Question

Paraphrase parts a, b, and c thoroughly without losing its meaning.

a) Both the ​Regents of the University of California v. Bakke​case and the ​Brown v. Board of Education​case surround the Constitutional Provision of the Equal Protection Clause. This clause states that the law is universal to every person, regardless of race, gender, status, etc., and the government shall protect them equally.
b) The decision in ​Brown v. Board of Education ​determined that ‘separate but equal’ is an unconstitutional concept and "inherently unequal." The decision in ​Regents of the University of California v. Bakke ​(1978) states that Bakke was discriminated against, and therefore, should be admitted to the California medical school. The court was able to make gains for racial minorities, as well as limiting white oppression. The two are similar, in that in each case the subject was ruled as discriminated against and took strides to limit segregation and discrimination.
c) Those who disagree with the holding may elect different representatives who will fight on their behalf, along with their ideals. Congress can pass laws in response, but the president has the ability to veto, in order to limit case impacts.

Answer 1

The Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Brown v. Board of Education cases both deal with the Equal Protection Clause and its implications for race-related legal decisions, ruling against 'separate but equal' policies and allowing for increased representation in legislative responses.

Step-by-step explanation:

The cases of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke and Brown v. Board of Education both centralize around the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which mandates that all individuals are treated equally under the law, irrespective of their race, gender, or status. In the Brown v. Board of Education decision of 1954, the Supreme Court ruled that the doctrine of 'separate but equal' was unconstitutional and 'inherently unequal,' thereby striking down laws that had mandated segregated schools for Black and White students.

Similarly, the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision in 1978 acknowledged that Allan Bakke had faced racial discrimination in admissions and should be admitted to the California medical school, while also advocating for the advancement of minority groups, thus aiming to curtail racial discrimination and segregation.

Furthermore, the democratic process allows individuals discontent with the court's decision to elect officials who will represent their views and potentially influence legislative responses to Supreme Court rulings. However, it's important to note that the President has veto power, which can be used to limit the influence of such new laws on judicial decisions.