Answered

Explore Westonci.ca, the premier Q&A site that helps you find precise answers to your questions, no matter the topic. Ask your questions and receive accurate answers from professionals with extensive experience in various fields on our platform. Our platform provides a seamless experience for finding reliable answers from a network of experienced professionals.

Identify the constitutional provision that is common in both United States v. Virginia (1996) and Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954). Based on the constitutional provision provided in part (A), explain how the decision in Brown v. Board of Education (I) (1954) compares to the decision in United States v. Virginia (1996). Explain how voters who disagree with the holding in United States v. Virginia (1996) could act to limit its impact.

Sagot :

OlanmaE

Answer:

1. The equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment is the constitutional provision that was common in both cases.

2. Both cases bordered on issues of segregation. While Brown v Board of Education was a suit by African-American parents against the school board who instituted the separate but equal policy that prevented  white and black students from attending the same schools, United States v Virginia was a contest about the gender-biased admissions policy of Virginia Military Institute.

3. Voters who disagree with the holding in United States v Virginia can act to limit its impact by demonstrating "exceedingly persuasive justification" to support their view.

Explanation:

The fourteenth amendment states that, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". This law prohibits segregation on whatever basis. The two cases stated above were clear segregations based on race and gender respectively. In both cases, the supreme court ruled against the segregators.

For voters who wanted to contest the holding of the court, exceedingly persuasive justification was required of them. That was lacking in the defense of the VMI.

We hope this information was helpful. Feel free to return anytime for more answers to your questions and concerns. Thank you for your visit. We're dedicated to helping you find the information you need, whenever you need it. Discover more at Westonci.ca. Return for the latest expert answers and updates on various topics.