The Lovings v. The State of Virginia

Richard and Mildred Loving were charged as violating Violentia 's racial marriage prohibition, the 1924 Racial Integrity Act. In June 1958, when a couple got married in Washington, DC, the girlfriend broke the law of Virginia state. The couple returned to their home in the center of Virginia. On the morning of 11th July 1958, sheriffs and delegates of local county awoke the bedroom with anonymous advice. "Who is sleeping with this woman?"

In 1924, Virginia passed a law that illegally made race / skin people marry other living / skin living together. There is nothing in the constitution indicating that foreign marriages are legal and legitimate, but the Supreme Court marries a white man based on the free and more evident reading of the document written in 1789 We "discovered" that we should be allowed to do things. Warren's Chief Justice wrote in a unanimous decision that "Marriage is one of the basic citizenship of mankind." It is essential to our survival and survival ... denied based on racial classification embodied in these rules. I can not put up with this basic freedom. Such direct destruction freely deprives the classification of the classification of the core equality principle by the 14 th revision freely from all countries without proper legal proceedings.

When he launched the new standard of the US Supreme Court, TRUMP did not succeed: the result? A terrible episode of Elm Street's nightmare, and twilight's episode!

Loving v. Virginia (1967): State law prohibiting marriage between races is hit. In a unanimous decision, the court found that the distinction between these laws is usually 'detectable for free people' and subject to 'the most rigorous review' under the constitutional equivalent protection provisions It was judged. The Court judged that there is no purpose other than "bad racism" in Virginia's law. Joint appeal of citizens to the Federal Election Commission (2010): In a ruling still controversial today, the Supreme Court says that legitimate election advertisements restricting company expenditures to the federal government are unconstitutional I made a decision. In the decision, five to four judges divided ideologically, according to the first amendment, we believe that company funds for political advertisement in candidate elections can not be restricted.