Mendez v. Westminster
Plessy v. Ferguson
With references to previous laws and rulings- apex!:)
It was the Fourteenth Amendment that the supreme court denied ruling in state affairs. You are welcome for a better answer that the last one. Maybe people can come to their sense sometimes.
Technically, states are the entity administering the requirements surrounding the issuance and rulings/laws relating to firearms. The Second Amendment is a Federal constitutional instrument.
The Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment was meant to protect citizens from violation of rights due to state interference. This Clause prevents discrimination against people from out of state in regards to basic rights. They mainly focus on a person's right to own a living.
The most prominent laws and rulings of the 1950's dealt with integration and "Jim Crow" or "separate but equal". Laws concerning the mentally ill also came to the forefront.
the guarantees of freedom
Whenever a U. S. President is in violation of the law as interpreted by the U. S. Supreme Court (or even if he/she is in violation of a law that the Supreme Court has not tested), it is the responsibility of Congress to impeach him/her.
Freedom of speech.
A number of US Supreme Court cases upheld segregation in the years following ratification of the "Restoration Amendments" (Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth), which were intended to extend African-Americans civil rights. The three primary landmark cases included:The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 US 36 (1873)Held that Congress could not apply the Fourteenth Amendment to the States via the Privileges and Immunities Clause.Civil Rights Cases, 109 US 3 (1883)Invalidated the Civil Rights Act of 1875 as unconstitutional on the grounds Congress lacked the authority to enforce provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment against private citizens and businesses.Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 US 537 (1896)Upheld as constitutional the Louisiana Separate Car Act (Act 111), allowing the state to provide "separate but equal" facilities (specifically train cars, in this case) for African-Americans and whites.For more information, see Related Questions, below.
It was "freedom of the press" issue. The US Supreme Court overturned two rulings by the Minnesota Supreme Court by ruling that the Public Nuisance Law of 1925 was unconstitutional, because it violated the Fourteenth Amendment. For these reasons we hold the statute, so far as it authorized the proceedings in this action under clause (b) [723] of section one, to be an infringement of the liberty of the press guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We should add that this decision rests upon the operation and effect of the statute, without regard to the question of the truth of the charges contained in the particular periodical. The fact that the public officers named in this case, and those associated with the charges of official dereliction, may be deemed to be impeccable cannot affect the conclusion that the statute imposes an unconstitutional restraint upon publication.
No constitutional amendment has yet been interpreted to exempt this evidence. It is based on court cases, court findings, and court rulings. The courts have ruled that the Fifth Amendment protects only evidence of a testimonial nature and DNA and fingerprint evidence is not of a testimonial naturetherefore the Fifth Amendment provides no protection.For interesting reading on this topic see the below link: