Preview

The Statutes Pave V. Alabama & Loving V. Virginia

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1365 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
The Statutes Pave V. Alabama & Loving V. Virginia
Assignment 2: The Statutes- Pace v. Alabama & Loving v. Virginia

Ashlee R. Hall

PAD 525: Constitution & Administrative Law
Dr. Lee
January 29, 2012

Was there ever a period in history where interracial marriages and sex among people of different races was considered illegal? As absurd as this idea sounds, the answer is yes. Astonishingly, less than 40 years ago marrying someone of a different race was considered illegal. Black people could not be with white people- it just couldn’t happen. These statutes date back to colonial times, around the 1600s, which at this time helped to maintain the racial caste system and expand slavery. Two particular landmark cases convey the importance of Anti-Miscegenation Statutes in the United States: Pace v. Alabama (1883) & Loving v. Virginia (1967). The 1883 case upholds the constitutionality of anti-miscegenation statutes whereas the 1967 case affirms that these statutes are repugnant and unconstitutional. It is important to review these two cases in depth in terms of their facts, issues at hand, and their rulings. Pace v. Alabama & Loving v. Virginia have their differences and similarities but can be considered influential on Brown v. Board of Education and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOM). In the case Pace v. Alabama, section 4184 of the Code of Alabama provides that if any ‘man and woman live together in adultery or fornication, each of them must, on the first conviction of the offense be fined no less than $100 and may also be imprisoned in the county jail or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not more than six months.’ Also in 1883 the same code as stated above declares that ‘if any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard



Cited: http://laws.findlaw.com/us/106/583.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0388_0001_ZO.html

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Good Essays

    Facts: Police officers were in pursuit of a suspected drug dealer, and were led to an apartment complex. The officers ended up outside of a certain apartment, were the smell of marijuana emanated. The police knocked loudly, and from inside the apartment they heard movement, and the police believed that the sounds were an indication that evidence was being destroyed. The police announced their intent to enter the apartment, kicked the door down to find drugs and drug paraphernalia in plain sight, and arrested King and others. They continued to search the apartment and came across other evidence. King argued that due to the officers not having a warrant…

    • 997 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Facts: An undercover police officer watched a controlled deal from inside his unmarked police car. When the deal was over, the undercover police officer radioed for uniformed police officers to move in on the suspect, who was heading towards a breezeway in an apartment complex.…

    • 461 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    The Lovings, were accused of violating the state’s “Racial Integrity Act of 1924, an anti-miscegenation statute.…

    • 109 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    Mildred Jeter, an African-American woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, went to Washington, D.C, to get married and avoid Virginia’s interracial marriage ban. When they returned to Virginia not long after, the Lovings were arrested under the charges of violating Virginia’s interracial marriage ban.…

    • 189 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Virginia on April 7th 2003 a divided United States Supreme Court opened the possibility of constitutionally restricting certain types of hate speech. The court was to hear a case that spoke to one specific Virginia state statute that prohibited cross burning with the intent to intimidate, and also rendered that any such burning shall be prima facie evidence of an intent to intimidate a person or group. This court would see this statute being used between two separate cases. The first case was against Barry Black; in August of 1998 Black led a Ku Klux Klan rally at which the conclusion resulted in the burning of a cross on private property with the permission of the owner. Black was charged under the state statute, “Burning a cross with the intent to intimidate.” [347] The jury was instructed in accordance with the Model Jury Instruction that the burning of the cross by itself is sufficient evidence from which you may infer the required intent. [364] In May 1998 Richard Elliot and Jonathan O’Mara attempted to burn a cross on the lawn of Elliot’s neighbor and were charged in accordance under the cross-burning statute. After all of the respondents were convicted, they appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia arguing that the cross-burning statute is unconstitutional. The Virginia Supreme court reversed all the convictions holding that the Virginia cross-burning statute is analytically indistinguishable from the ordinance found…

    • 884 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In Loving v Virginia a married couple from Washington D.C. moved to Virginia where they were then subject to Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute. Anti-miscegenation laws prohibit the marrying of different races with another. In Virginia, this statute prohibited the marriage between whites and any other race. Richard Loving, a white man, and Mildred Jeter, a black woman, were married in Washington D.C. They then moved to the state of Virginia where they faced criminal charges. Both of them pled guilty and were sentenced to one year imprisonment but the sentence would be waved for 25 years if they moved out of state and didn’t return.…

    • 600 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    As the case of Garden State Equality vs. Dow unravels into the Supreme Court hearings, there will be an indefinite variety of opinions and disputes of minds. There is room for controversy and disputes will arise. There are miss-interpretations and quotes that government officials and citizens against civil union rights have expressed and demonstrated about same-sex couples and their right to marry. This is an example of an interpretation given to describe differences in marital relationships by one of the Opinions of the Justices to the Senate, 440 Mass. at 1207, it states, “The dissimilitude between the terms “civil marriage” and “civil union” is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of…

    • 575 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    I chose to discuss a Supreme Court Case which was found to be in direct violation of the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case I am discussing is Loving v. Virginia. Initially, the Anti-miscegenation laws were put into place during the slavery/colonial period. No white man would tarnish his reputation or family name by actually marrying a slave but would indulge in the forbidden fruit by raping and/or having adulterous relationships with the slave. If through their sexual activity a child was born and his or her paternity rights were denied.…

    • 564 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    There was also the case of Pace v. Alabama which allowed Alabama to outlaw interracial sex and marriage. Justice’s decided Plessy’s case did not conflict with the thirteen amendment, although the fourteen amendment which was violated, was decided that seperation of races did not violate the 14th amendment since states had the right to regulate railroad companies that run only in the state, according to the supreme court also stated that Plessy was not being treated as a slave or unequal, and that seperation did not violate 14th or 15th amendments. Since this decision was made and with the influence of past cases that did not support the Plessy v. Ferguson case,a legal culture among citizens and law officials was created in which it was believed that it was okay to have separate facilities. The concept of internal legal culture judges from state and supreme court and lawyers!!!!. internal legal culture, the citizens believed that it was fine if there was…

    • 1266 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    virginia v morre

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages

    The day was February 20,2003, in the city of Portsmouth where two Portsmouth police officers had pulled a vehicle over who was driven by David Lee Moore. While listening to police radio they had heard that the man they pulled over who went by the nickname “chubs” was driving on a suspended license. The officer’s soon determined that chubbs was indeed driving on a suspended license. The officers who made the stop arrested chubbs for the misdemeanor of driving on a suspended license. This violation could have lead to chubbs serving a 1-year in jail and a $25,000 fine, according to Va Code Ann 18.2-11. The officers then searched the vehicle in which chubbs was driving. During the search of the vehicle the officers found 16 grams of crack cocaine and $516 in cash. The state law of Virginia states that the officers should have offered Moore a summons rather than arresting him. The statutes of the Fourth Amendment give the officers the right to search if they believe a crime was committed in their presence. The act of driving on a suspended license is not an offense you can be arrested for unlike other misdemeanors.…

    • 1241 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    Sollors, Werner, ed. Interracialism: Black-White Intermarriage in American History, Literature, and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.…

    • 3133 Words
    • 13 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Good Essays

    The Plaintiffs in Loving v. Virginia were Richard and Mildred Loving, who were represented by the ACLU in the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff argued the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and anti-miscegenation laws violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment explains, “No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law.” As declared by the Constitution and Maynard v. Hill case, marriage is a civil right for citizens of the United States and the decision of whether one decides to marry a colored person or not cannot be infringed by any state. Denying anyone their given right to marry without due process of the…

    • 274 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Virginia is a United States Supreme Court case which laws prohibited interracial marriage. The case was brought to Mildred and Richard Loving, a white man and a black woman, who were sentenced to a year in prison for being married. The marriage violated the anti-miscegenation law, which prohibited marriage between classified “white” and “colored” people. This is how a local Sheriff ,who is believed to have received a tip, entered Mildred and Richard’s bedroom around 2 a.m. and took them to the Bowling Green Jail where they were charged with violating state law. Mildred had stayed in jail several nights while Richard was able to post bail the next day.…

    • 1112 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Loving Vs Virginia Essay

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages

    In June of 1958, Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving married in the District of Columbia. They were residents of Virginia but due to Virginia’s laws they weren’t able to marry within their state. The state of Virginia prevented marriages based on racial classification. After the couple married they returned to their home state in Caroline County where they were then charged for violating Virginia’s ban on interracial marriages. The Loving’s went to court and was sentenced to a year in jail. However, the judge suspended the trial for twenty-five years on the condition that the Loving’s wouldn’t return to Virginia for those twenty-five years.…

    • 595 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Loving V. Virginia

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages

    According to the Equal Protection Clause govern by The Fourteenth Amendment; no one will be deprived of life, liberty or prosperity. Legislature and Judges were suppose to uphold the Constitution of the United States, but did not. Even after going through protocol by appealing to the highest court of appeals, the Loving family sentence remained due to the state of Virginia’s objective concerning interracial marriages.…

    • 533 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays

Related Topics