Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
293,545
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 8:
Line 8: − +
→Holding of the Court: zeitgeist
== Holding of the Court ==
== Holding of the Court ==
The Court invalidated the ban on interracial marriages, and compelled Virginia to recognize interracial marriages, on equal protection grounds. Virginia argued that the ban was one of equal application - that is, blacks cannot marry whites and whites cannot marry blacks - and therefore not "discriminatory" under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], since the law did not classify on the basis of race ''per se''. The Court found this formalist appeal unpersuasive, recognizing that a facially sound classification may have an invidious discriminatory intent. In other words, the Court would inquire not ''just'' as to formal soundness, but as to subordinative or racist effect as well, to vindicate the intent of the framers of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. This functionalist reading of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] is characteristic of the functionalist ''zeigeist'', following [[Brown v. Board of Education]], and the Court's continued insistence to this day that statutory equal application is not a saving grace if it is subordinative.
The Court invalidated the ban on interracial marriages, and compelled Virginia to recognize interracial marriages, on equal protection grounds. Virginia argued that the ban was one of equal application - that is, blacks cannot marry whites and whites cannot marry blacks - and therefore not "discriminatory" under the [[Fourteenth Amendment]], since the law did not classify on the basis of race ''per se''. The Court found this formalist appeal unpersuasive, recognizing that a facially sound classification may have an invidious discriminatory intent. In other words, the Court would inquire not ''just'' as to formal soundness, but as to subordinative or racist effect as well, to vindicate the intent of the framers of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]]. This functionalist reading of the [[Fourteenth Amendment]] is characteristic of the functionalist ''zeitgeist'', following [[Brown v. Board of Education]], and the Court's continued insistence to this day that statutory equal application is not a saving grace if it is subordinative.
Importantly, the Court also noted that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not save it from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a measure's long tradition is not a guarantee of its justice.
Importantly, the Court also noted that the long tradition of anti-miscegenation laws would not save it from constitutional scrutiny. In other words, a measure's long tradition is not a guarantee of its justice.