0
Did judicial activism help African-Americans achieve civil rights?
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
No, judicial activism caused African-Americans to lose the civil rights guaranteed them under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The purpose of the Reconstruction amendments was to end slavery, formally extend citizenship, apply constitutional protections, and allow African-Americans (men; women didn't have suffrage yet) the right to vote.
While the Constitution originally applied only to the federal government, the Fourteenth Amendment offered a legal means of extending US constitutional protection to the States, and provided Congress with authority to enforce the Amendment's provisions through legislation. Congress demonstrated a desire to support the equalization process the States initiated by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1875.
The Civil Rights Act of 1875 read (in part):
"Be it enacted, That all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of inns, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and other places of public amusement; subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to citizens of every race and color, regardless of any previous condition of servitude.
"...That any person who shall violate the foregoing section by denying to any citizen, except for reasons by law applicable to citizens of every race and color, and regardless of any previous condition of servitude, the full enjoyment of any of the accommodations, advantages, facilities, or privileges in said section enumerated, or by aiding or inciting such denial, shall, for every such offense, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the person aggrieved thereby...and shall also, for every such offense, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year..."
The Supreme Court, however, chose to construe the new amendments in an intellectually contorted way not in keeping with the intent of the Legislative branch or the States. This is the essence of judicial activism.
In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883), the US Supreme Court overturned the Civil Rights Act of 1875, declaring unconstitutional legislation preventing businesses and individuals from discriminating against African-Americans. The Waite Court held that Congress couldn't use the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause to pass legislation mandating equal treatment under the law (as the United States finally did in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 1968). This narrow ruling, which was later reinforced when the Court upheld as constitutional the "separate but equal" doctrine advanced under Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896).
These and similar decisions legally sanctioned discriminatory practices and encouraged proliferation of racist Jim Crow laws across the nation.
The Warren Court formally overturned the "separate but equal" precedent set in Plessy v. Ferguson, (1896) by holding segregation unconstitutional in Brown v. Board of Education,(1954). Although this decision is often cited as an example of judicial activism, in fact, the Court was correcting bad precedents created by an earlier activist Court.
Wiki User
∙ 9y ago
Add your answer:
Earn +20 pts
What is judicial activism?
Judicial activism is the tendency to interpret the Constitution or law in a way that goes beyond the original authors' intent, in order to influence public policy. Activism can be either conservative or liberal: Conservative activism tends to narrow the scope of interpretation to restrict government or individual rights; liberal activism tends to broaden the scope of interpretation to expand individual rights in keeping with progressive social norms.Martin Garbus, in his book Courting Disaster: The Supreme Court and the Unmaking of American Laws, claims the Marshall Court, New Deal Court, Warren Court and Rehnquist Court all made decisions that had their basis in political agendas, rather than laws.Often, charges of judicial activism mean the Court or justice has made a decision with which the accuser disagrees. Therefore, progressives accuse conservatives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support conservative political ideologies; conservatives accuse progressives of being judicial activists when they interpret the Constitution to support progressive political ideologies.Conversely, when a Court upholds an earlier precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis, or refuses to declare a challenged act of Congress unconstitutional, or otherwise upholds the status quo, they are said to be practicing judicial restraint.The debate between judicial activism and judicial restraint tends to reveal as much about the opinions of the person making the accusation as the tendencies of the Court.Commonly Cited Examples of Judicial ActivismMarbury v. Madison, 5 US 137 (1803)Dred Scott v. Sanford, 60 US 393 (1857)Lochner v. New York, 198 US 45 (1905)Brown v. Board of Education, 347 US 483 (1954)Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 US 479 (1965)Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113 (1973)A+LS: A justice allows his or her personal opinions to influence a decision
What was the Warren Court best known for?
The Warren Court (1953-1969) is nearly synonymous with the concept of "judicial activism," typically considered a pejorative and criticism of a liberal Court attempting to advance social policy. The Roberts Court, while conservative, is equally guilty of judicial activism when it overturns humanitarian precedents in preference to legal decisions favoring the federal government and large corporations. Earl Warren's legacy was the end of racial segregation, the death of Jim Crow laws, changes in criminal procedure, enhanced voter rights, reapportionment of political districts, protection of freedom of speech, pronouncement of a right to privacy, and restriction of government-subsidized religious activity. These changes were primarily accomplished by selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. For more information, see Related Questions, below.
How was the civil rights movement achieve?
yes it was
What is the 3 branches of the bill of rights?
Right to bear arms, double jeopardy, and right to a speedy trial.
How does gradualism relate civil rights?
i think its better than using militant activism or nonviolent confrontation. in the end, results will be made through legal gradualism
Was Miranda v. Arizona considered judicial restraint or judicial activism?
Neither. The court simply ruled that people need to be advised of rights they had always been entitled to. --- Activism, because the Court invented a new rule. They used their power broadly to further justice instead of just allowing the decisions of the other branches of government to stand. It's true that their rights were already there, but that's not the determining factor of Judicial activism/restraint.
Was Judicial Activism or Judicial Restraint used in the Tinker v Des Moines case?
Judicial activism was used because the Court ruled that the school policy prohibiting the students from wearing the arm bands to protest symbolically the Vietnam War violated the students' free speech rights. By overturning a policy of the government (the public school's policy), the Court exercised judicial activism.
Did the Warren Court believe in judicial activism or judicial restraint?
The Warren Court, which was active from 1953 until Chief Justice Earl Warren retired in 1969, is often accused of judicial activism for its many decisions supporting African-Americans' civil rights. Whether they believed they were judicial activists or not is unknown.
The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was important because it allowed?
AfricanAmericans to gain equal rights
Nixon's plan to win reelection by curbing the Supreme Court's judicial activism and soft-pedaling civil rights?
it was a plan called the "southern strategy"
Nixon's plan to win reelection by curbing the supreme court's judicial activism and soft pedaling civil rights?
it was a plan called the "southern strategy"
What is the reason for increase in judicial activism?
Judicial activism, or the perception of judicial activism, increases when the balance of the court favors justices with extreme viewpoints (either progressive or conservative) who have a political agenda, or who believe they need to correct constitutional interpretations and decisions of an earlier Court in order to influence social policy. Please note that judicial activism is a subjective term, usually applied pejoratively by an individual or group whose beliefs differ from that of the Court's majority (conservatives rarely refer to conservative decisions as activism; progressives rarely refer to progressive decisions as activism).
Judicial activism and judicial restraint in India?
(note: this explanation assumes understanding of several U.S. landmark cases) Judicial activism is closely tied with the personal standpoint of "liberal." It is basically being more "activist" or more in turn with "adding" to the U.S. Constitution rather than merely interpreting it (judicial restraint). Three major cases that have been touted as judicial activism abuse include Roe v. Wade, Lawrence v. Texas, and Brown v. Board of Education (abortion, homosexuality, and racial segregation, respectively). Without judicial activism, the U.S. would still be stuck with the Dredd Scott decision and Plessy v. Ferguson, regarding African Americans' rights. Without judicial activism, Lochner v. New York would stand as a legal precendent, and the minimum wage would be illegal on the basis that it violates the right to business contracts. Additionally, it could be argued that judicial activism is necessary because it is difficult to decide court cases based on the U.S. Constitution when the framers' are long dead, their intent unknown, and the Constitution written in an age before the modern or digital age.
African Americans rights?
how did AfricanAmericans rights change before, during, and after reconstruction?
What is the connection between moral character and political activism?
The connection between moral character and political activism is that when someone is fight as a political activist, they are often doing it to achieve their rights and moralities that they feel have been taken away from them. One's moral character can be brought down, and be forced into political activism as a result.
What did the law accomplish?
the law helped the africanamericans to get the right to vote.
What is Maya Angelou's character trait that led her to success?
Maya Angelou's resilience, determination, and strength helped her overcome obstacles and achieve success in various fields such as poetry, memoir writing, and civil rights activism.
