Illustrative Case

Illustrative Case
Name:
Institution:
Part One: summary
In the case between the Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States revolves the civil rights, right of the motel to choose their clients/duty to receive clients and the power of the congress to regulate that aspect according to the constitution. According to the Motel, they had the right to choose their clients as they had been doing prior to the passing of the Civil Rights Act (Justia Law, 2015). The motel argued that they still had the right to choose the clients that they served along the highways, which did not include offering Negros rooms for accommodation. Appellant argued that the congress in passing the Act, violated the rights offered in the Fifth Amendment, where they can choose whom they serve.
"The appellant contends that the congress in passing this Act exceeded its power to regulate commerce under Art. I, S 8. Cl. 3, of the constitution of the United States; that the Act violates the Fifth Amendment because appellant is deprived of the right to choose its customers and operate its business as it wishes, resulting in taking of its liberty and property without due process of the law and taking of its property without just compensation; and, finally , that by requiring appellant to rent available rooms to Negroes against its will, Congress is subjecting it to involuntary servitude in contravention of the thirteenth amendment." (47)
Ideally it deprived the motel of the right to operate as it wished without restrictions. As such according to the motel this took away the liberty as well as the property without the due compensation for the same. By forcing the motel to offer Negros the rooms that the congress subjected the motel to servitude that was involuntary and this contravened the thirteenth amendment.
According to the appellees, restricting their rooms to the non-Negros hampered interstate travel. The congress also has the powers to remove such restraints and obstructions (Justice.gov, 2015). They further stated that the Fifth Amendment does not in any way restrict the aspect of reasonable regulation, and that consequential damage does not constitute taking a right. The Thirteenth Amendment claim by the defendant is also frivolous that it is beyond reach by the state and federal laws. With reference to the trial, the defendants did not offer the court plausible evidence towards their pleas. The appellees on the other hand gave plausible evidence that supported their plea that it is unconstitutional to restrict Negroes to use their facilities after the passage of the Act (Justia Law, 2015). This led the court to uphold the ruling that motel cannot re...