Charles Faulkner Proscriptive Law

During pre-Revolutionary America there were efforts made to attain not only political liberty but also religious freedom. The booming dissenting churches in Virginia had presented several pleas against religious discrimination to the Virginia House of Burgesses in the 1750s and 1706s. Some of Virginia’s statesmen and politicians included James Madison and Thomas

Blue laws and Black codes : conflict, courts, and change in twentieth-century Virginia. Wallenstein, Peter. University of

The Charles C. Green v County School Board of New Kent County decision of 1968 was a pivotal point in the history of the civil rights movement. It was the court case that finally forced school boards across the country to desegregate their public schools. This did not happen until over a decade after Brown v. Board had deemed segregation unconstitutional and Brown II had sought to abolish it and overturn the “separate but equal” decision of Plessy v. Ferguson. The goal of this paper is to tell the story of how the state of Virginia moved through Brown I, Brown II, and Green v. New Kent County to put an end to segregation in schools.

To what extent did Dred Scott decision was examined from an incorrect view of the judicial role and viewed as morally incorrect? Due to Chief Justice Taney’s unacceptable error of not reviewing the case through law, the decision led the nation split into two and eventually caused in American Civil War. In this investigation, Chief Justice Taney, who held the majority of votes, actions and behaviors prior of the case will be evaluated for its impact upon a simple freedom case. This investigation will also focus on three questions that Justice Taney claimed after reviewing the case and how it was or was not constitutional. Research will be done in books about Dred Scott’s background and what he has done throughout his life, a reference

Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), was heard in the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. Johnson v. State, 755 S.W.2d 92 (Tex. Crim. App. 1988). The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the decision of the Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District holding that “Johnson’s right to freedom of speech under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution was violated by the statute. States cannot pass laws which take away freedoms that are promised under the United States Constitution, and in passing section 42.09(a)(3), the state had deprived Johnson of his constitutional right to express his views about the government.” Johnson v. State, 706 S.W.2d 120 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1986). The Texas Court of Appeals, Fifth District had affirmed the decision of the Dallas County Criminal Court which found Mr. Johnson guilty of desecration of the American flag. State v. Johnson, No. CCR 84-46013-J (Crim. Ct. No. 7, Dallas Cnty. Tex. Dec. 13,

INTRODUCTION United States Supreme Court case Scott v. Sanford (1857), commonly known as the Dred Scott Case, is probably the most famous case of the nineteenth century (with the exception possibly of Marbury v. Madison). It is one of only four cases in U. S. history that has ever been overturned by a Constitutional amendment (overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments). It is also, along with Marbury, one of only two cases prior to the Civil War that declared a federal law unconstitutional. This case may have also been one of the most, if not the most, controversial case in American history, due simply to the fact that it dealt an explosive opinion on an issue already prepared to erupt - slavery. Thus, many scholars assert that the

"Throughout the years the constitution and the laws have made a tremendous impact in society. White men were privileged with all their rights since they were born. Women and men of color however were not, and they had to fight for their rights throughout the years. The Articles of confederation showed how the states had more power than the government did. In document two it states, “ urging to reject conservative attempts to repeal a law that set in motion an end to slavery.” (E,126) This shows how African American’s had to wait many years for laws to pass and give them freedom. They had the same rights as the White men after the 13th,14th, and 15th amendments were passed. Women had to wait longer and finally got their right to vote when

After the Civil War ended – with the submission of Robert E. Lee at the Appomattox Court House – the raging era that followed this conflict was the period of Reconstruction. The Reconstruction Era (1865-1877) was constantly misinterpreted due to politic issues such as: admittance to residency, voting rights, the comparative influences of the national and state administration, the affiliation among political and economic democracy, and the appropriate way to deal with terrorism. During the Reconstruction era, the country’s law and Constitution – convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787 – were revised to assure the basic rights of a former African American slave, and how the Confederacy was conquered due to biracial governments rising to authority, which was, in no doubt, one of the lowest points of national American democracy. By regarding this view, the Radical Republicans – within Congress – were so fixated on punishing beaten Confederates, Southern governments controlled by carpet baggers (dishonorable Northerners who journeyed into the South to obtain the advantages of office) , scalawags (Southern whites who endorsed the system), and African

An understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment begins not in Congress, but in the history leading up to the Civil War. The first crucial story in understanding the Fourteenth Amendment is the striking changes in the law of race relations that took place in the North - especially in Bingham’s home state of Ohio - in the dozen or so years before the Civil War began. The second story is about the South, and the legal repression and brutal racial violence that took place there immediately after the Civil War ended (Finkelman, 2003).

Reconstruction is often thought of as something that happened in the South. But events there were part of a much broader transformation. Far beyond the ex-Confederacy, the United States embarked on an ambitious process of nation building. (A. 446) The U.S. Constitution does not address the question of how to restore rebellious states. After the Civil War, the nation had to determine whether the Confederate states, upon seceding, had legally left the Union. If so, then their reentry required action by Congress. If not — if even during secession they had retained their constitutional status — then restoring these states might be an administrative matter, best left to the president. Lack of clarity on this fundamental question made for explosive politics. In the early years of Reconstruction, the president and Congress struggled over who was in charge. Only by winning this fight did Republicans in Congress open the way for the sweeping achievements of radical Reconstruction. (A. 447) As of 1877, all of the Confederate states had drafted new constitutions, recognized the new Amendments set forth (the 13th, 14th, and 15th), and had fully pledged their loyalty to the United States government. This allowed for the settling of states’ rights vs. federalism debate that had been ongoing since the mid1790s. While Reconstruction was a success on many fronts, there

They, not the people, were the basic building blocks in the social system. The people must act through state governments to direct the national government, and the national government must act through the state governments to direct the people.” This quote defines the often-stubborn behaviors of Luther Martin from New Jersey during the Constitutional Convention. Martin walked out of the Constitutional Convention due to what he felt was the powerful structure of the new national government, These beliefs were dominated by his opposition to the Virginia Plan, since it supported federal authority over state authority. This historical perspective defines how some members, such as martin , were vehemently opposed to federalism, and that eventually left the Constitutional Convention due to a radical opposition to the new national government. The principle of state autonomy was a predominant argument by states, which were fearful of another form of tyrannical government being formed by the federalists. Martin’s erratic behavior (often associated with alcoholism) defines some of the radical arguments put forth by state’s rights advocates during the Constitutional

Around 82 representatives and 19 senators came together and signed off on the Southern Manifesto in protest. The author’s make an argument that the Brown ruling was an abuse of judicial power that trespassed the states' rights to decide and uphold their own laws. Furthermore, the opposition attempt to establish their ground by stating that the founding fathers themselves gave us the constitution for a reason. No one man or group of men can be entrusted with that much power, which is why they established a system of checks and balances to limit the federal government over the states and the judiciary system. If one or many people hold this much power, then this will lead to a continued defamation of power; in other words a Scare towards the democracy written by the founding

Out of all the Era's in the in United States, Reconstruction was the one which consisted of many values, leaders, and objectives. In 1864, two Radical Republicans, Senator of Ohio Benjamin Wade and

For this PSD-A, I decided to analyze Virginia’s declaration of secession, mainly because while Virginia did become part of the Confederacy, they had conflicting opinions and were still rather ‘close’ to the Union. Virginia’s first reason is because the Federal Government has “perverted said powers.” The document also makes a point of how the Federal Government has oppressed both Virginia and the rest of the “Southern Slaveholding States.” I think there are multiple reasons for this statement. Firstly, Virginia was probably standing up for what was ‘right;’ I doing so, also giving the other slave states a voice. Secondly, all the Southern states relied heavily on slave labor, so they seceded to protect their economy. No matter the reason, Virginia

The year 1776 ignited the colonial rebellion from Great Britain, with colonists from the newly formed United States demanding their individual and colony’s rights. They advocated for representation, their individual rights, and the issue of sovereignty. With the ratification of the Bill of Rights in 1791, individual rights overall were thought to be “protected” in the newly liberated Unites States. Yet the continued limiting of women’s rights, treatment of the mentally handicapped and emancipated slaves, the individual liberties colonists believed they would gain from Britain was only for certain individuals, not all. The colonists believed that they would advance their individual rights and freedoms with their independence from Britain; though the reality was that the struggles of individual liberties continued throughout the next 100 years in different classes of citizens despite their gaining of independence from Britain.