The pro Plessy side made arguments pertaining to the economic factors, current factors and how white supremacy ties into all of it. They argued that this case gives white supremacists legal coverage. they also stated that Americans have a hard time already have a hard time promoting community and equality, this case harms these efforts as it subjects people to racism.
One of the economic factors for the Pro Plessy side was the fact that the train companies had to have two different train cars costed more. Personally this statement didn't make sense to me. If it costed more to make an extra train car then they just simply wouldn't do it. Instead, they would simply prioritize who they sold a train ticket to. Also, because the train company did make another train car for African Americans then they wouldn't use the same materials to build the train car, they would use cheaper materials to lower costs.
Moving over to the Anti-Plessy side of the argument, the group discussed how the 14th amendment tied into everything. One of the speakers stated that the 14th amendment would only apply to someones political right but not their social right. another speaker stated that the federal government should not get in the way of state laws. they proceded to say that the state should have the right to make their own rules and regulations.
This, in my opinion, is a very good argument for the Anti-Plessy side. Lets look at it another way. The 2nd Amendment says:
Basically the 2nd Amendment says that the American people have the right to own a firearm. Now, most states have basic rules and regulations pertaining to firearm safety and carrying. some states require you to make a permit to carry a firearm. North Carolina, as of recently, doesn't require you to have a purchase permit to buy a handgun. States have a right to regulate laws as they see fit.
One of the more notable arguments that both sides had was their law argument, which I took a particular interest in. starting with the pro Plessy side the two statement that I heard was, one, people have equal protection under the law, and two, if the court rules not in favor of Plessy then it would harm the 14th amendment and its practice. As for the anti-Plessy argument they stated that Plessy knowlingly violated the law.
This is another point where the Anti-Plessy side had an advantage over the Pro-Plessy side. if we are inly taking a look at the law the it is clear that Plessy is in the wrong. Homer Plessy knowingly bought a white only train ticket and boarded a white only train car. He knowingly violated the law and chances are this isnt the first time he has done something like this. regardless of what the law says everyone must respect it. now everyone has the right to protest the law as long as their not breaking the law in the process. This was not an act of protest but an act social disobedience.
The argument for the Pro-Plessy side of the law had me question a few things that still put the Anti-Plessy side at an advantage. referring to the two statements from their case above, these point also have some holes. the first point was that people had equal protection under the laws, but when you think about it, what does that really mean?
A part of the 14th amendment states the following:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction their of, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside."
This sentence says that all people are citizens of the state they live in. This means that as a citizen of their state must follow and obey the laws of their state.
Another part of the 14th amendment says:
"No state shall make or enforce any law that shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;..."
If we look at this case in relation to this part of the 14th amendment there are are a few questions I have.
1. Is the state law enforcing laws that go against what the 14th amendment says?
2. If so how?
The simple answer is no. Homer Plessy has all the same privileges and immunities as a white man would. Plessy is allowed to ride the train, same as a white man. Plessy is allowed to purchase a ticket and in turn allowed to handle U.S. currency, same as a white man. Because Plessy has money it can be implied that he has a job, same as a white man.
This only shows how Plessy was arrested not because of racial intent but because he was violating the laws of the state and the laws of the train system.
Overall each side had great arguments relating to the case and I look forward to the next trial.
No comments:
Post a Comment