Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Loving vs. Virginia 388 U.S. 1 (1967) a historic decision of the U.S. Supreme Court establishing freedom of interracial marriage. All members of the court unanimously supported the decision. Despite the supreme courts decision, the old law was still in effect in several states, even though the ruling made it impossible. The case of Loving vs. Virginia was a controversial one that pushed along reform in the United States. During a dispute, when people try to get an answer or explanation, they may come across a person who uses fallacies. Sometimes it is impossible to ask opponents to provide evidence and independent confirmation of their words. It is useful to analyze possible misconceptions about this court cases example to implement this knowledge in the future.
Description of the Case
Since 1924, interracial marriages have been legally banned in Virginia. On its basis, the couple Richard Perry Loving, a white man, and Mildred Loving, being a woman of color of African-Indian origin, were arrested. In June 1958, the couple got married in Washington; they decided to amend the Virginia Racial Integrity Act of 1924, which states that the marriage between White Europeans and other ethnic groups such as Asians, Indians, Indians, Mongols, and Malays, is a crime. A month after the anonymous report, the police appeared at Lovings home, announcing that their marriage certificate was invalid. In 1959, the Loving couple pleaded guilty to cohabiting as man and wife, against the Commonwealths peace and dignity (Powell 130). On the 6th of January in 1959, spouses Loving appeared in Court and were sentenced to a year of prison. They were granted the delay of 25 years, with the condition that they leave the state.
After the couple went to Washington, DC in 1959, the Loving couple lived in internal exile while raising three children, Peggy, Sidney, and Donald. In 1964, saddened by the fact that they could not visit their families together in Virginia, Mildred turned to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (Powell 130). The latter advised her to apply to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). The case began to be tried by the Virginia Caroline County Circuit Court, and it went all the way to the US Supreme Court in Washington. The Lovings were not present during the oral arguments in Washington (Powell 144). In June 1967 the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the sentence of spouse Loving, ruling that the prohibition of interracial marriage was unconstitutional and violated the 14th amendment.
Fallacies
Argumentation is a complex process of substantiating a point of view, aimed at informing or persuading. An argument is a statement expressed by a sentence that carries certain information and its content, so when analyzing evidence, it is necessary to take into account not only its literal meaning but also the pronunciation context, background information, and some other factors (Van Eemeren and Rob Grootendors 155). Based on this understanding of the argument, it is possible to distinguish a fallacy. An incorrect argument is a sentence in which the laws of logic are violated, or false statements are used.
With regard to the fallacies in terms of the case Loving v. Virginia, there have been several logical errors being observed in the oral arguments. Firstly, it is testimonial, which refers to the opinion of an authoritative person to assert the correctness of the argument instead of using logic and facts that support the discussion. If an expert made a statement it would not mean that everyone should unconditionally believe him or her. The most prominent example is the argument provided by McIlwaine, who represented Virginias policies in the Supreme Court. He argued, We do say that he personally and clearly expresses his view as a social scientist that interracial marriages are undesirable and hold no promise for a bright and happy future for mankind (Virginia Humanities). He referred to the book of Dr. Albert I. Gordon about the impact of interracial marriages on the population.
The misconception is that the fact whether the statement is true or false may not depend on the opinion of the authoritative source used; besides, it may be mistaken in conclusions, even based on the correct assumptions. The statement that the opinion of the expert is right cannot be considered as a logical error. However, such a fallacy appears as long as people determine the authoritative opinion is ultimately correct, which should not be questioned. This statement caused various questions from Justice Hugo Black, who asked whether the purpose of the law was white supremacy protection.
Secondly, the next argument was that this premise was used in writing the statutes that declared the white people are superior to the people of color and should not, therefore, be permitted to marry (Virginia Humanities). That is an example of circular reasoning. The validity of the arguments is proved independently without reference to the thesis. The thesiss reliability should always come from the evidences credibility, but the latter is always established separately. If a person follows the rule, when the thesis is deduced from the argument, and the argument from the thesis, then it creates an endless circle.
Thirdly, there are some examples when the defense team of spouses Loving, presented by two lawyers Mr. Hirschkop and Mr. Cohen, used the arguments to the people (ad populum). For instance, the language was broad; the language was sweeping. The language meant to include equal protection for Negroes at the very heart of it (Virginia Humanities). The fourth fallacy being found out in the process of oral arguments is card-stacking. The statutes that might be related to the Virginia Code, which imposes a prohibition on the white race only or has to do with racial composition certificates, are not properly before the Supreme Court. This is a statute that applies to a Virginia situation and forbids the intermarriage of the white and colored races (Virginia Humanities). After expressing this opinion, Chief Justice Earl Warren asked why North American Indians issue did not relate to the Virginia statute.
Conclusion
The Court Case Loving vs. Virginia remains one of the controversial cases in the history of the Supreme Court of U.S. Argumentation assumes the existence of evidence, but it does not come down to it. The proof is the logical basis of argumentation. Moreover, for argumentation, along with the evidence, a convincing effect is also required. The compelling, mechanical nature of the evidence, its impersonality make up the main difference between the proof and the argument. The argumentation is non-compelling, its correctness cannot be established mechanically. Confirmation is a logical operation of substantiating the truth of a proposition using other correct and related schemes. Three elements are distinguished in the proof: the position to be justified is the thesis, arguments, and a demonstration of the thesiss logical connection with discussions.
A fallacy is considered to be an argument that seems correct but is not. Determining argumentation errors allows people to understand how to build evidence and substantiate the point of view, based on specific rules. The use of seemingly plausible arguments focuses on analyzing such dispute rules, the violation of which must be identified and eliminated. Exploring the causes and factors that make false arguments believable makes it clear that it is necessary to model effective argumentation.
References
Powell, Patricia Hruby. Loving vs. Virginia: A Documentary Novel of the Landmark Civil Rights Case. Chronicle Books, 2017.
Van Eemeren, Frans H., and Rob Grootendorst. Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A pragma-dialectical perspective. Routledge, 2016.
Excerpts from a Transcript of Oral Arguments in Loving v. Virginia. Virginia Humanities, 1967, Web.
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.