Next Three Weeks<br />This Week<br />Next Week<br />Following Week<br />
Civil Rights via Supreme Court<br />Constitution is living document?<br />Constitution – What are amendments?<br />What are a few of the first 10?<br />
Civil Rights via Constitution<br />Amendment<br />What it did<br />15th<br />19th<br />26th<br />Right to vote for men of all races<br />Right to vote for women<br />Lowers voting age to 18<br />
Small Group Interpretation<br />14th Amendment<br />Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.<br />
Jim Crow Laws (After Reconstruction)<br />Set of laws that legally segregated blacks and whites (Schools, buses, etc…)<br />How does this fit with your interpretation of the 14th amendment?<br />
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)<br />Plessy, mixed race male, thought that Jim Crow laws violated his 14th Amendment rights. So, he sat on a white train car. The state said he was violating their laws. Blacks were not allowed in the white train cars.<br />If you were the Supreme Court, how would you interpret this case?<br />Actual Ruling - Separate but equal is okay<br />
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)<br />Young black girl has to walk 10 miles to her all-black school. Her family can’t take it anymore and enrolls in all-white school . She is denied admission based on race. She tries to argue that her black school is not equal.<br />Your decision based on 14th Amendment?<br />Actual Decision- violation of 14th Amendment<br />Separate is NOT equal<br />
Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)<br />Affirmative Action - In order to correct past injustices, universities and employers were looking to admit/hire more women and minorities<br />Bakke, a white male, tries to apply to Cal. He is rejected, but has higher qualifications than some African Americans and women that were accepted<br />You are Supreme Court. How should Affirmative Action and this case be interpreted?<br />
Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978)<br />Affirmative Action - In order to correct past injustices, universities and employers were looking to admit/hire more women and minorities<br />Ruling – Cannot use quotas, but you can use Race/Gender as a factor<br />
What have you learned?<br />Write in your notebook….<br />What have you learned about the Constitution?<br />Supreme Court?<br />The 14th Amendment?<br />Put these in the correct order…<br />Plessey, Bakke, Jim Crow, 14th Amendment, Brown<br />14th Amendment, Jim Crow, Plessey, Brown, Bakke<br />
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.