The federal laws of do not prohibit . Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of life and property as well as equal protection of laws to the citizens. The Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without ; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.�

However, a few States in the past have enacted (Anti-Miscegenation) statutes prohibiting interracial marriages between Americans and Black Americans. One such State that prohibited interracial marriages was the A landmark case decided in the State of Virginia, then subsequently resolved by the on appeal is , 388 U.S. 1 (1967).

In this case a Black woman and White man were married in the District of Columbia, then returned to Virginia and declared their marriage. But, Virginia had enacted a statute prohibiting interracial marriages between Whites and Blacks. The Loving couple were criminally prosecuted for having an interracial marriage, convicted of a felony and sentenced to one year in jail. The trial court suspended the sentence but, banned the Loving’s from entering Virginia for a period of twenty-five years.

It is interesting to note the tenor and tone of the Court’s ruling. The trial judge opined that:

“Almighty God created the races White, Black, Yellow, Malay and Red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.� Wow…
Further, under Virginia code the punishment for interracial marriage read: “If any intermarry with a Colored Person, or any Colored Person intermarry with a White person, he shall be guilty of a felony and shall be punished by confinement in the penitentiary for not less than one nor more than five years.�

Not surprisingly, in many cases Blacks were severely punished for interracial marriages and less punishment was given to Whites. Even under this statute, Whites fared much better than Blacks. The application of the Virginia code is historically consistent in terms of Blacks natural rights being given short shrift since 60 U.S. 393 (1857).

The matter of Loving couple was later appealed to the United States Supreme Court and the court held that prevention or prohibition of interracial marriages violates the Fourteenth Amendment. The court further observed that freedom to marry is an important personal right of an individual. It is one of the basic civil rights. Therefore, States cannot curtail such right by enacting laws violating the Fourteenth Amendment.

If you believe that, your civil rights, due process rights or equal protection rights are violated contact ¸£Àû¼§. in New York. We will review your claim thoroughly, providing you with an outline of possible actions you may wish to take. We are ready to be your voice for justice.

The post Historical Attempt to Criminalize Interracial Marriages first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..

It was enacted to protect the constitutional rights of all Americans to fully participate in elections and vote, an area where Blacks rights were consistently interfered with. Initially, the act lacked enforcement capability; however, Congress addressed these issues in subsequent years. Congress asserted its legislative power over the states to grant all US citizens the same privileges, and equal protection, as stated under the Fourteenth Amendment. Title IX of the Act made it easier for federal courts to establish jurisdiction over such cases due to jury bias, judicial misconduct where judges were segregationists and all- white juries.

Voting
Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Blacks encountered great difficulties whenever they tried to vote Although Blacks had the legal right to vote most found it very difficult to exercise their rights. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made it illegal to apply different registration requirements on voter applications for Blacks.

Racial Segregation in Schools

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 encouraged the ending of racial segregation in educational institutions. The Act also granted the Attorney General of the United States the power to file lawsuits against those who would infringe upon the rights protected by the Act.
Desegregation and Busing

Some lawmakers were concerned that the provisions in the Act would result in forced busing, in order to meet specified quotas for each race in US schools. Those in favor of the Act maintained that the bill would not contain any legislative language that authorized such actions; two amendments were written intended to ban forced busing. The author of the amendments, Hubert Humphrey, stated that busing would be an action that involved handling people and children based on their race, which would be unlawful. Despite these measures, school districts in the South began to utilize forced busingas soon as two years after the passage of the Act.

Federally Funded Agencies

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination on the part of governmental agencies that receive funding from the federal government. Agencies that engage in discriminatory actions run the risk of losing their federal funding.

Women’s Rights

The Act made it unlawful to discriminate against an individual based on their sex. One year earlier, Congress passed legislation that made it illegal to give higher or lower wages to individuals based on their sex.  With the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law, it became illegal to discriminate against women based on their sex.

Limitations

• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 banned discrimination based on sex, race, color, or country of origin in business establishments such as restaurants, hotels, motels, and theaters; however, “privateâ€� clubs were exempted from the Act. The term “private,â€� though, was not defined in the act, leaving interpretation open.
• The Act’s ban on discrimination on the part of employers does not extend to employers who have less than fifteen employees.
• Employers are allowed to discriminate in certain situations, where a certain protected trait is a requirement that is an integral part of the job. These situations, however, were defined very narrowly, to prevent abuse.

The post The Civil Rights Act of 1964 first appeared on ¸£Àû¼§..