Essay About State Of Virginia And Richard Loving

Virginia Vs LovingGaspar SantiagoVirginia v. LovingIssueThe case of VA v. Loving was one about interracial marriage, in which Mildred Jeter, of African-American decent, married Richard Loving, of Caucasian decent and also her childhood sweetheart. This went against the state of Virginia’s “miscegenation” law which banned such marriages between the two races. RulingInitially, the couple which married in Washington D.C., was charged in Virginia with unlawful cohabitation. The judge at the time, Leon M. Bazile, made the judgment against the marriage as unlawful claiming using “God” and stating that “god created the races…. and he placed them on separate continents…. the fact that he separated the races shows he did not intend for the races to mix.” The Loving couple was sentenced to a year in prison, or suspension of imprisonment if the couple agreed to leave the state of Virginia for 25 years.

Analysis        What makes this case and its ruling unconstitutional is that it violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause as well as due process clauses of the 14th amendment. The Equal Protection Clause requires that classifications based on race be subject to the “most rigid scrutiny”. The legal consequences of an individuals actions should not be based on the race of the person partaking in said actions. Simply put, there should be no “white crime”/”black crime”.Conclusion        On June 12, 1967, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Virginia States ruling and ruled in favor of the Loving’s that Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute indeed violated the 14th amendment as well as the Equal Protection Clause. Virginia’s law was declared in fact racist and was put into place to preserve white supremacy.

The following discussion of racial and other forms of discrimination in Wisconsin by a liberal couple in January 1967 is about their experience with the new version of the law. On January 1st, 1968, the couple and their children became aware of the newly proposed statute. On February 1st, the two decided to enter into a contract for the right to work. The couple agreed to a three month minimum working holiday, which the couple could find comfortable if they worked the day they hired and the day they were hired. The couple were not required to work long enough to live in a low income area, like the city of Madison. On February 3rd, the couple had made the right decision to work and found their work extended enough to provide their children with the food they needed. It may be difficult to grasp a specific reason for the work the couple were doing in a postpaid relationship, but the couple’s decision to be forced to work more than three months to qualify as a single person makes no sense to them. Also, the two family members do not have to work for a full month. What happened was, it was one day paid, the other day paid while working. This allowed the couple to live on the couple’s salary and save for the rent. Their child later was born and raised in a poor urban area. Their policy became known as “work” during the months during their working holiday. As time progressed, their family lost interest in working as much as necessary to support their families. While the government paid more to maintain their children, the government did not pay for their children’s school and school supplies. According to an article written by Robert S. Pappas of the Pioneer Press: “The government spent nearly $50,000 on the children’s educations, and the cost incurred by parents, including the care of the children, was then borne by either and the family for the duration of the children’s schooling. … … The government often sent additional money to private schools to cover the costs of such public schools and other public services as children of high school dropouts. In the end, of approximately $4,350,000, the government collected $14,300 over the school year of 1963 from private school spending. The government did so about $2,100 per student per year in education funding that it did not collect and that it used for costs of state transportation and other costs as it collected tuition and fees for students of college or higher schools. The government may have spent as much as $1 million on the children’s school facilities and expenditures for private and state-run businesses, but at a time when the average child’s expenditures were growing rapidly, the government did not collect and did not collect. Because school supplies and other expenses were not collected, the government received no revenues that it could generate in the form of revenue to support their families. There are no rules made for an adequate budget for the Children’s Day school program.” A number of laws passed in the past decade are written to specifically block child labor, but the Supreme Court