Writers in Latin America’s Black press frequently publicized and denounced particularly egregious examples of discrimination or racism, including many that involved painful accusations having to do with pernicious stereotypes about Black sexuality. In so doing, they responded to claims by Latin American politicians and intellectuals that racism was mild or non-existent in their countries, and that to speak about racism was itself racist, and would have the effect of dividing the national community. The rhetorical strategies writers in the Black press adopted included barely contained expressions of outrage, skillful deployment of irony, careful efforts at debunking, and, quite frequently, with expressions of agreement with the premise that racism was inconsistent with the local political culture.Authors who wrote about racism consistently presented the United States as a yardstick against which the existence or severity of racism could be measured, or as a source for the importation and imposition of racism that was at odds with local values and tradition.Finally, writers discussed and debated the mechanisms that should be employed to combat racism.

Petitioner, Homer Plessy, asserts that the Separate Car Act violates the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Because we conclude that the Act instantiates and bolsters White supremacy,3 it cannot be sustained. As context is important to understanding the Act’s intended effects and this Court’s conclusion, we begin with history.

Liberal property, I argued in Chapter 3, relies on its contribution to owners’ self-determination, which others are obligated to respect. The justification of authorizing owners’ private authority and its coercive enforcement by the state is premised on people’s interpersonal obligation of reciprocal respect for self-determination, making property’s legitimacy contingent on its compliance with this fundamentally liberal understanding of just relationships. Reciprocal respect for self-determination is thus not only a potential external constraint on the liberal conception of property but inherent in its raison d’être.

This chapter briefly surveys the history of the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and shows how many salient cases would come out today under a correct originalist interpretation. It shows how the privileges or immunities clause justifies the result in Brown v. Board of Education and possibly also Obergefell v. Hodges, and explores the implications for, among other things, public accommodations cases, "one person, one vote," and partisan gerrymandering, economic liberty, and incorporation.