自1866年美国国会通过美国第一部民权法以来,公众和法律意见一直存在分歧,即联邦政府是否凌驾于各州试图禁止种族歧视的权利。实际上,关于种族平等的第十四修正案的关键条款在南方基本上被忽视,直到20世纪50年代。在20世纪50年代和60年代的民权运动期间,支持继续种族隔离和执行国家级“吉姆克劳”法律的南方政客谴责反歧视法,如1964年民权法案,因为联邦干涉州权利。即使在通过1964年“民权法案”和1965年的“选举权法案”之后,几个南方州也通过了“干预决议”,争辩说各州保留了取消联邦法律的权利。作为联邦制的固有副产品,国家权利问题无疑将继续成为未来几年美国公民辩论的一部分。目前各州权利问题的两个非常明显的例子包括大麻合法化和枪支管制。

新加坡管理大学法律论文代写:选举权法案

Since the US Congress passed the first civil rights law in the United States in 1866, there has been a disagreement between the public and legal opinions about whether the federal government is superior to the states’ attempts to prohibit racial discrimination. In fact, the key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment on racial equality were largely ignored in the South until the 1950s. During the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, Southern politicians who supported the continued segregation and enforcement of state-level “Jack Crow” laws condemned anti-discrimination laws, such as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the federal interference with state rights. Even after passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, several southern states passed an “intervention resolution,” arguing that states retained the right to cancel federal law. As an intrinsic by-product of federalism, the issue of state rights will undoubtedly continue to be part of the debate on American citizenship in the coming years. Two very obvious examples of current state rights issues include cannabis legalization and gun control.

发表评论

电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必填项已用*标注