US Constitution and Ruling of Loving vs. Virginia

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

The peculiarity of the law system in the United States is a difficult thing due to the versatile nature of different precedents of the English-American law system. There are too many precedents that US Courts observed and provided trials. Some of them were with direct implementation of trial actions due to classical cases of murders, felonies, manslaughters, etc. Today the society needs new boundaries for living and feeling the protection of the law in their everyday lives which do not disturb physically others or do not hurt them. The social issues of America seem to be more difficult as they appear in public discussion. Still, such aspects as race, culture, gender, and ethnicity play a great role in disturbing communities in any state of the US. The historical framework of America does include those times when slavery was a core element of Americans’ policy, trade, and economy. Racial segregation and discrimination were even harder and harsher after World War II. Such examples of the Main Law of the country and the Declaration of Peoples’ Rights violation as in the case of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were terrible for the equality of rights between white and black parts of the American society. The challenges of those being oppressed became stronger and stronger when injustice occupied even local law bases of the states with absurd trials having aimed to blame and punish those who once had to decide to use his/her right for a free choice of a minion of fortune.

The story of the Lovings’ couple with the mixed color of skin (Richard Loving a white man and Mildred Jeter a black woman) occurred in the late 1950s. Their location at that time was in Virginia State, Caroline County. They married in the District of Columbia according to the local laws of this administrative-territorial unit of the country. After a short period of living together, they were charged for violation of Virginia law prescription as of the restraint for interracial marriages. The jury of the Circuit Court of Caroline County sentenced a punishment of one year in jail. This story has a continuation, but this paper is aimed to work out all pros and cons of this case and outlines other such-like social issues supported by the 1^st, 4^th and 14^th amendments of the U.S. Constitution.

First of all, it is useful to work out the essence of the above-mentioned amendments in their law nature and prerequisites appointed. One should recognize before the discussion the highest role of the Constitution, as the Main Law of the country, and its priority above separated statements prescribed by some people showing their social, political or economic interests. In other words, it is a universal document for resolving internal law cases. Though, the amendments needed can be briefly displayed in the following way:

Amendment 1 – Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Amendment 4 – Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Amendment 14 – Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868. (The United States Constitution 1997)

The straightforward emphasis is made due to the entire principles of democracy and free society full of government’s protection by means of The Constitution and laws adhered to it respectively. These three amendments presuppose the relational development of peoples’ differences in religion, a form of oral or writing expression, location. These aspects are encompassed by the main right of a citizen, which is pointed out by the 14^th amendment. The wholeness of direct “instructions” as for the code of laws signed at the very beginning of the country’s formation by Congress is the indisputable background in the circles of the American jurisprudence.

In the country at large, however, the idea of a bill of rights received vociferous support, as did a further demand from those seeking reassurance that powers not bestowed upon the central government by the Constitution should remain with the states or the people rather than be engrossed by the new government. (Smith 30)

Nevertheless, turning back to the problem under analysis, it is totally outrageous for a sound-minded person to consider Virginia State’s laws as of interracial marriages rational. In this prospect, undoubtedly the idea of thoughts expression without applying to the opinions of other people responsible for legislation and representation of the interests of wide and varied communities is critical because of lack of an argument parts clarification, adjustment and foreground. (Balkin 2007) One point from Virginia local code of laws discredits the law system of the US on the whole and the rights of Americans, namely:

“Punishment for marriage. — If any white person intermarries with a colored person, or any colored person intermarries with a white person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary {**1820} for not less than one nor more than five years.” (Loving et ux. v. Virginia 1967)

There are several points for and against this prescription. Three amendments serve to be in favor of Lovings because of the direct points of their rights’ violation. The point is that the Circuit Court of Carolina County propped up against the statement of the 10^th amendment which points out “Powers of the States and People.” (The United States Constitution 1997) Three amendments against one – this correlation bear in mind the idea of more arguments in Lovings’ favor. The most reasonable fact is that such “crime” was not committed in the area of the state (Lovings married in accordance with the code of laws maintained in the District Columbia). This fact opposes the accepted and put in active legal practice due to the lack of data about the location of the marriage. In return, this projects the incompleteness of corpus delicti for further judicial investigation.

The story of Lovings inspires with fortitude and succession of actions which the couple had demonstrated. This precedent gained more attention in the 1960s due to the process of the Sexual Revolution and the urges of sexual minorities to legitimate same-sex marriages and prove such social events which were prohibited for a long period of time due to public opinion and the sense of moral. The question is still debatable as to whether such cases are a matter of civil rights?

Facts are stubborn things, and there is no way out to oppose the law when there are statements and articles standing for human rights in the US. Hence, the right of two same-sex persons is possible when again applying to the 14^th amendment, stating that “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” (The United States Constitution 1997) Here there is no promotion of any harm towards other people, but traditionally the morality does not consider such attempts of freedom expression to be right. The moral side of the issue has a religious background as well tending to point out the wickedness of such initiatives. This presupposes a great obstacle that stands in the way of minorities striving to obtain suchlike right to choose a helpmate as traditionally oriented people have.

For further discussion, it is important to estimate the effects of same-sex marriages. Here the “ad absurdum” method can be helpful. So, if such marriages were legalized, people would follow the functions maintained in the concept of “family institute.” This could lead to more state control over legitimate couples. On the other hand, it would provide the execution of the right of a citizen.

Logically, however, an analysis of marriage should begin by examining the legal relationship that unites the two individuals who marry one another, not their relationships with third parties. When two individuals marry, they enter into a legally binding relationship with each other. (Hohengarten 1495)

Actually, marriage is a sphere of harmonious engagement which needs a legal framework to be provided in order to execute law principles and requirements for better protection of all layers of a community with regards to peoples’ preferences in social relationships. When comparing this issue with that of Lovings one cannot but agree that the roots are the same and have their beginning in the sphere of citizens’ rights in democratic countries. Interracial marriages are a societal problem, and same-sex marriages are definitely concerned with the moral aspect of the discussion. Both do not, in fact, represent terrific dangers for society. It is a sort of lifestyle. Moreover, it is rather courageous to move against the publically determined way of thinking, doing and behaving. The new time dictates new requirements and standpoints to be achieved. Foolishness according to racial discrimination in many states of America and unwilling attitudes of the majority of people to recognize the minority is still progressing providing the United States with a delay in social development. Morality is constant and there is nothing to do with it, but the Constitution, however, could not be credible and reliable in its principal propositions unless the amendments were adopted. Nonetheless, the situation is forced due to the Federal Marriage Amendment proposal as for marriage peculiarities, namely:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman. (22) (Cited in Wilkinson III 545)

This obstacle tends to be related to the biblical standpoint about marriage and the creation of the world and man, in particular. Frankly speaking, society cannot deny those people being of “non-traditional format.” Otherwise, it would be inhumane and cruel from its side. Moreover, it is a sort of seizure provided by people living in the society supported by the government when such innocent people without any inclination of negative intentions towards breaking the law suffer from harsh injustice. As I see, the amendments are quite weighty tools for finding judicial background in the place where law temporally loses its power and concerning points due to someone’s personal and separated idea.

Thus, the case of Lovings and the issue of same-sex marriages are those problems that still become unresolved and striking for the societal groups of people tending to work out the issue by virtue of better making out peaceful and positive intentions. The violation of citizens’ rights is the core problem of the paper which contradicts the adopted idea of freedom for expression of various feelings and social states which are not taken for granted. The legislative branch of power should lend an ear to the sphere of personal requirements within large groups of people preserving their vision of life, principles, and priorities of subculture so that to follow the way of reformation and elaboration of democratic fundamentals widely promoted in the United States of America.

Works cited

Balkin, Jack M. “Original Meaning and Constitutional Redemption.” Constitutional Commentary 24.2 (2007): 427+.

Hohengarten, William M. “Same-Sex Marriage and the Right of Privacy.” Yale Law Journal 103.6 (1994): 1495-1531.

Loving t ux. v. Virginia. Appeal from the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Smith, Joseph, ed. The American Constitution: The First Two Hundred Years, 1787-1987. Exeter, England: University of Exeter Press, 1987.

The United States Constitution.

Wilkinson, J. Harvie. “Gay Rights and American Constitutionalism: What’s a Constitution For?.” Duke Law Journal 56.2 (2006): 545+.

Click Here To Order Now!

US Constitution and Ruling of Loving vs. Virginia

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)