God, and looking hopefully for life and immortality beyond the grave, we are called upon to prove that we are men!"

      Douglass expresses that men of color are not only to be looked upon as "useful tools" because they too, are just as intelligent as any other man. Men of color are not to be disposed of. They can be just as accomplished as scholars as they are laborers. They also have families to provide for just as Caucasians do. Men of the Negro race were put on earth with the same purpose as Caucasians, and that is to live their lives in peace, love and equality. 

     I chose this passage because I agree with Douglass in every aspect. Everyone should be treated equally despite the color of their skin. I don't believe anyone is better than the next person. We, as humans, were put on earth with the purpose of living in peace and treating each other with respect and kindness. We are not to use each other as tools or to be harmed in any physical or psychological way.

A Lecture on the Anti-Slavery Movement

"The subject of my lecture this evening is, the nature, character, and history of

the anti-slavery movement....When I speak of the anti-slavery movement, I

mean to refer to that combination of moral, religious and political forces which

has long been, and is now, operating and co-operating for the abolition of

slavery in this country, and throughout the world. I wish to speak of that

movement, to-night, more as the calm observer, than as the ardent and

personally interested advocate. For, while I am willing to have it known, that

every fibre of my soul is enlisted in the cause of emancipation, I would not have

it thought that I am less capable than others, of calmly and rationally

contemplating the movement designed to accomplish that important and much

desired end"

Frederick Douglas explains his overall view on anti-slavery from an outsider perspective. Although he has his own experience as a slave, he also explains how he has seen others suffer being that he was able to escape at only 20 years old. He can feel other slave's pain because he also went through it only they have been through much longer than himself. Frederick shows the views from every angle such has moral religious and political forces.

I feel that Frederick Douglas had the right idea to speak as a calm observer because people want to hear the truth. No one wants to listen to an angry man. Speaking so calmly about anti-slavery makes people want to listen, to understand the movement and be motivated to also join. Frederick wanted to accomplish a movement that would succeed and end slavery.

Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution

Another Stab at the U.S. Constitution

  Revisiting the Constitution: Clarify What's Cruel and Unusual Punishment

By Rachel E. Barkow

 

 "We are a nation dedicated to liberty and equality. So it is a particularly tragic irony that America leads the world in imprisonment and that a large proportion of those serving sentences are people of color.

     Sometimes prison sentences -- even the most severe -- are a rational response to crime. But often, sentences are the product of a political process in which politicians are scared of appearing soft on crime so they do not even question the reasonableness of a proposed criminal law. It is the norm, not the exception, for politicians to reflexively push for harsher sentences without considering empirical evidence about what level of sanction is necessary for deterrence or what impact a sentence will have on communities. It is an environment long on rhetoric and short on reflection.

     The Constitution has failed to check this pathological process. The Eighth Amendment bans "cruel and unusual punishments." But some justices do not think this bans excessive prison terms. And the requirement that a sentence be "unusual" has meant that the justices often do little more than count up states with similar sentences without looking at how states reached those outcomes.

     As I have suggested elsewhere, clarifying and expanding the Eighth Amendment could help. It should specifically state that excessive terms of incarceration are prohibited, just as it bans excessive fines. It should expressly prohibit mandatory sentences so that every case gets the benefit of individualized attention by a judge. And it should insist that legislatures create a record showing that they considered empirical evidence about the law's likely impact.

     These reforms may or may not stem the tide of mass incarceration. It depends on the empirical evidence and individual cases. But they would promote the kind of reflection that a nation committed to liberty and equality should demand before locking people away."



     Rachel E. Barkow explains how unfair many crimes are sentenced to an unreasonable amount of time. Many judges and prosecutors overlook the Eighth Amendment because they feel that a crime is a crime and it must be resolved by an excessive amount of time in prison. Rachel expresses and insists that if legislatures do decide to sentence an excessive amount of time in prison, that they first consider the Eighth Amendment before making their final decision. Sentencing someone an unreasonable amount of time in prison simply because of their race is against the law but for some reason it's usually those of color who are incarcerated for a long time. Treating everyone in any and every community equally, brings a positive outcome, which should be taken into consideration in any situation that may occur.

     I agree with Rachel that many people are being incarcerated for an excessively long time simply because of the color of their skin. There are people who have done the same or worse crimes who are sentenced less time than others. I always asked myself how does anyone decide the amount of years a criminal will spend in prison. I now have a better understanding of the matter and realize how unfair and inconsiderate the judge or legislation can be. If laws must be followed by the citizens of its country, so shall the government with the amendments.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

 Article. I.

Section. 5.
"Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, and a Majority of each shall constitute a Quorum to do Business; but a smaller Number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the Attendance of absent Members, in such Manner, and under such Penalties as each House may provide.

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal.

Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall, without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

      
     Each House has the opportunity to judge elections being made and even if there is a group with the majority of the vote, the smaller group must to attend and have input to make the election valid. The smaller group has the upper-hand when and if a member of the majority group is absent in the event of a meeting. Each house may discipline another if he is misbehaved and may be expelled if it is a reoccurring action. A journal is to be kept from each House to document decisions being made to judge any and every election and as there may be secrecy between a House and its members. All votes for any debates are kept documented as well in journals if at least one fifth of the members desire to. No one member is allowed to break off the meeting for more than three days without the approval of other members.

     I agree that although in situations like making a big decision the majority is expected to win, that everyone should have part in the final decision. Everyone should be involved even if the majority of the vote wins because there might just be certain little things they have not yet thought of that the smaller vote might have considered. Most see the big picture but forget about the small very important details in decision making; especially when it's effecting a nationwide population. It should be a team decision which means if you're given the opportunity to make a change you should always be present to support your team and show effort to prove your opinion matters.

Trans-National America

Trans-National America

"We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting-pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of "giving themselves without reservation" to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land. They invented no new social framework. Rather they brought over bodily the old ways to which they had been accustomed. Tightly concentrated on a hostile frontier, they were conservative beyond belief. Their pioneer daring was reserved for the objective conquest of material resources. In their folkways, in their social and political institutions, they were, like every colonial people, slavishly imitative of the mother-country. So that, in spite of the "Revolution," our whole legal and political system remained more English than the English, petrified and unchanging, while in England law developed to meet the needs of the changing times."

 Early colonists did not come to the U.S to get away from their own culture to learn a new one. All they wanted was to live their lives freely. They no longer wanted to follow the rules of a leader. Instead the colonists wanted to bring their own culture to this new country and live it as they pleased in peace. Early colonists felt it was best to start a new life in a new country and grow to create a better living environment. Although they wanted a new world to live in, they proudly continued their old ways, the only way they knew. It was if they brought their motherland with them without all the chaos. They wanted everyone to know where they came from because hiding who you are is a sign of weakness. Colonists were proud to remain who they were because they could not pretend to be someone they weren't. They felt like heroes for being able to escape their own country to start a new life in a brand new country they had never seen, And so, began the hyphenated Americans.

This passage makes me feel proud about who I am today. Although I am American born, I still get to have my own culture being that my parents are foreign-born. I have a mixed culture all around because I grew up in the U.S. but my parents had their own and passed it down to me. I'm glad the early colonists did not leave their cultures behind to start a new one because America wouldn't be what it is today. There are people from all over the world in just one country and it's amazing how we can all come together to show how different we all are culturally.

Two Faces of Power

Two Faces of Power

     "This is not an exhaustive bill of particulars; there are flaws other than these and the sociological model and methodology-including some which the pluralists themselves have not noticed. But to go into this would not materially serve our current purposes. Suffice it simply to observe that whatever the merits of their own approach to power, the pluralists have effectively exposed the main weaknesses of the elitist model. 

     As the foregoing quotations make clear, the pluralists concentrate their attention, not upon their sources of power, but its exercise. Power to them means "participation and decision making" and can be analyzed only after "careful examination of a series of concrete decisions." As a result, the pluralist researcher is uninterested in the reputedly powerful. His concerns instead are to (a) select for study a number of "key" as opposed to "routine" political decision, (b) identify the people who took an active part in the decision making process, (c) obtain a full account of their actual behavior while the policy conflict was being resolved, and (d) determine and analyze the specific outcome of the conflict. 

     The advantages of this approach, relative to the elitest alternative, need no further exposition. The same may not be said, however, about its defects- to of which seem to us to be of fundamental importance. One is that the model takes no account of the fact that power may be, and often is, excersize by confining the scope of decision making to relatively "safe" issues. The other is that the model provides no objective criteria for ditiguishing between "important" and "unimportant" issues arrising in the political arena."

     This passage explains the decision-making process of pluralists. Pluralists are detailed and analyze every step carefully before making a final decision. They focus more on their decisions and the analysis of the issue rather than the source of power that make the decision. Pluralists gather different important points that create a rational decision as opposed to keeping it "safe" and going through simple routines as the elitists would do. They also focus on analyzing people who participated in the decision-making process. Elitists feel that there are weaknesses to the pluralists' ways to decision-making such as, not establishing ways to decide what is important and unimportant. 

     I chose this passage because I admire anyone who is detailed about matters that affects a person's life for the better. I rather power be a concept that people can consider enough to be detailed about how it is broken down. I respect how pluralists focus more on the act of power rather than the source of power. That way the source of power can change but the way you go about the decision-making can always be something you can rely on if you focus on the decision-making process like the pluralists do. It is important that people understand that times change and issues cannot be treated the same when they are no longer the same during that time period.