In the fictitious state of Xanadu, the law that was passed to say that non-whites were not welcome to golf, and swimming facilities was tantamount to a criminal wrong. Persons responsible for any form of discrimination are liable for punishment, for the wrong they are carrying out against other parties (HoSang, LaBennett & Pulido, 2012). Any party that feels disgruntled by the formation or passing of such a law may be at liberty to take action in court. They can do this for it is their fundamental right to do so. To challenge such a law, there must be several factors that make the hearing of the case a federal case. Cases of this nature can be presented in the Supreme Court because they are related to the constitutional rights of individuals. The Supreme Court is the only court that can hear and deliberate on such a case. This paper will examine the method that may be used, and the results of the petition about such a case.
Issue
The present issue is the contentious law that was passed by policymakers in the state about non-whites and facilities that the state has to offer. In this day and age, the passing of such laws in some regions is considered barbaric and backward, and they have no place in society (Satzewich & Wotherspoon, 2000). All the colored folks in the state can be considered the plaintiffs in the case against the policy created. Defendants will be the lawmakers who came up with this contentious law. They will have to defend their stand on why such a law can be passed with complete disregard for individual rights and freedoms.
Rule of Law
It is a fact that amendments in various constitutions protect the citizens of a region from the act of state or local officials. The law, passed by the policymakers, is a way in which the right of protection for the non-whites in Xanadu has been violated. The Supreme Court has a responsibility to hear this case, and make a ruling that may prove that the rule of law is withheld. The civil rights of the colored must be withheld regardless of whether they are the minority group or not. It is impractical for the constitution to be ignored on the basis of a few lawmakers who wish to trample on the rights of individuals in a free state (Satzewich & Wotherspoon, 2000).
Analysis
There is a constitution in the state of Xanadu, and that is why policymakers exist. This fact alone should permit the court to decree in support of the plaintiff because only a land without law can make and pass such a law. Failure for the Court to uphold the rule of law and allow for the law to stand may force different actions. It may not be easy for the Supreme Court to decree in favor of the law because they are meant to work toward upholding the constitution of the land, and all its inhabitants. If there is to be a change, then the constitution needs to be amended first, before any laws that disregard human rights are passed (Kennedy, 2012).
Conclusion
In the above case, all the Xanadu citizens that feel aggrieved by the law that the policymakers came up with should have a case before the Supreme Court. As the plaintiffs, they have the civil right to be heard and forward their complaints to the highest law in the land. As for the defendants and their law, it should be noted that they are going against the basic fundamental rights of free individuals. Upholding the constitution should be their basic task, and that is why they are considered fit for local or state office. Their actions warrant serious legal reprimand from international bodies, or non-governmental organizations that exist (Kennedy, 2012).
References
HoSang, D. M., LaBennett, O., & Pulido, L. (2012). Racial formation in the twenty-first century. New York: Macmillan Publishers.
Kennedy, R. (2012). Race, crime, and the law. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Satzewich, V., & Wotherspoon, T. (2000). First nations: Race, class, and gender relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
