Article Critique On Legal Issues

Article Critique

Classmate’s Name:

Position: Truly, I agree with my classmate’s answer.

Basis or Rationale for my Position

The ruling by the Supreme Court affirms the rationale for my support to my classmate’s view. Indeed, the Supreme Court of the United States delivered the landmark ruling while basing its position on the power granted to the United States Congress to act within the provisions of the Commerce Clause (McGoldrick Jr, 2019). The constitutional clause compels the appellant to comply with the provisions stipulated under Title II associated with the Civil Rights Act. As such, the Title II strongly prohibits the act of discrimination against the members of the black community or the Black Americans in the process of renting out rooms within the hotel (Quick, 1964). I agree with the view.

Fundamentally, the 1964 Act on Civil Rights states that all individuals have been granted the right to complete and equal consumption or enjoyment of services, goods, privileges, facilities, advantages, privileges, and accommodations within any facility offering public accommodation as clearly stipulated in the law without prejudice, discrimination or bias on the basis of national origin, color, religion or race (Hammond et al., 2020). The Department of Justice in the United States, acting on the guidelines provided in the constitution had made the details of Title II of the Civil-Rights-Act of 1964 available to the public; thus, the appellant should have acted within the precincts of the provision in law (Humphrey, 1997). Indeed, the action of the Congress in using the Commerce Clause is in line with the provisions in the United States Constitution.

I agree with my classmate’s position that the decision by the appellant to deny Black Americans from accessing hotel rooms on the basis of their race was an act in violation of the constitution. In essence, the motel had a strategic location that allows high accessibility from interstate highways (75 and 85) and state highways (23 and 41) (Humphrey, 1997). Therefore, the limitation to entry or bookings of the hotel rooms on the grounds of race whereby the black community members are denied entry would greatly interfere with interstate commerce (Goldstein, 2004). Admittedly, a high number of the customers to the motel are from the State of Georgia which is a multiracial state; hence, the decision by the appellant to refuse the Black Americans from renting out rooms would cause division by weakening the social fabric through racial discrimination (McGoldrick Jr, 2019). The practice of racial discrimination has been banned by the constitution of the United States under Title II of the Civil-Rights-Act enacted in 1964. In the provision, my classmate observes that discrimination on the basis of color, nationality, and race for persons intending to access public accommodation services such as renting out rooms in a motel are outlawed in the provision.

I strongly support my classmate on the ground that the move by the Congress in response to the complaint launched by the appellant was lawful and appropriate since it was founded on the Commerce Clause stated in the provisions of Title II of the Civil-Rights-Act of 1964 (Hammond et al., 2020). Indeed, the appellant had argued that the Congress had acted ultra-vires or beyond its authority or power; however, after the ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was evident that the decision or interpretation by the Congress was correct (Humphrey, 1997). Further, the Court’s ruling helped to dispel the claims by the appellant that his Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments had been violated by being compelled to allow the black Americans to book rooms in his motel, and the move was against his will (McGoldrick Jr, 2019). However, the provisions stipulated in the Commerce Clause quashed his claims. 

References

Goldstein, J. K. (2004). Constitutional Dialogue and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Louis ULJ, 49, 1095.

Hammond, J. H., Massey, A. K., & Garza, M. A. (2020). African American Inequality in the United States. Harvard Business School.

Humphrey, H. H. (1997). The Civil Rights Act of 1964: The passage of the law that ended racial segregation. SUNY Press.

McGoldrick Jr, J. M. (2019). The Commerce Clause, the Preposition, and the Rational Basis Test. U. Mass. L. Rev., 14, 182.

Quick, H. T. (1964). Public Accommodations: A Justification of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. W. Res. L. Rev., 16, 660.