Question

Read from Justice John Marshall Harlan’s argument against Plessy v. Ferguson.

I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberties of citizens, white and black, in that State, and hostile to both the spirit and the letter of the Constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several States of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous. Slavery as an institution tolerated by law would, it is true, have disappeared from our country, but there would remain a power in the States, by sinister legislation, to interfere with the blessings of freedom; to regulate civil rights common to all citizens, upon the basis of race; and to place in a condition of legal inferiority a large body of American citizens, now constituting a part of the political community, called the people of the United States, for whom and by whom, through representatives, our government is administrated. Such a system is inconsistent with the guarantee given by the Constitution to each State of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

–John Marshall Harlan, 1896

Why does Justice Harlan disagree with the ruling? Check all that apply.

He thinks that the courts should be given more power to uphold the Constitution.
He believes that it is unconstitutional to make one race inferior to another.
He thinks that state laws that limit citizens’ liberties go against the Constitution.
He points out that the institution of slavery is no longer constitutional.
He believes that the Constitution is meant to protect the civil rights of citizens of all races.
He thinks that the Constitution is too inconsistent in its laws on civil liberties.

Answer 1

we all know nobody gon help lol