Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course Tittle

Date

The Southern Manifesto

Chief Justice Earl Warren issued the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling on May 17, 1954, in Brown v. Board of Education, asserting that racial segregation in public learning facilities violated the equality clause of the 14th Amendment. In his viewpoint, Chief Justice Warren affirmed public schooling was an important right that needed the same protection, affirming clearly that “segregated learning amenities are characteristically unequal.” The court of law emphasized that the badge of inferiority embossed on minority kids by separation slowed down their complete growth no matter exactly how equal the facilities. “We come to an agreement that in the sector of public learning the policy of ‘separate but equal’ has no place,” transcribed Chief Justice Earl Warren. That ruling began a massive movement of individuals in the south, proclaiming that segregation was a practice that both parties (races) got an advantage from, and it could result in an open negative effect to dismantle this scheme of life (Robert & Sigel). The court’s decision caused mixed reactions in the Deep South, so Congressmen made the “Southern Manifesto” in reaction to it. Southern congressmen wrote it to object to congress’ presiding on mixing public schools. They contended that Chief Justice Earl Warren violated states’ rights.

The Southern Manifesto, also referred to as the Declaration of Constitutional Principles, was written and signed. It was written during the 84th United States Congress in opposition to the Supreme Court Case, Brown v Board of Education, which asserted that it was unconstitutional to separate schools. The manifesto was signed by 82 Representatives from the South and 19 US Senators. The Manifesto was signed up to go against the breakthrough Supreme Court decision. The Southern Manifesto asserted that the Supreme Court is a threat to the constitutional regime for the reason that the original Constitution did not mention education, so that signified that education is a matter for states. Also, it was an attempt through “naked power” to evade established law. Segregated but equal learning schools for racial minorities. The Southern Manifesto blamed the Supreme Court for “open misuse of judicial power,” and they gave an assurance that they would use all legitimate ways to lead to a removal of this ruling which is opposing the Constitution, and to stop the usage of power in its execution.

The Southern Manifesto’s main objective was to urge southerners to use all lawful ways to fight back the confusion and chaos that would arise from school desegregation. Nowadays, many years after the signing of the Southern Manifesto, there are still some US history situations that link to the situation (Justin, 1053). There is some coalition pushing for freedom of choice. A current example is Louisiana’s statewide scholarship program that was created to permit most black, low-income learners to attend private schools if assigned to one of the state’s lowest-performing public schools.

In conclusion, the reason why the authors of the Southern Manifesto asserted the Chief Justice Earl Warren’s ruling was a threat to the United States constitutional order was for the reason that this document was written in the South in 1956 and endeavored to push back against Brown V. Board of Ed. Characteristically unequal, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The outcome was that learners of color in America would no longer be obligated by law to go to traditionally under-resourced black-only learning institutions. The legitimate triumph in Brown did not change the nation overnight, and considerable work remains. But striking down separation in the state’s public schools gave the main facilitation for the civil rights movement, making probable attempts to desegregate higher education institutions, public accommodations, and housing.

Works Cited

Driver, Justin. “Supremacies and the southern manifesto.” Tex. L. Rev. 92 (2013): 1053.

Post, Robert, and Reva Siegel. “Democratic constitutionalism.” The Constitution in 25 (2020).