The Case Of Brown V. Board Of Education Of Topeka

1694 Words7 Pages
In 1954, The United States Supreme Court made a landmark decision with its ruling in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka. The ruling was a monumental one for multiple reasons. Firstly, it was a major step in the Civil Rights Movement as it ended the legal use of “separate but equal” facilities, under the ruling that this violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. It gave African-Americans access to better schools, and also gave them a greater sense of dignity as they no longer could be legally forced to drink from different fountains or sit in separate sections. Another aspect of the decision that makes it so significant is the fact that it did the rare task of overturning a previous Supreme Court decision,…show more content…
He believed that in order to understand law, one must first realize what law’s purpose is. He, like Thomas, argued that law’s purpose it to benefit society by creating a morally sound order to human action and conduct. He detailed seven goods that he believed to be intrinsic and universal, and argued that laws should be enforced under the stipulation that they adhere to the enhancement of these goods, because they are what determines a fulfilling life. They are: life, knowledge, play, aesthetic experience, sociability, practical reasonableness, and religion. The goods that relate to the thesis of this paper the most are knowledge and sociability, as the result of the case has a direct benefit on them and is, therefore, moral and legitimate. Legal positivists, however, disagree that morality has any place in determining what legitimate law is. H. L. A. Hart based much of his theory on the previous legal positivist John Austin’s work. Austin believed that laws obtain their legitimacy from the recognition of a society’s members in the authority of their unruled ruler. This unruled entity that enforces laws with the backing of sanctions, is what Austin terms the ‘sovereign.’ He believed that in order for a sovereign to exist it had to be habitually complied with by those it governs. What separates Austin’s theory from natural law theories is that he did not believe that laws had to be created or followed on the basis of morality. According to Austin’s
Open Document