Both people Plessy and Linda Brown were fighting for their rights stated under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Segregation in United states were legitimized under the doctrine separate but equal mentioned in the constitution. The constitution was actually misinterpreted and the supreme court gave a land mark verdict in the Brown Vs. Board of education case.
Explanation:
During 1950s Jim Crow laws made segregation legal. African Americans were treated badly during that time. The main effect of segregation was that people started to show hatred and disgust to one group of people who belonged to one particular race. Public utilities were segregated based on the ethnicity and race of the people. African Americans were given different rest rooms, cabs, public transports, schools, even the place of drinking water facility were segregated for the whites and blacks.
Separate but equal doctrine in the constitution aimed for equal protection of all but it carried a subtle component of inequality which was recognized by the supreme court and a landmark verdict was given in Brown Vs. Board of education case stating that segregation must be banned.
Answer: This is all the powers of the Articles of confederation declare war, appoint military officers, sign treaties, make alliances, appoint foreign ambassadors, and manage relations with Indians
Explanation: I just finished up my civics class last semester
President Nixon claimed executive privilege
that he had the right to protect the privacy of conversations, which led to a
constitutional conflict over taping phone
conversations, presidential powers and special prosecutors. President Nixon was
responsible of the domestic policy which describe as the establishment of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
for the most part, historians view Andrew Johnson as the worst possible person to have served as President at the end of the American Civil War. Because of his gross incompetence in federal office and his incredible miscalculation of the extent of public support for his policies, Johnson is judged as a great failure in making a satisfying and just peace. He is viewed to have been a rigid, dictatorial racist who was unable to compromise or to accept a political reality at odds with his own ideas. Instead of forging a compromise between Radical Republicans and moderates, his actions united the opposition against him. His bullheaded opposition to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Fourteenth Amendment eliminated all hope of using presidential authority to affect further compromises favorable to his position. In the end, Johnson did more to extend the period of national strife than he did to heal the wounds of war.
Most importantly, Johnson's strong commitment to obstructing political and civil rights for blacks is principally responsible for the failure of Reconstruction to solve the race problem in the South and perhaps in America as well. Johnson's decision to support the return of the prewar social and economic system—except for slavery—cut short any hope of a redistribution of land to the freed people or a more far-reaching reform program in the South.
Historians naturally wonder what might have happened had Lincoln, a genius at political compromise and perhaps the most effective leader to ever serve as President, lived. Would African Americans have obtained more effective guarantees of their civil rights? Would Lincoln have better completed what one historian calls the "unfinished revolution" in racial justice and equality begun by the Civil War? Almost all historians believe that the outcome would have been far different under Lincoln's leadership.
Among historians, supporters of Johnson are few in recent years. However, from the 1870s to around the time of World War II, Johnson enjoyed high regard as a strong-willed President who took the courageous high ground in challenging Congress's unconstitutional usurpation of presidential authority. In this view, much out of vogue today, Johnson is seen to have been motivated by a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution and by a firm belief in the separation of powers. This perspective reflected a generation of historians who were critical of Republican policy and skeptical of the viability of racial equality as a national policy. Even here, however, apologists for Johnson acknowledge his inability to effectively deal with congressional challenges due to his personal limitations as a leader.
