Upgrade to remove ads
Only $35.99/year

PSCI-4220 Exam 2 Study Guide

Terms in this set (9)

What does Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution say and how did it end up in the Constitution?
- Does not say slaves, but is the start of the end of slave trade by 1888 cap
- Maintained status quo for 20 ish years after passing of constitution so southern people had a continued right to own slaves
- Signal of an end at some point but not immediately and allowed congress to look at it over time
- The north and the south had opposing opinions and felt it was a good compromise
Why was the decision in Dred Scott devastating not only for Mr. Scott and his Wife but all people in the US of African heritage?
- Dred lived as slave but was taken to free land, wasn't given freedom from this because all slave desendence were denied citizenship, no slave or decendent had the right to go to court to assert their freedom like whites were able to do ("free" but freedoms/rights restricted)
- Even if freed, slaves and slave descendants not granted rights that only whites were entitled to
What was the 3/5ths Compromise? What necessitated it?
- The south wanted to count slaves as population for house of representatives purposes because it's based on population, but no rights or freedoms were given along with this, and the north didn't want to count them at all for these reasons and for their benefit
- Compromised by counting 3/5 of the total slave population as "population"
One of the first cases granting Black men equality was Strauder v. West Virginia. Why did the Supreme Court grant Black men equal rights in this case but separate but equal was still the law elsewhere?
- WV law declared that only whites may serve on juries - When on purely racial grounds, it is unconstitutional for state law barring african americans from jury service violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14'th amd
- While separate but equal was still the law, there is no separate judicial systems - people are citizens and cannot be denied that right
- places in the south followed the supreme court in the letter but not in practice (peremptory challenges, dismissals, etc.)
- Court admits to inferiority imposed on black race and not being allowed all forms of citizenship
We read about a couple of cases where Black men were granted admission to higher education in whites only universities. Why was this allowed while separate but equal was still the law elsewhere?
- Gaines v. Canada: separate black undergrad school grad but no separate law school option, denied admission to UMO law school - Separate but equal, but here not equal because he had no other law school to apply to and denied based on race - 14'th EPC violation

- McLaurin v. OK: similar issues to Gaines but for doctoral program, student admitted but segregated and disconnected within the school, ordered to stop this treatment - can't segregate within the program further once allowed in, must be equally admitted

- Separate but equal on the books, but higher education was only allowed to whites in some situations - To make things equal without any other options it was allowed and equal treatment was required upon admission
Describe the decisions of Brown v. Bd. Of Ed. 1 and 2. Why were the decisions a sudden significant change and the beginning of a slow change.
1. EPC of 14'th provides black equal schooling and desegregation (trumps the decision in plessy v. ferguson) - separate is now unconstitutional

2. No real SC action, but to make sure it's happening quickly and swiftly "at all deliberate speed" which wasn't a great incentive to act fast for local controls and infrastructure
Why did the Supreme Court not decide for integration in Detroit in Milliken v. Bradley?
- Detroit Public School plan to diversify schools not required -No significant constitutional violation at hand (defacto racism), and it wasn't justified by brown v. ed
- SC said no statutory requirement for segregation in MI and some suggestion there is historical policy leading to it but not clear
- remedy where districts weren't responsible are not appropriate - Unconstitutional for governor to order segregation plan this burdensome and impactful
Specifically, what did the Supreme Court determine related to racially restrictive covenants?
- SHELLY v. Kramer: state action or enforcement of racial covenants is unconstitutional and violates 14'th EPC. - private contract that people can choose to follow, but no state court action or enforcement is allowed if a distinction is made based on race
What is the current holding of the Supreme Court for affirmative action in schools?
- First, while Bakke recognizes diversity as a state interest, it establishes that minority admission quota systems are unconstitutional (after bakke was qualified but denied twice)

- Second, Gratz establishes that points systems granting minorities significant consideration is unconstitutional and basically a quota (after gratz denied from UM)

- However, Grutter v. Bollinger establishes that Law Schools can narrowly tailor the use of race in admissions - Diversity passes strict scrutiny as a compelling state interest

- Michigan: in BAMN, michigan made it illegal to account for race in admissions, state decided they didn't want to have race considered

- Constitutional at graduate level everywhere to account for race as long as its not a point system or quota in every state (as long as compelling state interest) but michigan
Other sets by this creator