The Racial Discrimination Act

This political cartoon refers tot he Boston massacre. The building int he back is the state house. The right side of the political cartoon shows Boston soldiers in uniform holding rifles with bayonets that re firing at the crowd. One of the men is a commander who is hiding a sword and giving the orders. The soldiers and the commander all have determined and fierce looks on their faces.

Before 1975 there were innumerable instances of vilification, almost applauded. Singh is convinced that freedom of speech must be regulated, publicizing that “people have a right to have freedom from racial vilification” and that anything which dissimilar to this fundamental entitlement is an “unacceptable and wrong” substitute (Blacktown Sun, 2015). Ironically, the fact that Brandis and his supporters believes the law diminishes freedom of expression and speech, where people cannot “say what they like”, is dismissed by the provisions enlisted under Section18D of the Racial Discrimination Act. As newly appointed Race Discrimination Commissioner Tim Soutphommasane argues, “often it is forgotten that the fundamental value of free speech is explicitly protected by

Affirmative action legislation in the United States has its basic framework in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which mandates that firms with more than 15 employees are subject to a variety of anti-discrimination policies, more of which were passed in subsequent years. In some cases, the concept of affirmative action was taken to be a voluntary act to attain diversity. For the most part, however, courts have interpreted affirmative action laws as having little teeth under the Constitution. It has been suggested that "racial preferences in federal law or policy are a remedy of last resort" (Dale, 2005)

The Racial Justice Act of 2009 was a piece of legislature in North Carolina that barred the death penalty for offenders based on race. This act determined the kind of evidence that could be used by the court or if race played a part in jury selection. They would determine if the evidence presented was a factor of imposing the death penalty in a case based on a person’s race. This allowed the defendant to establish that race was an actual factor in deciding to seek or impose the death penalty. If it was determined that face played an important role in deciding the death penalty, the sentence would automatically be converted to life imprisonment for the defendant.

In July 02, 1964 was signed the Civil Rights Act. The time when this act was signed many of the provisions of the Civil Rights Acts of 1875 were passed into law in the 1960’s meaning with the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Fair Housing Act using the federal power to regulate interstate commerce.

One goal of President Trump is to build a wall near the southern border. According to the LA Times, President Trump insists that,“We will build a great wall along the southern border. And Mexico will pay for the wall. One hundred percent. They don't know it yet, but they're going to pay for it. And they're great people and great leaders but they're going to pay for the wall. On day one, we will begin working on intangible, physical, tall, power, beautiful southern border wall. We will use the best technology, including above and below ground sensors that's the tunnels. Remember that, above and below”(LA Times 7). President Trump is claiming that if a border wall is established, Americans will be benefitting from it, even though he is kicking out immigrants from the U.S. in order to create those opportunities.

Diversity in our country has been the center of attention for much of America’s young life. Some Americans seem to value the virtue more than others; however, the issue is one that the founding fathers stated that would help our country prosper. The constitution values the issue of diversity so much so that it has centered several supreme court decisions around the issue. Today the Grutter versus Bollinger and Gratz verses Bollinger will be the issue in which we look to judge whether the issue is one of definiteness. Before we can judge one way or another, we must first discuss both cases and their rulings.

The Eros Lodge and the Eros Bar and Grill, under the scope of the law, are directly involved in interstate commerce. They are a public hotel and restaurant and open to both local citizens and citizens traveling from out of state. While their clientele may consist primarily of locals, it does not mean that out-of-state travels cannot or would not stay there. Mr. Bates, the owner, did not say he didn’t rent to travelers from out of state, he only said he wouldn’t rent to same-sex couples. However, since interstate commerce is defined as travel, trade, traffic, transportation, or communication among several states, his establishments fall under its domain – and therefore have no right to be excluded from the Equal Access Act. Discriminating against

A father tells his child to get inside quickly when a black teenager is casually walking with a couple of racially diverse teenagers and the father tells them to “move a little faster thugs” or “keep on walking, no crack or dope here,” emphasizing “dope,” “thugs,” or “crack.” The teenagers hurry from the assertiveness of the father’s voice. This is just one example of a stereotypical racial profiling situation, defined as prohibiting the use of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion in all law enforcement cases.

The implementation of race-based affirmative action policies for college admission has been a controversial issue that has made its way into Supreme Court cases. Some argue that it is to counter racial inequality that minorities have suffered from while others believe affirmative action enforces reverse racism. The unconstitutionality of affirmative action has gone through the justice system and been addressed by the Supreme Court multiple times in cases such as Regents of the University of California v. Bakke [1978] and Gratz v. Bollinger [2003]. Changes must be made to ensure all student applicants are treated fairly in the college admissions process. Racial quota systems in state supported universities violate both the Civil Rights Act

Race-based affirmative action has been challenged by a great deal of objection during the course of it duration. According to its opponents, Affirmative action proves to be inconsistent. Affirmative action based on race increases race consciousness instead of supporting color-blind justice. By giving people special consideration to ensure equality, it contributes to inequality. The constitution of the United States calls for equal treatment, therefore, allowing racial consideration poses a contradiction.

Essay Question 16: Why have such intense conflicts arisen since the 1970s over the question of affirmative action in the United States?

A person has just obtained their dream ACT score, 34, while maintaining outstanding extracurricular activities throughout high school. After applying to the university of their choice, they are informed that they have not been admitted. Crushed and confused, they go on the university’s website only to discover that the university is looking for people with a more diverse racial background. Standing in the way of their acceptance is a defective policy formally known as race-based affirmative action. Informally called affirmative action, it is a combination of adopted policies that construct an advantage to minority groups, giving them more possibilities to succeed in jobs, education, and other aspects of daily life. The whole concept came

As children grow up, they become the person they turn out to be because of experiences and the culture and society they grew up in. Nations are affected in the same sense because the people living in a nation affect how the nation is influenced and builds its character.

If the news was not manipulated to benefit one party’s best interests, society could manage to make choices which may make a difference to the growth of a nation. Voters can make better decisions when electing new leaders in office, people can band together to find justice for a single cause, and most importantly, people will feel more empowered citizens. As businesses drive the direction of a nation with limited coverage on stories, one's belief on a matter becomes discouraged from making changes. Thinking about the current candidates running for office. The media have exploited Donald Trump's behavior to minimize the pressing matter which include the actual principles each candidate intends to stand by as president. How does one decide who to put into office without understanding the consequences of their decision?