Plessy Vs. Ferguson TrialEssay Preview: Plessy Vs. Ferguson TrialReport this essayLouisiana passed a statute that made it mandatory that trains provide “equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races” in 1890. The fine for breaking this statute was a $25 fine or 20 days in jail. Homer Plessey a colored 30 year old shoemaker from New Orleans broke this law in 1892 because he was only an eighth black, but even this small percentage caused the state to label him as a “colored” person. This was planned by the Citizens Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law, a committee that was against the law that caused segregation in trains. When Plessey refused to move to the colored section he was arrested. Plessey took the case to court but Judge John Howard Ferguson ruled against him. Plessey took the case to the Louisiana Supreme Court but they ruled in favor of Ferguson. He then took the cause to the United States Supreme Court.
The Citizens Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law appointed Albion Tourgee as its legal representative. Tourgee argued that the law was unconstitutional, that it was a violation against Plesseys civil rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Ferguson said that the law was unconstitutional only for trains passing through several states, but since it was only in Louisiana the law was constitutional. He believed that states had a right to set segregation policies within its own territory.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ferguson in an eight to nine decision. Justice Henry Brown said that the Thirteenth amendment protected the civil rights of blacks. Blacks had the same civil rights as whites, but were not socially equal since they were not as socially advanced as the whites were. They also said that Tourgees arguments that it was against the Fourteenth amendment were invalid because the separate car law was not meant to degrade blacks, since both whites and blacks had separate but equal cars, and that the law worked both ways, whites were forbidden to sit in the colored cars. Justice John Harlan was the only justice who sided with Plessey; he said that the law was made with the purpose of keeping the blacks away from the whites. The law was not passed in order to keep white people out of black train cars. He said that “Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens
in the United States and all nations have equal rights and duties, and the law is always a law of the land, not of the seas. The Supreme Court said that the Equal Rights and Equal Protection Clause of our Constitution is being violated in one hundred and forty-four cases, to say nothing of the cases where there is less than fifty days to decide. This was only one of many arguments that Judge Harlan threw at Ferguson’s case, so he took up a different position; he said that the law did not mean, for instance, to outlaw the wearing of black hat at public meetings; as a means of suppressing protest, the law is also against the rule of law. The law does not mean that he is against all Americans’ personal rights. He said that this was in accordance with the nature of our national system of government, and he did not object to the First Amendment but said that he thought the right to privacy and fair search should be protected in this way, and he also said that a good constitutional rule is that the laws of the land, if they are used to suppress protest, ought not to be used against private conduct. Justice Harry Reid said that the Bill of Rights gave the States the right to take away the property they put to use; he said Justice D.W. Griffith gave them the right to take away the property they put to use in the Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected the assertion of those who argue that the Constitution protects the individual liberty of blacks and women to defend the Constitution. He added, “There is no doubt — and one will never doubt — that there can be exceptions to the basic guarantees of free and fair elections and the guarantee of fair and equal treatment of the members of the family. The question is whether there may be sufficient force or no force, by the power of the United States, to create a government which protects the individual. It is the responsibility of the states, in the hands of the Supreme Court, to make all that can be done with regard to such issues, and to find among them a policy and legislative plan which reflects the best interests of each of us.” For the Court, it was up to each state to make up its mind, and it must decide the question. The first step toward this is to decide the case, and the Supreme Court may take other routes. It has made amendments of its own to the Constitution. It might put the same changes in our constitution at the federal level that are in some ways necessary to this country’s existence (in other words, to protect us from acts detrimental to our national identity and liberties). It might even make the case for what is right in some other places. The Court has not yet decided everything in its own opinion, and its final opinion may be a few years later, but should it prove valid, it will make it clear to the citizens and the Supreme Court that the States must make the laws to protect the citizens of each other. But even if it were required that the government make every law but one to protect all citizens, then this course of action would be wrong. Some of the State statutes made by the Court during the course of its ruling would have a different effect than those of some of its earlier decisions. Those statutes would allow a state to enact regulations governing the building and operation of the roads; it would impose a state’s duty of care on all local businesses; it would protect the health and safety of the public and of other local individuals; and the new business laws could be made more stringent so that it would avoid creating an issue of public controversy or of public importance. As for the Second Amendment, the Court has given the free-enterprise movement a huge push under the rule of law and there has been much debate about the meaning of that phrase. The Amendment was passed because of its potential to replace the right of the states to make laws about public business, a right which has been subject to a federal government for many decades