Shelley+v.+Kraemer

__**Shelley v. Kraemer**__ - The case was brought to court and argued on January 15th, 1948. Finally, on May 3, 1948 the case was decided. -Fred M. Vinson **(brief biographical sketch??)** -The Fourteenth Amendment which prohibits a state from enforcing restrictive covenants that would prohibit a person from owning or occupying property based on race or color. **What part of the 14th Amendment??** -Shelley, a black family, purchased a house in a neighborhood located in St. Louis, Missouri in 1945. Little did they know that this property was subject to a restrictive covenant which was established in 1911. This restrictive covenant included a clause which restricted people of African or Mongolian descent from purchasing a home in this specific neighborhood. 30 out of 39 homeowners in that neighborhood had signed this clause. When the Shelleys purchased their home, Louis Kraemer was outraged that the neighborhood had turned a blind eye towards this predicament. He wanted their homeowners contract terminated, and he was determined to take the case to court in order to receive “justice”. He hired a lawyer and sued to restrain the Shelleys from taking possession of this property. The case made it all the way to the Missouri Supreme Court in 1948. The Missouri Supreme Court was crossed between two arguments. The Shelleys argued that this case shouldn’t have reached court at all! They vehemently stated that this restrictive covenant violates the 14th Amendment, “separate but equal” **(technically, that's not in the 14th Am)**. On the other hand, Louis Kraemer proposed that since this agreement restricts a third party to move into the neighborhood, and not a specific person, it is perfectly within the people’s rights to enforce this restrictive covenant. For example, country clubs are allowed to decide who is allowed to utilize their residence by restricting certain races/sexes/religions. However, they are not allowed to prohibit a specific person/family. The Missouri Supreme Court, not being able to come to a decision, placed this case next to a very similar case, the McGhee v. Sipes case, where the McGhees also puchased land that was subject to a restrictive covenant. After pondering both of the cases, the Missouri Supreme Court reached the decision that restrictive covenants are indeed invalid due to the 14th Amendment.
 * Date of hearing: **
 * Chief Justice: **
 * Documents/ amendments relevant: **
 * Summary of Case: **

-Prejudice, discrimination against blacks, inequality, violation of 14th __amendment__.
 * Main Issues: **

-In May of 1948 the Supreme Court found this in violation of the 14th amendment, because it was decided that courts can’t enforce racial covenants on real estate. **Elaborate on this - the Court can't enforce anything, that's the President's job.**
 * Court Decision and Vote: **

-The Supreme Court of Missouri voted on the Shelly v. Kraemer case and their only dilemma about the case was that the street was a private property so the courts decision was pursueded by the fact that it was their private property, and a private street. It was not that Louis Kraemer was lashing out at a specific person, the Shelley family, he was just lashing out at the fact they were African American and living on his street.Since restriction was supposed to run in favor of the estate rather than the person it could be enforced against third parties. The two major questions that the court considered were are racially based restrictions legal under the Fourteenth Amendment? Also,can these restrictions be enforced by a court of law? The case was then taken to the United States Supreme Court and was __infact__ answered that __rasically__ based restriction are illegal under the __fourteenth amendment__. **Focus on the SC's decision.**
 * Who Voted? **

-The Chief Justice of the court at this time was Fred M. Vinson(seven years). The Associate Justices were Hugo Black(thirty-four years), Stanley F. Reed(nineteen years), Felix Frankfurter(twenty-three years), William O. Douglas(thirty-four years), Frank Murphy(nine years), and Robert H. Jackson(thirteen years). **This makes seven justices**. **What about the other two? Was it 7-2?**
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Members of court of that time: **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">-My personal opinion is that racism in general is an insult to the intelligence of the human race. What do we have to gain by discriminating against a certain people? Self-confidence? The honor of making others suffer while we live comfortably? It honestly makes me doubt whether the majority of Americans remember the simple morals taught in kindergarten. “Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you”, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”, “Share”, etc... All humans have feelings. No matter what color, ethnicity, intelligence, or religion they pertain to. Racism is fueled by arrogance, insecurities, indignities,selfishness, and stupidity. If we wish to take the logical, peaceful route in life, racism while be absent from our paths. **What about the decision? Do you think the SC did the right thing?**
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Personal opinion: **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">-If Kraemer had won the case, the Shelleys would have been in the very serious predicament of being homeless and mortified. In addition to the Shelleys’ situation, the fact that this could be enforced by the court would further fuel the campaign and propanda against blacks. Racism would have reached its peak. It’s a chain effect. To start, the McGhee v. Sipe case would also have taken a turn for the worse. Also, future cases like these would also be __effected__. People everywhere would think that it’s okay to bully others for simply being born a different color.
 * <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">What if the case had gone the other way? **

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Shelley v. Kraemer | Casebriefs." Law Cases & Case Briefs for Students. Casebriefs. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">__[]__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">Taylor, Erica. "Little-Known Black History Fact: Shelley vs. Kraemer." Black America Web. BlAck, 21 Sept. 2010. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">__[]__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">>.

<span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">"Shelley v. Kraemer | Ask.com Encyclopedia." Ask.com - What's Your Question?Wikipedia. Web. 14 Feb. 2012. < <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #1155cc; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; vertical-align: baseline;">__[]__ <span style="background-color: transparent; color: #000000; font-family: Calibri; font-size: 16px; text-decoration: none; vertical-align: baseline;">>.

**5.5/7 Biblio - 3 sources? Alphabetical.** **21.5/28 Content - stuff is missing or not explained well enough. See above.** **5/5 Organization**

**31.5/40 Total**