Summary: The Case Of Virgina

On July 11, 1958 a couple of hours after midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom. One of the three officers demanded from Richard to identify the woman next to him. Mildred, full of fear, told the officers that she was his wife, while Richard pointed to the marriage license on the wall. The couple was then charged and later found guilty in violation of the state's anti-miscegenation statute.

In a quick observation, it may be easy to observe that the Constitution of Virginia is much larger in length and detail than the United States Constitution. There are many differences between these two constitutions besides the authors or contributors being that James Madison contributed to both, however, he was not the complete author of the Constitution of Virginia (Constitutions of Virginia). Both Constitutions have the same idea in which it holds three separate branches of government, however, differences include the detail and content brought amongst the articles. Differences include, but are not limited to, division of the three branches, extra articles and policies, and the amendments. They

The Constitutional Convention of 1787 brought together delegates from thirteen divergent states to amend the Articles of Confederation. But James Madison, delegate from Virginia, had other ideas. He set the agenda for the Convention by drafting the Virginia Plan, an entirely new structure for the government. The strengths offered by the Virginia Plan included the framework for a strong, central government which separated powers into three branches: the legislative, executive, and the judicial. In addition, the Virginia Plan had built-in checks and balances between the branches. Madison believed that sovereignty rested with the people, and he proposed proportional representation in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. However,

During particular time periods whichever product rose to popularity, whether it be cotton, rum, tobacco, or sugar, became the means of buying and selling or trading. Two major products that the people of the “new world” depended on during the early colonial times were tobacco and sugar. Both Virginia and the Caribbean were able to be successful and bloom due to these two major products. Virginia and the Caribbean had many similarities as well as differences on how they changed economically and socially due to tobacco and sugar plantations.

After the colonies gained independence from England on July 4, 1776, they acknowledged the need for a new form of government. Their current government (the Articles of Confederation) was defective and needed emendation. For instance, Congress had the legal right to declare war and perform on foreign policy, but don’t have the right to demand revenues from the states. This was, in fact, an issue that needed to be solved because it endangers the existence of the country. For example, since Congress lacked the power to raise military funds, it could not provide sufficient support for the armed forces. Congress was forced to demobilize the Army after the revolutionary war. It would have been very terrible for the newly formed country (The United States) if the British or the Spanish had attacked (page, 39). Another weakness of the Article was demonstrated by the Shays Rebellion. It illustrated how the central government could not protect the citizens from armed Rebellion. The colonists called for a constitutional convention to discuss how to correct their flaws. The Virginia plan was introduced, which advocated that representation should be based on population. It basically called for a legislative branch with one house that also has the authority to regulate trade and taxation. It called for a separation of powers, leaving three branches in charge: the legislative, the executive, and the Judicial branches. The Virginia plan would allow big States to control the presidency which

The Massachusetts Bay colony and Virginia had a sundry amount of differences as well as similarities. Each of these colonies was founded upon different ways of living. Digging deeper, there are many more differences about these colonies than there are similarities. Although both colonies eventually experienced the help of the natives, each colony set separate rules and laws for themselves. Virginia is more geographically spread out and more focused on obtaining gold for personal profit, whereas Massachusetts is more of a united, small farmed colony that focused more on the efforts for religious freedom.

During the 1600s when England began colonizing in the New World, different colonies had their own concept of freedom backed by their beliefs and/ or motives for settling in America. Massachusetts and Virginia were settled for very different reasons therefore life in their settlements differed greatly. The political, economic, social and of course physical aspects of the colonies were not at all the same, yet they both resulted in their colonies prospering and successfully settling the land. The settlers of each colony had searched for a place to express two contrasting beliefs of what freedom meant to them. Massachusetts and Virginia are two prime examples of how freedom can mean something

The Virginia’s Statutes illustrate the declining Status of African American slaves was written because the state of Virginia wanted to state several rules and laws for their slaves. This document was written by the State of Virginia legislatures, being they were the ones who wrote it and established it. The main rule applied was that black people could not be with white people. Any white person married to a black or mulatto would be banished and will be known as a systematic plan formed to capture outlying slaves. Black men and women were known as slaves.

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 United States Supreme Court was, and still is today, the important backbone of America’s judicial system. This court deals with numerous cases throughout the year and keeps the country and government fair with its decisions. However, being responsible for giving justice where it is due, the Court is sometimes faced with hard choices that will make a lasting impression on the U.S. and its people. In the case of Loving v. Virginia, it did just that. As a Supreme Court landmark case, Loving v. Virginia definitely indicated a critical moment of change in civil rights for America and interracial couples everywhere.

As stated above, many jurisdictions have promulgated statutes or regulations that require an insurer to engage in matching. For instance, jurisdictions such as Alaska, California, Connecticut, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Utah, all have either statutes or regulations that affirmatively require matching to some extent. Jay Feinman, “Matching” In Replacement Cost Homeowners Insurance Policies (Rutgers

Virginia had many failures and close calls, while Massachusetts had successful first settlements, smart decisions regarding food and planning made this possible. In 1607 colonist landed on the banks of Jamestown Virginia only to be greeted by disease causing mosquitoes. Did not had good leadership until John Smith and John Rolfe, while Massachusetts had John Winthrop who developed the settlement with success. The settlers of Virginia had The Jamestown Nightmare. Many people died looking for gold and not learning how to use the land for survival. The Gentlemen would not work themselves resulting in Settlers dyeing by the dozens. Because the laws of primogeniture, many young gentlemen in the English colonies had to make their own fortune. John Rolfe implemented, “If You Don’t Work…You Don’t Eat.” Massachusetts was started by John Winthrop. The differences in the settlements upbringings were not the only difference, their views on religion helped shape the economy of both settlements. Virginia and Massachusetts both realized that they needed to have a strong economy, but their views on religion versus profit differed and resulted in different systems. Massachusetts was a safe haven for Catholics; Massachusetts learned the best way to survive in the area was by watching and interacting with the natives. John Winthrop stated, “We shall be a city upon a hill.” This was going to be a holy city.

Fields was prosecuted and fined $1,000. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor,

In the seventeenth century, the populace that left England for America were influenced by the prospects that could either help them personally, or the mother country. The English settled in regions in America based on the religious acceptance of that area and ones that offered a preferable lifestyle.

Notes on the state of Virginia, 1782 was written by Thomas Jefferson. When he was born in 1743, slavery had existed in Virginia for nearly a century. He grew up on a plantation with workers who worked as slaves, and as an adult he owned nearly 200 slaves. Jefferson’s views on slavery and blacks remain complex. He thought blacks were naturally inferior to other races particular time, but he later conceded the service they offered might have had an impact on their inferior abilities. As a Virginia legislator, he advocated allowing private citizens to free their slaves but was unsuccessful (Peden). He later introduced a bill to bar free blacks from staying in the state. His draft of the Declaration of Independence included strong language opposing the slave trade across transatlantic. As the president, he signed a bill outlawing that trade.