Loving v virginia 388 us 1 essay

Wilmington Parking Authority, U. The second argument advanced by the State assumes the validity of its equal application theory. Marriages void without decree. See also Maynard v. Over the past 15 years, 14 States have repealed laws outlawing interracial marriages: On January 6,the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years.

Instead, the State argues that the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause, as illuminated by the statements of the Framers, is only that state penal laws containing an interracial element [p8] as part of the definition of the offense must apply equally to whites and Negroes in the sense that members of each race are punished to the same degree.

On January 22,the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia. The first state court to recognize that miscegenation statutes violate the Equal Protection Clause was the Supreme Court of California.

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. This special status began to dry up just before the Civil War and evaporated when slavery ended and free blacks competed with whites for jobs and political power. In that case, the Court upheld a conviction under an Alabama statute forbidding adultery or fornication between a white person and a Negro which imposed a greater penalty than that of a statute proscribing similar conduct by members of the same race.

Wilmington Parking Authority, U. Marutani, by special leave of Court, argued the cause for the Japanese American Citizens League, as amicus curiae, urging reversal. New York, U. Thus, the State contends that, because its miscegenation statutes punish equally both the white and the Negro participants in an interracial marriage, these statutes, despite their reliance on racial classifications, do not constitute an invidious discrimination based upon race.

There was a catch, for when the 25 year period ends they would still face the prosecution of the court if they ever returned. The Court reasoned that the statute could not be said to discriminate against Negroes because the punishment for each participant in the offense was the same.

However, as recently as the Term, in rejecting the reasoning of that case, we stated "Pace represents a limited view of the Equal Protection Clause which has not withstood analysis in the subsequent decisions of this Court.

During the s, the civil rights movement helped reverse many of the legal barriers against miscegenation. This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: On January 22,the state trial judge denied the motion to vacate the sentences, and the Lovings perfected an appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

We have rejected the proposition that the debates in the Thirty-ninth Congress or in the state legislatures which ratified the Fourteenth Amendment supported the theory advanced by the State, that the requirement of equal protection of the laws is satisfied by penal laws defining offenses based on racial classifications so long as white and Negro participants in the offense were similarly punished.

The central features of this Act, and current Virginia law, are the absolute prohibition of a "white person" marrying other than another "white person," [ Footnote 7 ] a prohibition against issuing marriage licenses until the issuing official is satisfied that the applicants' statements as to their race are correct, [ Footnote 8 ] certificates of "racial composition" to be kept by both local and state registrars, [ Footnote 9 ] and the carrying forward of earlier prohibitions against racial intermarriage.

Bazile, did not see favor on them and sentenced them to one year in jail. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

Example essay topics, free essays

As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

Nor could it do so in light of Meyer v. Cohen and Philip J. The most avid proponents of the post-War Amendments undoubtedly intended them to remove all legal distinctions among "all persons born or naturalized in the United States.

In Octoberthe indictments of Richard Loving and Mildred Jeter were bought before the court and on January 6,Richard and Mildred pled not guilty to the charges. Floridasupra, at In these cases, involving distinctions not drawn according to race, the Court has merely asked whether there is any rational foundation for the discriminations, and has deferred to the wisdom of the state legislatures.

Wilmington Parking Authority, U. As we there demonstrated, the Equal Protection Clause requires the consideration of whether the classifications drawn by any statute constitute an arbitrary and invidious discrimination.

When they learned that marriage was illegal for them in Virginia, they simply drove over the Washington, D. Title U.S. Reports: Loving v. Virginia, U.S. 1 (). Contributor Names Warren, Earl (Judge) Supreme Court of the United States (Author).

Citation. U.S.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

1, 87 S. Ct.18 L. Ed. 2dU.S. Brief Fact Summary. The state of Virginia enacted laws making it a felony for a white person to intermarry with a black person or the reverse.

Virginia ( U.S. 1) Words 9 Pages On July 11, 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.

Loving V. Virginia ( U.S. 1) On July 11, 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/5(1). Virginia ( U.S.

1) Words | 9 Pages midnight, Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Loving an African American woman were awakened to the presence of three officers in their bedroom.

Loving v. Virginia (388 U.S. 1)

Free essay examples, how to write essay on Loving V Virginia U S 1 example essay, research paper, custom writing. Write my essay on court loving virginia.

Loving v virginia 388 us 1 essay
Rated 0/5 based on 12 review
Loving v. Virginia ( U.S. 1) – The Multiracial Activist