Civil Rights Act of 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875 was a personal bill proposed by Charles Sumner a republican senator and Benjamin Butler a congressman in 1870. The proposal was to be enacted into a federal law in United States of America. When the bill was brought in to the congress by the two sponsors, the congress debated on it and the act got a lot of support. It was passed on February 1875, where President Grant signed it into law on March 1st 1875. The signing of the act into law brought a lot of complications whereby United States Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1883 (Goluboff, 44). The court raised issues of unworthy provisions provided by the act that were not constitutionally accepted by law of the land. Provisions of this act were passed into law in mid 1960s.
Some of these provisions include Fair Housing Act and Civil Rights act of 1964 which were favored by federal power used as a way of regulating interstate business. These are some of the provisions that led to establishment of movements to fight for the rights of individuals and enlighten them about their rights. The act also represents the congress power to protect civil rights of black African-Americans for a period of more than half a century. The law is equal and applicable to every person who is governed by the constitution of a particular country. The government therefore has that duty to ensure that justice is administered uniformly to all irrespective of their religion, race, color, political background or persuasion. The government of US is mandated to enact any act that is deemed worthwhile into law (Pohlmann, Whisenhunt, 11). The enacted law becomes best object of legislation used to guide citizens for the purpose of maintaining order in the society.
The president of United States during this time officially declared that all persons living within the territory of United states are deemed to enjoy in full capacity accommodation, privileges of motels, facilities, public land, theaters and any other places used for purpose of public entertainment without limitation to race, color, religion or ethnicity. African black Americans, republicans who were radical and other abolitionists worked hard to make sure that this act was passed into law since 1870. The major pressing issue was even and equal accommodation of all people in the territory of United States. They wanted equality was to be maintained in the transport sector, religion, public schools and in cemeteries. These proposals were not received well by some republicans who took it as a way of fighting them politically. Finally, the bill passed the Senate but the House Representatives did not at any time consider it as law (Answers.com, 2009).
Sumner the sponsor of the bill reintroduced it later in 1873 and there was still division among the Republicans. Some of the southern Republicans supported the bill in deference to their black African American people. Most people were not for the idea of amending the act rather they wanted the provisions in the act to be enacted into law. Insisting on the amendment of the bill led to killing of the bill and therefore republicans senators changed their minds to support the amendment process. Despite putting on penalizing the offenders, federal officers finally enacted the bill leaving most enforcement in the hands of private litigants (Pohlmann, Whisenhunt, 41). Supreme Court in the Civil Rights Case ruled out that the law is more powerful than constitutional powers of the congress. The only limiting condition to use of these facilities was the terms as put in law. It was a privilege for many blacks who had been discriminated from using these facilities for a period of long time.
It was the start of liberalization in many communities that had been marginalized for a long period of time. They had equal rights as of those of the other Citizens in United States. The law provided that if a person is found guilty of breaking this law a penalty ranging from five hundred USD to one thousand Us dollars would be charged on him or her or be imprisoned for a period of thirty days to one year. Enforcement of the law became hard until 1883 when the Supreme Court declared the act unconstitutional. The argument of the court was that congress had no capacity or power of regulating individual behaviors and perhaps the fourteenth amendment of the constitution only allowed discrimination by state and not by individuals (Mohamed, 166). However, individuals are better than the whole state and any person who infringes this rule out be confined for a long period of time so as to learn on how to respect human dignity.
The acts provisions are essential tools because it acts as a defense mechanism for any party that feels to be aggrieved. Although the act was contradicted by some individuals who were driven by political desires it was a good and nice draft in respect of honoring the dignity of individuals in the society. Without such a constitution, the rate of racism and discrimination in US would be very high and the chance of blacks to travel overseas would be very hard. Courts however have been given the power of giving rulings in particular cases concerning the provisions of the act (Mohamed, 168). The respect of individuals is only achieved through enactment of the act because there are rules and laws governing how individuals should live with one another in the society.
Provisions of Civil Rights act of 1875
The purpose of the act was to govern citizens and to make individuals understand that there is no person who is big or small before the law. In other words, it was essential that all men are equal before law. The Act provided that
The assembly of Congress, senate and House Representatives of United States of America have enacted that all persons living within the states of United States irrespective of color or race are free to move in any particular state or enjoy public utilities without restrictions by any other individual.
Any person who violates these provisions is liable for imprisonment or any other form of punishment that is constitutionally accepted. The act provided that any person who aids through financing or mobilization of individuals to violate these laws is deemed to pay the affected person a sum of between five hundred dollars and one thousand dollars or face a jail term of not less than one year. It also provided that any person who feels that he or she has been wronged by the state under common law can sue it in court for damages (Goluboff, 46). The penalty for such crime aimed at making the aggrieved party get back to the original state he or she was in before the injury was inflicted on him or her. This provision provided protection of all those who had not been recognized by the constitution for a long period of time. It was the beginning of new era in United States where the lives of many blacks changed completely.
All the courts in district level and other circuit courts of United States shall be under the jurisdiction of states courts and should ensure that justice is maintained when it came to judgment of crimes, offences or violations of the provisions in the Act. District courts and circuit courts were given the power to penalize those who had violated the provisions of the act as provided by the previous provision. The act provided that any person who is found guilty of any offences can be prosecuted in any state he or she is found. District marshals, their deputies, commissioners appointed by territorial courts were given the power to arrest and imprison any offender against the laws of United States.
In addition, these officers were required to institute proceedings of a case that involved any person who shall in any given time violate the provisions in Civil Rights Act. The only thing that could prevent commissioners from prosecuting any offender was right of action that could accrue to that other aggrieved person. Any aggrieved party who feels that he or she does not feel wronged can only prevent judges from taking action of prosecution. As per the provisions of the act, failure of district attorneys to prosecute any person who has violated the provisions leads to termination of his or her work and the same officer is forced to pay the aggrieved party five hundred dollars (Goluboff, 49). It also provided that judgment on aggrieved party against district attorneys or any judgment about indictment against district attorney shall be used a s a way of barring either prosecution.
That every person who resides in United States has the right of receiving services from any court either in district level, circuit courts or in any other state of America irrespective of race, color, religion , political background or ethnicity. Any officer in these courts who is deemed to have acted in a way of denying any form of service provision is convicted and deemed guilty of misdemeanor and the fine to this act is five thousand dollars. In most cases, the judges of district attorneys are very corrupt and carry on their duties as per the race, color or religion of the victim. To avoid these practices in United States, the act provided for stern measures that aim at making these individuals work as per provisions of the law (Pohlmann, Whisenhunt, 17). The act provides for accountability and openness of the officers in charge of courts and any other legal system.
All cases that arise as a result of violating or failing to respect the provisions of this act particularly in United states will be under the review of Supreme court of United sates without considering the sum of the subject matter that has been provided by provisions of the act and any other type of regulation as provided by law in the case of reviewing other causes found in district or circuit courts. The supreme court of United States is the highest court found in the super power country and has been established by the constitution to handle cases that cannot be resolved by other junior courts. The court therefore has the mandate of ensuring that all provisions provided in the act are protected and enacted to law as a way of maintaining order and ensuring that legal institutions perform as it is expected of law (Mohamed, 170). When the systems are not in order, then it becomes very hard to maintain equity which is equivalent to fairness.
These provisions of the act have been inexistence even in todays legal system although most of them were enacted into law in the early 1960s. The law is a good measure of how individuals try to live with other individuals in the society and it is basically very simple to be followed otherwise any body who violators the provisions of law is deemed as a civil criminal and is legally convicted of wrong dong. The act is also in a position of enforcing constitutional rights of every individual to live in any specific state without fear of discrimination because the law is applied uniformly in all states without depraving the aggrieved party right of freedom. The blacks in America are the most beneficiaries of these reforms and nowadays they dominate many sectors in United States especially in job markets and production sector. The laws in the Civil Rights Act are very protective and make individuals feel very much comfortable when carrying on duties of economic importance (Goluboff, 50). Race, color, ethnicity, culture, religion and political background has been one of common elements used as a way of promoting discrimination of blacks in America but due to enactment of this act into law every thing has changed completely and life is normal in many parts of United States.
Supporters and detractors of Civil Rights Acts of 1875
Some individuals were for the act while others were against enactment of the act into law. The supporters of the act based their arguments on the arguments of court judges about the enforcement of contract law commonly known as common carrier. This rule was developed in other areas apart from the normal aspects of race, color, discrimination, accommodation in hotels and other social public amenities and the application of the law could not segregate any individual who was in a position of using these services (Mohamed, 174).
The provision of the rule was that individuals should be served on the first to be served are those who first came in search of service provision. In 1870s, common rule was applied in courts and it led to reduction of discrimination in hotels and other places of public accommodation. Federal Courts started to apply this rule and the rate of discrimination was reduced. This is what led to many republicans supporting the law. The constitution gave congress power to enact legislation as a way of enforcing the provisions of the act (Pohlmann, Whisenhunt, 23). Protection of individual life, property, liberty and immunity to the law was enacted and it was not possible for any individual to be denied protection of law or any process that is unlawful and could lead to death of an individual.
On the other hand, some individuals were opposed to the act because they saw it as unconstitutional. They argued that the amendment of the act meant that the state is given more power and that the provisions of the act aimed at regulating the activities of private sector such as companies. Another area that led to many individuals fail to support the act was the inability of the act to protect law. For instance, a Supreme Court Justice said that the fourteenth amendment denied equal protection of law that involves both inaction and action of law. In addition, failing to protect the law involves omitting to protect as well as to pass laws for benefit of protection (Goluboff, 55). Others argued that the protection of blacks by giving them chance to share facilities with whites was like abuse of the dignity of the white people who considered themselves as superior people.
Challenges to the Civil Rights Act of 1875
The Act was constitutionally challenged and this was evident by the many cases that were handled by supreme courts of which were decided under one collective name called Civil Rights Cases in 1883. Opinion of Justice Bradley about the cases was that the provisions in the act were unconstitutional because they only provided actions of private companies that owned theaters and hotels providing accommodation services but did not protect the action of the States (Mohamed, 173). That is the act has no power of correcting the state incase it acts in a way of violating the rights of its citizens. Enactment of the act into law meant that the state was not in a position of enforcing its laws to different states of America including those that had put good measures of protecting individuals rights and freedoms. Thirteenth amendment which gave congress power to enact Civil Rights Act and abolish slave trade was not effective and brought a lot of contrivances to the provisions of the act. This is because as it was agreed that slavery was brought to an end it was not the case in areas of accommodation because the whites did not want to share hotels with blacks thus this was a form of slavery (Answers.com, 2009). It was not clear whether Civil Rights Act would help do away with any form of discrimination.
Conclusion
According to the research, Civil Rights Act has brought changes in United States both negative and positive and the provisions of the act have been in application in the modern society. For example, in 2000 Supreme Court in United States has applied rulings of the Civil Rights Cases decisions in United States versus Morrison. That dealt with gender violence and gave women power who are the most victims to sue the offenders in Federal courts.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment