THE SUPREME COURT GUTS THE 14 TH AMENDMENT

1. THE SUPREME COURTGUTS THE 14TH AMENDMENT EUGENIA LANGAN MATER ACADEMY CHARTER HIGH SCHOOL HIALEAH GARDENS, FLORIDA

2. THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES (1873) CHIEF JUSTICE: SALMON CHASE (APPOINTED BY LINCOLN) THE CHASE COURT IN 1869 FIRST PHOTO EVER OF SUPREME COURT (BY MATTHEW BRADY)

3. BACKGROUND: • NOT IMPORTANT – BUT LOUISIANA PASSED LAW TAKING OVER THE SLAUGHTERHOUSE INDUSTRY IN NEW ORLEANS (HEALTH REGULATION – WANTED TO GET ALL SLAUGHTERHOUSES OUT OF THE CITY (THEY STINK, DRAW RODENTS, ETC.) • BUTCHERS ASSOCIATION SUED UNDER PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE OF 14TH AMENDMENT (STATES CANNOT ABRIDGE "PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES" OF CITIZENS OF U.S.) • ISSUE: DID THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES CLAUSE PROTECT THE BUTCHERS' "PRIVILEGE" TO DO BUSINESS?

4. COURT DECISION: NO. • P OR I CLAUSE PROTECTS ONLY RIGHTS CREATED BY THE U.S. – NOT "CIVIL RIGHTS" WHICH THE COURT SAID WERE CREATED BY STATE LAW OR NATURAL LAW PRE-DATING THE CONSTITUTION • LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: • THE FRAMERS OF THE 14TH AMENDMENT INTENDED THE P & I CLAUSE TO APPLY THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES – ESPECIALLY THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS MADE U.S. CITIZENS BY THE 14TH AMENDMENT. ALL OF THE RIGHTS IN THE BILL OF RIGHTS ARE NATURAL LAW RIGHTS THAT PREDATE THE CONSTITUTION.

5. EXAMPLE: THE FIRST AMENDMENT DOESN'T CREATE THE RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH – IT SAYS CONGRESS CANNOT ABRIDGE "THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH." UNDER THE DECISION IN THE SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES, THE P & I CLAUSE IS VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS – IT PROTECTS ONLY THINGS LIKE THE RIGHT TO USE NAVIGABLE WATERWAYS, USE ATHE PORTS, ETC. P & I CLAUSE DID NOT PROTECT CIVIL RIGHTS OF BLACK PEOPLE – OR ANYONE ELSE! ALL LEGALS SCHOLARS AND ALL LATER SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAVE AGREED THE DECISION IS WRONG. BUT IT'S A PRECEDENT AND IT IS STILL THE LAW!

6. THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES (1883) CHIEF JUSTICE: MORRISON WAITE (APPOINTED BY GRANT, BUT ACTUALLY A GOOD JUSTICE!) BACKGROUND: THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1875 MADE IT ILLEGAL FOR "PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS"(HOTELS, RESTAURANTS, RAILROADS, ETC.) TO REFUSE TO SERVE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE OF THEIR RACE (INTENDED TO PROTECT FREEDMEN IN SOUTH FROM DISCRIMINATION).

7. FIVE BLACK PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH SUED HOTELS. RESTAURANTS, TRANSIT COMPANIES FOR REFUSING TO SERVE THEM = THE CIVIL RIGHTS CASES CONSOLIDATED IN SUPREME COURT ISSUE: DID THE 14TH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE GIVE CONGRESS POWER TO BAN PRIVATE BUSINESSES FROM DISCRIMINATING? COURT DECISION: NO. THE CLAUSE SAYS ONLY THAT STATES NOT PRIVATE BUSINESSES CANNOT DENY PEOPLE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS – SO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL DESPITE WHAT ZINN, WHO IS NOT A LAWYER SAYS, THIS DECISION IS CORRECT.

8. THE DISSENT: JUSTICE JOHN MARSHALL HARLAN DISSENTED HARLAN DISSENTED FROM ALMOST EVERY RIGHT-WING DECISION OF THE COURT (AND THE COURT WAS VERY RIGHT-WING IN THE LATE 19TH – EARLY 2OTH CENTURIES) HE NOTED 14TH AMENDMENT WAS INTENDED TO GIVE FREED SLAVES EQUAL RIGHTS (BUT IT DOESN'T SAY THAT!)

9. LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE: CONGRESS BACKED OFF – NO MORE CIVIL RIGHTS ACTS UNTIL 1964 AFRICAN-AMERICANS COULD NOT EAT AT WHITE RESTAURANTS, STAY IN WHITE HOTELS UNTIL 1864 – VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO TRAVEL! (JEWS, OTHER MINORITIES ALSO) WHILE THE 14TH AMENDMENT ALONE DOESN'T GIVE CONGRESS THE POWER TO REGULATE PRIVATE BUSINESSES (IT DOES ONLY APPLY TO STATES) – THE COMMERCE CLAUSE DOES AND THAT HAD BEEN CLEAR SINCE GIBBONS v. OGDEN AND MCCULLOCH v. MARYLAND.

10. PLESSY v. FERGUSON (1896) CHIEF JUSTICE: MELVILLE FULLER (APPOINTED BY CLEVELAND) BACKGROUND: LOUISIANA ENACTED A "JIM CROW" LAW REQUIRING RAILROADS TO HAVE SEPARATE "BUT EQUAL" CARS FOR BLACK AND WHITE PASSENGERS, AND MAKING IT A CRIME FOR A PERSON TO RIDE IN THE WRONG "COLOR" CAR.

11. THE CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO TEST THE SEPARATE CAR ACT (RADICAL REPUBLICANS INCLUDING FORMER BLACK ELECTED OFFICIALS) HIRED HOMER PLESSY TO RIDE ON A WHITE CAR. TEST CASE! PLESSY WAS 1/8 BLACK ("OCTAROON") SO HE LOOKED WHITE – BUT IN THE U.S., ONE DROP OF AFRICAN BLOOD MAKES A PERSON "BLACK." COMMITTEE ALSO HIRED A DETECTIVE TO MAKE SURE POLICE KNEW PLESSY WAS BLACK AND WOULD GET ARRESTED – HE WAS. CONVICTED, WENT TO TRIAL – FERGUSON WAS THE JUDGE.

12. PLESSY (COMMITTEE) FILED A WRIT TO STOP JUDGE FERGUSON FROM HOLDING THE TRIAL. THEIR CLAIM: THE SEPARATE CAR ACT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL UNDER THE EQUAL PROTECTION CAUSE – THE STATE WAS DENYING PLESSY AND OTHER PEOPLE OF AFRICAN DESCENT EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS. ISSUE: DO JIM CROW LAWS VIOLATE THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE? COURT DECISION: NO. SEPARATE IS NOT NECESSARILY UNEQUAL. SEPARATE BUT EQUAL IS FINE.

13. LEGAL/ HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE MORE JIM CROW LAWS WERE ENACTED—THE SOUTH BECAME ABSOLUTELY SEGREGATED. JIM CROW LAWS REMAINED IN EFFECT IN THE SOUTH UNTIL AFTER THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 WAS ENACTED SEPARATE WAS NEVER EQUAL IN FACT! (IN 1956, THE COURT OVERRULED PLESSY IN BROWN v. BOARD OF EDUCATION – BUT THE SOUTH RESPONDED WITH "MASSIVE RESISTANCE." SEGREGATION DIDN'T END UNTIL 1970S)

19. Q: WHY DO THE OLDEST REST STOPS ON THE FLORIDA TURNPIKE HAVE TWO WOMEN'S RESTROOMS AND TWO MEN'S RESTROOMS? A: IT OPENED IN 1957 – BEFORE THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964! SEPARATE WHITE AND BLACK RESTROOMS WERE BUILT. IT WAS THE SAME IN THE NORTH! NOT BY LAW, BUT WHITE BUSINESSES MOSTLY REFUSED TO SERVE BLACK PEOPLE (OR OFTEN JEWS, MEXICANS, PUERTO RICANS, ETC.)