ht black in him raised the question of whether it was constitutional or not. The constitutionality of this act conflict both with the thirteenth amendment of the fourteenth amendment, which prohibits certain restrictive legislation on the part of the state. That it does not conflict with the thirteenth amendment, which abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except a punishment for crime, is to clear for arraignment. Slavery implies involuntary servitude, a state of bondage, the ownership of mankind as a chattel or at least the control of the labor and services of one man for the benefit of another ans disposal of his own person, property and services. This amendment was said in they slaughter housecase. A statue which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races, a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races, and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races, or re-establish a state of involuntary servitude. Indeed we do not understand that the plaintiff strenuously relies upon the thirteenth amendment. This case was one that really brought about a reform in civil right laws. It also gave the civil rights movement a pretty good kick-start. This case was a sound decision 9-0. This rare thing for 9 Supreme Court justices to agree on a decision. But whereas they thought this decision would end the entire civil rights dispute, the decision only enraged blacks and civil rights activist into fighting harder to correct the problems facing American society. I feel that this is one of the most influential cases to ever reach the Supreme Court. Without crucial decisions such as these, I do not feel that our country would be where it is today. ...
