What was the issue that the U.S. Supreme Court addressed in this case? The rule is that “separate but equal” schools violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. How did the U.S. Supreme Court apply the facts in this case to this rule? What was the Court’s final conclusion?
In this landmark ruling, which became known as “separate but equal,” Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for a 7-1 majority that “the object [of laws creating separate accommodations] is not to punish one caste for offences committed by another caste” (“Plessy v. Ferguson”). Furthermore, he argued that Louisiana’s segregation law did not violate either due process or equal protection because it applied equally to all races and provided similar accommodations for each group (“Plessy v. Ferguson”).
Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented from his colleagues’ opinion and argued that it established “the doctrine that negroes have no rights which white people are bound to respect,” thus nullifying any progress made since emancipation (“Plessy v. Ferguson”). He further stated that if a state can impose “humiliating distinctions and disabilities upon [a race], so long as they are conferred upon classes with substantial numerical equality,” then racial discrimination would become acceptable even within our own borders (“Plessy v. Ferguson”).
Ultimately, though Plessy won his immediate case against Louisiana’s Jim Crow laws, this decision laid down a legal precedent which would be used by southern governments over the next several decades to enact more oppressive legislation restricting African Americans civil rights until it overturned by Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 (“Brown vs Board of Education”).
such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for fighting.’ This means one cannot simply punish another because they have been a combatant. They must be treated as humanely as possible. However, the situation is escalated if killing them can lead to peace and security, within the interests of all parties.
Overall, jus in bello suggests in wars, harm can only be used against combatants, never against the innocent. But in the end, the aim is to establish peace and security within the commonwealth. As Vittola’s conclusion: ‘the pursuit of justice for which he fights and the defence of his homeland’ is what nations should be fighting for in wars (Begby et al (2006b), Page 332). Thus, although today’s world has developed, we can see not much different from the modernist accounts on warfare and the traditionists, giving another section of the theory of the just war. Nevertheless, we can still conclude that there cannot be o