Brown V. Board Of Education Of Topek Case Study

1

Wayne Clark
AC1308273
C08 American Government
Lesson 8 Writing Assignment
May 17, 2014
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka

Inequality in this country began when the first African slaves were brought to the North
American Colony of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1619, to aid in the production of such lucrative crops as tobacco. The American Civil War settled in 1865, would only mark the beginning of equality for African-Americans. It wasn’t until 1954 that the United States Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483, (1954), that would render Jim Crow Laws unconstitutional. That decision began an age of Judicial Activism for the
Supreme Court in respect to Stare Decisis, the Mootness Doctrine, and
Constitutional
Interpretation.
The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn its previous ruling in, Plessy v. Ferguson,
(1896), defied the very judicial principle of Stare Decisis. This ruling undoubtedly marked its place in American history, as precedent shows today, and continues to be known as the courts first act of judicial activism. The philosophical idea of judicial activism over judicial restraint has been criticized by legal scholars who say it’s legislating from the bench. However, the differing legal philosophies are debatable to times end and are left to the interpretations of each judge and justice. 2

The Supreme Court included no guidance in its first ruling on Brown v. Board of
Education on how to actually implement desegregation. Instead, it called for further court discussion, after which it issued a second unanimous ruling in May 1955. Known as Brown II, this decision tasked local federal judges with making sure that schools were integrated. Although this case was a first of its kind, the lengthy court discussion, the second oral argument, and the court’s decision to issue a second opinion have come under fire. The plan to integrate should have been left that to the executive branch for carrying out of the rule of law. President Dwight
D. Eisenhower ultimately did this through Executive Order, federalizing the Arkansas National
Guard to break up the mass riots and oversee the desegregation.
The Legal Defense Fund, a branch of the National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP) under the direction of Thurgood Marshall, led the charge for Oliver L.
Brown, the plaintiff in the case.
Marshall along with a team of attorneys developed the strategy to attack the “equal” part of the Jim Crow Laws and established that the amenities provided for the black students were not equal under the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. The Court in its unanimous decision agreed with the petitioner, overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, and ruled segregation unconstitutional once and for all.
The Supreme Court made many strides in coming to its opinion, the justices used the philosophy of statutory construction in interpreting the 14th amendment, viewed the constitution as a living document with the original values that do in fact change as society changes. This type of philosophy can be seen with the court’s decision to overturn precedent that was interpreted in a time where segregation was socially acceptable. Therefore, Brown v. Board of Education will always be known as the case that changed American history for decades to come.

3

Special Interest in American Politics

An interest group is an organization whose members share common concerns, and try to influence government policies that impact those concerns trough the philosophy of Pluralism.
Elected officials frequently complain about the influence of "special interests" on
American politics. Year after year, election cycle after election cycle, politicians on both sides of the isle, republican and democrat, continue to accept campaign contribution from special interest groups.
One of the most important groups that I support is the Human Rights Campaign. The
HRC as it’s known for short, is a special interest group combined of more than 1.5 million members that support equality in the Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual, and Transgender (LGBT) communities. The efforts of the HRC are combined with many partners in assisting with legal cases nationwide challenging states discriminatory laws. The Human Rights Campaign also hosts and supports rallies nationwide for equality for LGBT people and most importantly HRC offers education to the public on those issues.
The Human Rights Campaign supports many elected officials that agree with the mission of the HRC. Mostly democratic candidates are recipients of HRC’s campaign contributions and right-wing republicans are the least favored. The HRC has lobbied congressional politicians on both the state and national levels to support legislation that is important to its mission. The
Human Rights Campaign has also supported and hosted protests against laws that currently exist and those progressing in congress on both levels of government. The HRC influences the determination of same-sex couples who wish to marry and are denied, to then take their case to a court of law. The fight for civil rights, equality and the progressive movement to advance justice for the discriminated are reason that I will always support the HRC and its efforts.

4

Out of the many special interest groups in American politics today, the one that I most disagree with on every aspect of its existence is the America Family Association. The AFA which was founded in 1977 holds its mission to be that of family values and happily displays its ideology as Anti-LGBT. The main agenda of the AFA is to promote traditional moral values and
“combating the homosexual agenda” as it states it. The most recent activity of the AFA was in
2013 to defeat the litigation of the HRC partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union
(ACLU) in overturning California’s Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which they ultimately failed in.
The American Family Association through its Political Action Committee (PAC) supports every republican candidate in the US Congress that disagrees with same-sex marriage and publicly criticizes the liberal democrats that do not.
The AFA has lobbied congress just as any other special interest group in politics. It also owns several radio stations to convey its rightwinged views about homosexuality, abortion, and Christianity.
I dislike the American Family Association for their continued discrimination of LGBT people, its opposition to equality for same-sex couples, and for their conservative values which I do not support. However, I do respect the AFA in its right to hold the values that it does.
I would like to bring to light that the Human Rights Campaign has many corporate members including Bank of America, Apple, Citi Group and Microsoft to name a few contrary to
AFA’s efforts against it. One thing that I did find very alarming of the AFA was its effort to influence the President of Uganda to continue with the execution of the death penalty imposed on a group of convicted homosexuals. This ideology is repulsive from such an organization that holds the word of God to heart and yet it supports the taking of another human beings
life.

5

References
Wasserman, Gary. The basics of American politics. 14th ed. Boston: Longman, 2011. Print.
PBS. Slavery Timeline. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from https://www.pbs.org
US Courts. Brown v. Board of Education. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from http://www.uscourts.gov Human Rights Campaign. About Us. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from https://www.hrc.org
American Family Association. About Us. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from https://www.afa.net
Political Research Associates. American Family Association. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from https://www.politicalresearch.org. Open Secrets. Human Rights Campaign. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from https://www.opensecrets.org Glasstetter J. Why Would a 'Mainstream Conservative Think Tank ' Praise the 'Kill the Gays '
Law?. (n.d.). Right Wing Watch. Retrieved May 21, 2014, from
http://www.rightwingwatch.org