Explore BrainMass

Explore BrainMass

    Anti-miscegenation Statutes

    This content was COPIED from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

    Research, review, and analyze Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States and chose two (2) relevant cases. Then, write a 4-5 page paper in which you:

    1. Analyze and evaluate each case independently by providing the following (about two paragraphs per case):
    - Facts of the case
    - Issues
    - Rule
    2. Compare and contrast both cases in regards to the Anti-Miscegenation Statutes.
    3. Analyze how this statute could have influenced Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) and the Fourteenth Amendment.
    4. Explain the significance of this statute to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM).
    Provide references.

    © BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com June 4, 2020, 5:22 am ad1c9bdddf

    Solution Preview

    In accordance with BrainMass standards, this is not a hand in ready paper but is only background help.
    Step 1
    Loving v. Virginia, 388 US 1 (1967)
    - Facts of the case
    Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Jeter a black woman married in Columbia and returned to Virginia. The couple were charged with violating the state's anti-miscegenation law and were sentenced to one year in prison.
    - Issue: Did Virginia's anti miscegenation law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
    - Rule: Yes, the unanimous decision said that the Court held that the distinction drawn according to race were generally "odious to free people" and were subject to " the most rigid scrutiny". The Virginia law had no legitimate purpose apart from racial discrimination. The court held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. .
    Second Case:
    Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal.2d 711, 198 P.2d 17
    - Facts of the case
    Perez was a Mexican American woman and Davis was an African American man who met while working in the defense industry. They applied for marriage at the County Clerk of Los Angeles. Perez listed her race as white and Davis listed his race as Negro. Sharp the County Clerk refused to issue the license because California Civil Code Section 60 deemed all inter-race marriages as illegal and void. Perez appealed to the California Supreme Court.
    - Issues: Did the state anti-miscegenation law infringe on their right to marriage?
    - Rule:
    Yes, the court held that marriage is a fundamental right and laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The court voided th California statute and said that the code was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable restrictions on fundamental right to marriage. It also violated the Fourteenth Amendment by impairing the right to marry on the basis of race alone.

    Step 2
    The Loving v. Virginia was a US Supreme Court decision that put aside all state statutes that had miscegenation laws. In contrast during ...

    Solution Summary

    This solution explains different aspects of anti-miscegenation statues in the US and cases related to the statutes. The sources used are also included in the solution.