"Was
Plessy v. Ferguson a Case of Judicial
Activism?"
A Focus on the 14th Ammendment
Samples of
student work - see
conclusion for comments
Essay
A
The Plessy
v. Ferguson case of 1896
wan an argument between a black
man, Homer Plessy and the Louisiana
State. Homer Plessy was a mixed
of Caucasian and African descent,
being one-eight black and seventh-eight
white, but he looked white.
Homer Plessy purchased a train
ticket and then sat down in
an area reserved for only whites.
The conductor ofthe East Louisiana
Railway ordered Homer Plessy
to move to an area reserved
for people of his color, but
he refused. Homer Plessy claimed
that the Louisiana State violated
the Thirteenth and Fourteenth
Amendments when they removed
him form the train and place
him in jail. The Supreme Court
ruled 7-1 vote in supporting
the Louisiana State. The outcome
of the Plessy v. Ferguson
showed that the Supreme Court
were asserting judicial activism
because Homer Plessy was not
treated like a citizen being
deprived of life, liberty, or
property which the Fourteenth
Amendment made clear that no
state shall deny.
The opposition
might argue that the decision
of the Plessy vs. Ferguson
was following the fourteenth
Amendment exactly. Louisiana
did not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment because it did not
restrict blacks any differently
from whites. There were areas
reserved on the train for whites
and black. The East Louisiana
Railway was only obeying the
"equal, but separate accommodations"
set forth by the Louisiana legislature.
The law said that no on was
allowed to ride in an area not
assigned for them. If any passengers
violate this law then they would
be fined twenty-five dollars
or put in jail for up to twenty
days. The Amendment was not
meant to enforced social commingle
of the two races or to make
the two races socially equal.
Laws that required the separation
of the two races does note indicate
that one race is more inferior
or superior than the other.
Homer Plessy was
robbed of his citizenship on
June 7, 1892. The Fourteenth
Amendment states that all persons
born or naturalized in United
States are citizens of the United
States and in fact Homer Plessy
indeed was a citizen since his
birth on March 16, 1862 in New
Orleans, Louisiana. As a citizen
under the U.S. Constitution
no state can deprive you of
life, liberty, or property.
When Homer Plessy was arrested
and taken to jail he was deprived
of liberty. When the conductor
refused to let him sit and board
the train hew was depriving
him of his property. Homer Plessy
was deprived of his property
because he did bought a train
ticket which meant that he did
have a right to be on that train,
but was removed from it. His
life was also taken away because
he did not get a chance to go
where sought to go.
The "equal,
but separate" accommodation
was not equal at all. The Louisiana
State argued that they were
preserving established traditions,
but all they were doing were
creating problems. The "equal,
but separate" accommodation
was not equal at all because
the whites had better seats
than the blacks. If the accommodation
were equal then why didn't whites
sit in the area where the black
were forced to sit? Therefore
blacks did not have public and
political right which means
that the white race set forth
to the dominant of the two.
When Louisiana did not allow
Homer Plessy a black man to
sit in an area reserved for
whites it sends out a message
that the colored race is so
inferior and disgraced that
they could not be in the same
coaches as other whites. The
Supreme Court is encouraging
racial segregation.
The ruling of
the Supreme Court showed that
the justices were practicing
judicial activism by going against
the Fourteenth Amendment. The
supporters of the decision would
argue that the Fourteenth Amendment
did not have the power to make
the two races socially equal
or to force the two races to
be friends. Clearly Home Plessy
was a citizen, but the State
of Louisiana did not treat
him as one. His life, liberty
and property were all taken
away from him. The incident
on the East Louisiana Railway
proved that the whites believed
that they are the dominant race
therefore refusing to associate
with other races.
Essay B
The Plessy v. Ferguson
case was when a man who was
a mix of black and white sat
in the "white part"
of the train in Louisiana. Plessy
is that man. He was one-eights
black and seven eights white.
He was removed from the train
by officials for refusing to
obey the Louisiana law. Plessy
pleaded not guilty and that
the Louisiana law "separate
but equal" was unlawful
because it violated the Thirteenth
and Fourteenth Amendment. The
justices voted Plessy guilty
and convicted him. The decision
of the Plessy v. Ferguson case
was based on judicial activism
because it was more of a racial
issue rather than a violation
issue and it did violate the
Fourteenth Amendment.
The opposition stated that
Plessy disobeyed the Louisiana
law. They stated that the Louisiana
"separate but equal"
law did neither violate the
Thirteenth nor the Fourteenth
Amendment. The case had nothing
to do with "involuntary
servitude" which means
that it excluded the Thirteenth
Amendment from the case. The
opposition also sated that the
case did not violate the Fourteenth
Amendment because it did not
take away Plessy's rights. His
rights were taken away after
Plessy violated the "separate
but equal" law, not before.
The majority of the justices
convicted Plessy by seven to
one. But others may not have
agreed with the justices.
The opponents of the result
may say that the case was not
based on the violation of a
law, but was based on the justices
"interpretations"
of the laws. The justices claim
that the "separate but
equal" law did not violate
the Fourteenth Amendment because
it neither denied Plessy his
rights nor did it take his "life,
liberty or property." But,
not letting Plessy sit in the
first class is denying him his
rights, and taking him by force
was taking away his liberty.
Yes, he broke the law, but the
law wasn't even perfect to begin
with. When the "separate
but equal" law was created,
his rights were limited. The
law separated blacks and whites
on railway cars, and was not
equal. It was not equal because
of the fact that blacks supposedly
cannot purchase first class
tickets because they barely
have enough money; also, because
the back of the cars for blacks
were dirty, stinky, and nasty,
and the whites had the cleaner
and smoke-free area ofthe car.
Also, it was unlawful because
it was incorrect. The law stated
that is has to be equal, but
nothing was equal when it came
to economic things. Creating
this law already violated the
Constitution. This concludes
that the justices interpreted
beyond the law, which means
they were racist.
Secondly, to prove that the
justices used judicial activism
in the case, most of the justices
were Confederates. Most of justices
fought in the Civil War as Confederates.
Confederates are those who lived
the southern states and fought
for slavery. This shows racism.
They believed that blacks were
property and should not receive
the same rights as them. The
Confederates voted Plessy guilty.
They excluded the law and voted
with their own personal feelings.
The justices were unfair because
they wanted blacks to suffer.
It was a seven to one vote.
The one was John Harlan who
stated that the nation is supposed
to be color-blind and sees no
color. He also stated that all
races should be treated equally
no matter the skin they are
in.
The Plessy v. Ferguson
case convicted a black man who
bought a first class ticket
to sit at the front of the railway
car. The vote was seven to one.
The justices put aside the law
and voted with their personal
feelings of blacks. This was
judicial activism. The case
was more of the justices using
judicial activism other than
the violation of the amendment
because of the fact that it
took away Plessy's rights. The
justices may have known this
but refused to apply it to their
votes. They may have known that
the "separate but
equal" law was not being
applied to the people of the
nation because blacks were not
even treated equally to whites.
They had the worst supplies
and facilities and many other
things. The justices may have
known all this, but they voted
the way they did because of
their beliefs that they are
superior to blacks.
Essay C
"All persons born or
naturalized in the United States,
and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens ofthe
United States and of the state
wherein they reside. No state
shall make or enforce a law
which shall abridge the privileges
and immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall
any state deprive any person
of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of the law;
nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection
of the laws..." from section
1 of 14th amendment which mean
all American had treated equal.
But in 1880, the court decision
and the state law severely limited
African American rights. During
this year, Louisiana passed
a law, which mean, "equal
but separate accommodations
for white and colors races."
That was why the decision from
Plessy v. Ferguson
case in 1886 had not true with
the 14th amendment.
Who was Plessy?
30 years old, named Homer Plessy.
A shoemaker had bought a first
class ticket on the East Louisiana
Railroad, moving from New Orleans
to Convington. He had sit on
the white only of passenger
car. When they collected his
ticket, he told them that he
was 1/8 African American that
he was refuse to sit on the
sit black only. He had arrest
by police and released on $500.00
bond. He thought they treated
unfair for him. Plessy petitioned
the Louisiana Supreme Court
for writ against Ferguson. But
the Louisiana state supreme
refused. 4 years later, Plessy
appealed to Supreme Court of
United States. Plessy v. Ferguson
case begins.
During the Plessy v Ferguson
case, there were eight justices.
Most of them consider Plessy
was black. Only one lone dissenter,
who argued in favor ofPlessy's
case, and seemed to be the only
one with a real understanding
of equality, was Justice John
Harlan. He wrote his own speech
regarding the case and its decision.
"Our Constitution
is color-blind, and neither
knows nor tolerates classes
among citizens. In respect
of civil rights, all citizens
are equal before the law..
.In my opinion, the judgment
this day rendered will, in
time, prove to be quite as
pernicious as the decision
made by this tribunal in the
Dred Scott case...The present
decision,
