Question

Read the excerpt from the US Supreme court case Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). The statute of Louisiana, acts of 1890, c. 111, requiring railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in that State, to provide equal, but separate, accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations; and providing that no person shall be permitted to occupy seats in coaches other than the ones assigned to them, on account of the race they belong to; and requiring the officer of the passenger train to assign each passenger to the coach or compartment assigned for the race to which he or she belong; and imposing fines or imprisonment upon passengers insisting on going into a coach or compartment other than the one set aide for the race to which he or she belongs; and conferring upon officers of the train power to refuse to carry on the train passengers refusing to occupy the coach or compartment assigned to them, and exempting the railway company from liability for such refusal, are not in conflict with the provisions either of the Thirteenth Amendment or of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Which best explains why the Supreme Court’s decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional? The Supreme Court’s ruling allowed states to deny equal protection to any person within its jurisdiction. Since the 14th Amendment did not make concessions for people born outside the US, the Supreme Court’s decision could not be applied. The Supreme Court’s decision gave individual states the freedom to make their own laws in relation to non-whites. Since segregation laws did not provide equal protections or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th Amendment.

Answer 1

The correct answer is D.

The Supreme Court's decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was unconstitutional because it was not consistent with the 14th ammenment.

The 14th ammendment grants citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who were emancipated after the American Civil War.

Segregation laws were explicitly againts the ammendment because they did not provide equal protection and liberties to non-whites. By forcing them to sit separated from white people, african-americans were being banned from fully excersing their rights.

Answer 2

The answer is the option D; Since segregation laws did not provide equal protection or liberties to non-whites, the ruling was not consistent with the 14th Amendment. Therefore, The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling stated that segregation was unconstitutional.

 

EXPLANATION:  

There are some decisions of Plessy v. Ferguson:

 

Majority Opinion

Seven judges established the majority of the Court and joined the opinions compiled by Judge Henry Billings Brown. The court's opinion first refused the claim that Louisiana law violated the Thirteenth Amendment, that, in the majority opinion, did not more than approve that African-Americans had the fundamental level of legal equality needed to exterminate slavery.

Next, the Court considered whether the law misused the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled that although the Fourteenth Amendment was purposed to assure the legal equality of all races in America, it was not intended to prevent social discrimination or any discrimination encounter.

The court held that the laws requiring racial segregation were under the right of the Louisiana police. It was stated that on condition that the law which ordered and separated people according to their race was a reasonable action and good intentions from the control of the State police—and was not aimed to coerce particular classes—the law was lawful.

As stated by the Court, the question in racial segregation law case like Plessy was whether the law added up, and the Court delivered great authority to the State legislature to determine the rationality of the law they delivered. The court rejected the idea that the law suggested African-Americans as a "badge of inferiority", and stated that racial prejudice could not be debilitated by law.

Dissenting Opinion

Judge John Marshall Harlan has merely reveled from the decision and strongly disagreed. Harlan resisted the Court's opinion of Plessy's disapproval that the Louisiana law advised African--Americans to be inferior and stated that the provision was deliberately not known.

As proof of this thoughtful ignorance, Harlan clarified that the Louisiana law covered an exception for "nurses caring for children of other races"—this permitted African-Americans women who care for white kids to be in whites’ cars only. This presented that African-Americans can be in whites’ cars only whether it is obvious that they are "domestic" or "social subordinates".

LEARN MORE:  

If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, we recommend you to also take a look at the following questions:

• The Plessy v. Ferguson ruling stated that? brainly.com/question/354100

KEYWORDS : The Plessy v. Ferguson, 14th Amendment

Subject  : English

Class  : College

Sub-Chapter : The Plessy v. Ferguson,