Landmark Loving Vs Virginia Case Study

The Commonwealth of Virginia v. Allen (609 S.E.2d 4, Va. 2005) was a fascinating case. The case focused on two expert witness testifying for the state and the other for the defendant, and if they acted and behaved ethically during the proceedings. Successive information will be addressed to prove the thought process behind my opinion given in this case. The APA code of ethics and specialty guidelines will be used to support my reasoning. Furthermore, they will serve as a baseline of boundaries within the profession to determine the expert witness’ influences to the case as well as their behavior within the profession.

The Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia (1967) resulted in the striking down of state laws that prohibited whites and African Americans from marrying. Mildred Loving, one of the parties in the case, issued a statement on the fortieth-anniversary of her case in which she urged that same-sex couples be allowed to marry.

Likewise, the rules regarding interracial marriages stemmed from slavery as well. The book, Virginia Hasn't Always Been for Lovers: Interracial Marriage Bans and the Case of Richard and Mildred Loving, discusses the landmark legal case Loving v Virginia. As a bit of history, the book says, “In the 1600s… to ensure that the line between master and slave would be indelible, the colonists enacted a number of laws. Not least among them were the regulations that prohibited interracial marriage” (Newbeck, 23). So, the laws that were put into place regarding interracial marriages were enacted in order to maintain the power dynamic between black and white people. There was no other logical reason why the ban was in place, other than to continue to oppress the black community and keep them from attaining power and status within the

The percentage of the white male population with a high school diploma in 1964 was 27.6%, while only 14.6% of black males had a high school diploma. This was because black people had a harder time getting into schools. Judgment because of a persons race should not be allowed, so people decided to take it to court. Not to mention, Supreme Court cases have really driven people's need and want for civil rights: Loving v. Virginia (1967), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg (1971), Bakke v. University of California (1978).

The Court apprehended that conducting a DNA buccal test as a part of the arrest process and it does not violate the Fourth Amendment because the test serves from a state that does not require a warrant for a search. The Court apprehended that determining an arrestee's character and criminal background is an essential part of the arrest process and that a DNA test is just as lawful as fingerprinting. Determining a suspect’s criminal background serves the legitimate state interest of determining what level of risk the person positions in the community and what circumstances should be established on his or her discharge from

Richard and Mildred Loving were arrested in 1959 for violating South Carolina’s anti-miscegenation statue, barring interracial marriage between people of color and whites. The Lovings, who had to travel hundreds of miles to Washington DC to legally wed in an attempt to appease South Carolina law, were charged and found guilty for "cohabiting as man and wife, against the peace and dignity of the Commonwealth" (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). As part of their sentence, the Lovings were forced to leave the state of South Carolina and relocate in Washington D.C. After experiencing the difficulties of living so far away from their friends and family, Mildred Loving wrote to the American Civil Liberties Union who ultimately set the legal proceedings under the argument that the

Virginia and the secret History of Race” was an article written by Brent Staples (2008) explaining the background and case of the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia.The case involved a interracial couple, Mildred and Richard Loving, that were being told that their marriage was not legal in the county they lived in. The loving had gotten married in Washington D.C. where they knew their marriage would be legal but once they moved back to their hometown in Caroline County Va, the true horrors of the south came known. The lovings were being shunned and discriminated against by the entire county because they were a black and white couple. The article then goes on to talk about the horrible reality of Jim Crow Laws and other discrimination the couple faced just for being

A case is said to be landmark when it produces a precedent that is regarded as law by jurists during other cases. These cases are seen as such, generally, because they change the direction of the people making the laws and sitting on the courts, and forge a new path for justice which is more often than not seen as a perfection of the law. One such case occurred in Loving v. The Commonwealth of Virginia in 1967. The original complaint was made in 1958 during a time when the State of Virginia, which is considered deeply ingrained in the attitudes of the South though parts have largely Northern sympathies, still had laws on the books which discriminated substantially against minorities, especially Black citizens. The law in question did not allow two people of different races to marry because as a justice in a lower court ruled

On June 2, 1958 Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving went to Washington D.C. to get married and they went back to Virginia a few days later. But because Mildred was of African-American and Native American decent, and Richard was white they were arrested for violating the state law that prohibits interracial marriage. At the time, Virginia was one of 17 states, including Texas and Alabama, that had laws prohibiting interracial marriage (Wolfe). The Supreme Court Case Loving v. Virginia is an important of part of American history that has had a huge impact on racial equality and has helped change the definition of marriage in the United States forever.

In the United States v. Virginia court case, the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) was the only single sexed school in Virginia. The VMI’s purpose was to train males to become leaders in the future. The District Court knew that women was missing an opportunity for equal education. Virginia wanted to make an institute for women, and they thought it would be equal to the VMI. They would both offer comparable educational benefits. The Virginia Women's Institute for Leadership (VWIL) couldn’t do much without compromising the school’s adversative method.

The fact of their cohabitation here as man and wife shall be evidence of their marriage. Also they used Punishment for marriage: If any white person intermarry with a colored person, or any colored person intermarry with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years. The Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia referred to 1965 case Naim v. Naim to make a decision to on if this case they had Loving v. Virginia was in the means of constitutional. In the court case Naim, the state court concluded that the State’s legitimate purposes were “to preserve the racial integrity of its citizen,” and to prevent “the corruptions of blood,” “a mongrel breed of citizens.” and “the obliteration of racial pride.” obviously an endorsement of the doctrine of White

I disagree with the holding in the case of loving v. Virginia for three following reasons. One of the reasons being that The state of Virginia had the right to adopt the anti miscegenation laws in order to protect the the purity of white race in contrary to the black race which one believed such association would weakened the racial hygiene and the stability of homes and families . The anti miscegenation laws stated a rational argument that expressed the negative impact interracial marriage will have on either race. On the other hand , the court should not intervene and invalidate the anti miscegenation laws due to the tradition of marriage. Marriage has been subject to state regulation without. Federal intervention. Therefore , it is not

     John is a practical, intelligent man and foresees the problems that may arise from their interracial marriage. He understands Joanna’s parents fears and concerns for their daughter’s welfare. He agrees not to go through with the marriage unless they approve. He loves Joanna and desires to marry her, however he doesn’t want her to do damage to her relationship with her parents in the process.

In the year 1967 the Supreme Court ruled in favour of a mixed race couple in Virginia.

-In 1967 in the Loving v. Virginia case, the US Supreme Court struck down all laws prohibiting interracial marriages.