Malcolm Rivera
The US Constitution's Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, regardless of race. This means that the denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour violates the Fifteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also prohibits the administration of election statutes that treat white and black voters or candidates differently. The US Constitution also allows for affirmative action, which is the use of racial classifications to remedy the effects of past discrimination.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Racism protected by US Constitution? | No |
| Fourteenth Amendment | Guarantees equal protection and privileges of citizenship, due process, and equal protection |
| Fifteenth Amendment | Denying the franchise on the basis of race or colour is illegal |
Explore related products
$37.99 $37.99
What You'll Learn
- The denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour violates the Fifteenth Amendment
- Gerrymandering of electoral districts and the creation or maintenance of electoral practices that dilute and weaken black and other minority voting strength is subject to Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment attack
- The degree to which government is permitted to take race into account when formulating and implementing a remedy to overcome the effects of past discrimination
- The Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education struck down state inhibitions on the process of achieving a unitary school system
- The Brennan analysis in Bakke holds that the race conscious set-aside was “substantially related to the achievement of the important and congressionally articulated goal of remedying the present effects of past discrimination
The denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour violates the Fifteenth Amendment
The Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, added in 1870, prohibits the federal government and each state from denying or abridging a citizen's right to vote "on account of race, colour, or previous condition of servitude". This was the final of three constitutional amendments enacted during Reconstruction in the aftermath of the Civil War. The Thirteenth Amendment prohibited slavery, and the Fourteenth Amendment barred states from denying "equal protection of the laws". The Fifteenth Amendment was aimed at ensuring the enfranchisement of African-Americans, and gave Congress the power to enact legislation to enforce the right against race-based denials of the vote.
In City of Mobile v. Bolden, a majority of the Court agreed that the Fifteenth Amendment and Section 2 of the Act were coextensive, but the Justices did not agree on the meaning to be ascribed to the statute. A plurality believed that, because the constitutional provision reached only purposeful discrimination, Section 2 was similarly limited. However, the Court in Shelby County v. Holder emphasised the limits to the enforcement power of the Fifteenth Amendment in striking down Section 4 of the Act, which provided the formula that determined which states or electoral districts are required to submit electoral changes to the Department of Justice or a federal court for preclearance under Section 5 of the Act.
Border Control: Constitutional Rights and Protections
You may want to see also
Gerrymandering of electoral districts and the creation or maintenance of electoral practices that dilute and weaken black and other minority voting strength is subject to Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment attack
The Fourteenth Amendment has been used to strike down state inhibitions on the process of achieving a unitary school system. In the case of *Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education*, the Court emphasised that the goal was the dismantling of an officially imposed dual school system. The opinion in *Swann* stated that where it is possible to identify a 'white school' or a 'Negro school' simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organisation of sports activities, this constitutes a violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
The Fifteenth Amendment and a series of implementing statutes enacted by Congress prohibit the denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour. The administration of election statutes so as to treat white and black voters or candidates differently can constitute a denial of equal protection.
The Fourteenth Amendment has also been used to establish that, although Congress has the power to make findings that will establish the necessity to use racial classifications in an affirmative way, these findings need not be extensive nor express and may be collected in many ways. The opinions in *Bakke* emphasised the limited duration and magnitude of the set-aside program, but appeared to attach no constitutional significance to these limitations, thus leaving open the way for programs of a scope sufficient to remedy all the identified effects of past discrimination.
Constitution's Protection of Gays: What's the Verdict?
You may want to see also
The degree to which government is permitted to take race into account when formulating and implementing a remedy to overcome the effects of past discrimination
The US Constitution does not protect racism. In fact, the denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour violates the Fifteenth Amendment and a series of implementing statutes enacted by Congress. The Fourteenth Amendment also ensures that the administration of election statutes so as to treat white and black voters or candidates differently can constitute a denial of equal protection.
The degree to which the government is permitted to take race into account when formulating and implementing a remedy to overcome the effects of past discrimination is of critical importance in equal protection litigation. The Brennan analysis in Bakke, using middle-tier scrutiny, holds that the race-conscious set-aside was "substantially related to the achievement of the important and congressionally articulated goal of remedying the present effects of past discrimination".
The opinions established that, although Congress had the power to make the findings that will establish the necessity to use racial classifications in an affirmative way, these findings need not be extensive nor express and may be collected in many ways. Moreover, although the opinions emphasised the limited duration and magnitude of the set-aside program, they appeared to attach no constitutional significance to these limitations, thus leaving open the way for programs of a scope sufficient to remedy all the identified effects of past discrimination.
In the October 1970 Term, the Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education undertook to elaborate the requirements for achieving a unitary school system and delineating the methods which could or must be used to achieve it, and at the same time struck down state inhibitions on the process. The opinion in Swann emphasised that the goal since Brown was the dismantling of an officially imposed dual school system.
Protecting Groups: The Constitutional Safeguard
You may want to see also
Explore related products
The Court in Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education struck down state inhibitions on the process of achieving a unitary school system
Racism is not protected by the US Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection and privileges of citizenship, due process, and equal protection. The Fifteenth Amendment and a series of implementing statutes enacted by Congress also prohibit the denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour.
In the case of Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, the Court struck down state inhibitions on the process of achieving a unitary school system. The case, which was decided by the US Supreme Court on 20 April 1971, dealt with the desegregation plan adopted by Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg school system was one of the largest and most diverse in the United States, with more than 84,000 students in 107 schools in the 1968-1969 school year. Approximately 29% of the pupils were Negro, about 14,000 of whom attended 21 schools that were at least 99% Negro. The Court held that busing was an appropriate remedy for the problem of racial imbalance in schools, even when the imbalance resulted from the selection of students based on geographic proximity to the school rather than from deliberate assignment based on race. This was done to ensure the schools would be "properly" integrated and that all students would receive equal educational opportunities regardless of their race. The opinion in Swann emphasised that the goal since Brown v. Board of Education was the dismantling of an officially imposed dual school system. The Court's decision lent the imprimatur of the Court to busing as a solution to inadequately desegregated public schools.
Foreigners' Free Speech: Protected by the US Constitution?
You may want to see also
The Brennan analysis in Bakke holds that the race conscious set-aside was “substantially related to the achievement of the important and congressionally articulated goal of remedying the present effects of past discrimination
Racism is not protected by the US Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees equal protection and due process, and the Fifteenth Amendment prohibits the denial of the franchise on the basis of race or colour.
The Brennan analysis in *Bakke* holds that the race-conscious set-aside was "substantially related to the achievement of the important and congressionally articulated goal of remedying the present effects of past discrimination". In other words, the use of racial classifications to further remedial purposes must serve important governmental objectives and be substantially related to the achievement of those objectives. This was a joint opinion by Justices Brennan, White, Marshall, and Blackmun.
In *Bakke*, the University of California's race-conscious admissions program was found to be constitutional. The University's purpose of remedying the effects of past societal discrimination was sufficiently important to justify the use of the voluntary, race-conscious admissions programs. The Court found that only race-conscious measures could reduce the underrepresentation of minorities within the medical school.
The Brennan analysis in *Bakke* has been influential in lower courts and has been used to support the broad remedial use of race-conscious measures to help minority groups overcome their past mistreatment by society.
The Constitution and Unborn Babies: What Protections Exist?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, the US Constitution's Equal Protection Clause prohibits racial discrimination.
The Equal Protection Clause is part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. It states that no state shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
The Equal Protection Clause ensures that all people are treated equally under the law, regardless of race, colour, or national origin. It also prohibits states from treating voters or candidates differently on the basis of race or colour.
Yes, the Equal Protection Clause allows for the use of racial classifications in an affirmative way to remedy the present effects of past discrimination.
If the Equal Protection Clause is violated, it may be subject to a Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment attack. This means that the violation can be challenged in court and potentially overturned.
