Edwards, Lineberry Chp. 5

The correct answer states that the Supreme Court overturned its decision in Plessy with its Brown ruling. This means that the decision made in Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation under the "separate but equal" doctrine, was reversed by the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education declared that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional, marking a significant shift in civil rights and the fight against racial discrimination.

The Equal Rights Amendment has not become a part of the Constitution because it was not ratified by enough states.

The guarantee of "equal protection of the laws" is found in the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment, ratified in 1868, ensures that no state shall deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. It was specifically enacted to protect the civil rights of newly freed slaves after the Civil War, but has since been interpreted to apply to all individuals, regardless of race, gender, or other protected characteristics. The Fourteenth Amendment has been a cornerstone of civil rights jurisprudence and has been used to strike down discriminatory laws and practices.

Reed v. Reed is the correct answer because it was the first case in which the Supreme Court declared gender discrimination unconstitutional. In this case, the Court ruled that a state law that preferred males over females as administrators of estates violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision set a precedent for future cases involving gender discrimination and paved the way for greater gender equality in the United States.

The correct answer suggests that opponents of affirmative action argue that it encourages reverse discrimination. This means that they believe affirmative action policies, which aim to provide opportunities for historically disadvantaged groups, end up discriminating against other groups, particularly white individuals. Critics argue that these policies prioritize certain minority groups over others and may lead to unfair treatment based on race or ethnicity.

The Fifteenth Amendment granted African American men the right to vote, so it cannot be considered a method used by Southern states to reduce their electoral voice. The other options - tests about the Constitution, white primaries, literacy tests, and poll taxes - were all tactics employed by Southern states to disenfranchise African Americans and limit their political power.

MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, has focused on ensuring civil rights for Hispanic Americans and Latinos. They advocate for the protection of the rights and opportunities of Hispanic individuals through litigation, advocacy, and educational programs. MALDEF has been involved in various landmark cases and policy initiatives aimed at combating discrimination and promoting equal rights for the Hispanic community.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 aimed to address racial discrimination in various aspects of society. It created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to combat job discrimination, denied federal funding to racially discriminatory businesses and schools, and prohibited racial discrimination in hotels, restaurants, and public transportation. However, it did not specifically address or prevent racial discrimination in housing.

The correct answer is I, II, and III only. This is because statement I is accurate as the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, has been used as the basis for many Supreme Court decisions on civil rights. Statement II is also accurate as the national government has often taken action to protect civil rights, even if it means expanding its power. Statement III is accurate as the Supreme Court has consistently found laws that use racial classifications to be unconstitutional. However, statement IV is incorrect as the Supreme Court has not outlawed all laws that classify citizens by race, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, and disability.

The Court's ruling in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke stated that a public university could not set aside a quota of spots for particular groups. This means that the University of California-Davis was not allowed to reserve a certain number of spots for specific racial or ethnic groups. The Court deemed this practice as unconstitutional and a form of discrimination.