Craigbythesea,
First of all there is no need to question my ability to read, or my understanding of the law. I can read and understand the law quite well, thank you. The fact of the matter is that the law was unconstitutional. This very case was denied certiorari on November 13, 1956. The US District Court had already declared the law unconstitutional in June of 1956. Alabama tried to challenge this decision by claiming that the court had yet to overturn Plessy v. Fergusen. The SCOTUS denied cert and remanded the case back to the US District Court to carry out the decision. Brown v. The Board of Education, (1954) coupled with earlier cases, such as Shelley v. Kramer, (1948), and Hurd v. Hodge, (1948), already addressed the issue of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and the inability of states to enact or enforce laws which violated ANY citizen's civil rights. Plessy need not be specifically overturned because of the language of the Brown case, particularly Warren's claim that "In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Fergusen was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation."
Legal semantics aside, the issue was never whether a state had the right to enact discriminatory laws, they did not, that much was clear. The issue was how far the federal government could go in implementing civil equality without infringing on the state "police" power. Early cases claimed that the Constitution prohibited the state and the nation from infringing the civil rights of its citizens. The constitution, however, did not prohibit private individuals from violating civil rights. With that being said, the court ruled the state did not have the power or the "right", under the constitution, to enforce private restrictive covenants. In addition, C4K is correct. The only law/city ordinance at the time, called for separate but equal seating. It was common practice, not law, that when the front of the bus filled, the bus driver would make African Americans move from their designated seating, so that the white person would not have to sit with a black person. Rosa Parks, therefore did not "break" the law. She was originally in the middle of the bus, which was the designated seating, as layed out by the city ordinance to ensure "separate but equal". What she did do is violate the "common practice" at the time of forcing black people to move if the designated area for whites was too full. A practice, which we all know, was not inherently "separate but equal". The court agreed with her also, not just the SCOTUS, but the US District Court. To actually believe that the Jim Crow laws were "separate but equal", someone would seriously be fooling themselves. Besides, if you actually read the majority opinion of Plessy, you would find that the laws actually must be equal in treatment to all citizens. What the court actually ruled is that separate facilities, schools, and seating, etc., were not inherently unequal just because they were separate. Big difference.
Once again, I contend that Rosa Parks did not violate Romans 13. The state was in the wrong, and they were well aware of it, especially in light of the cases I previously mentioned. The petty legal semantics you have brought up are of no consequence. It took the courts less than a year to declare the law unconstitutional. It only took that long because the case had to "flow" through the system. She may not consider herself a hero, but she is, and she will remain a hero to the American people (or at least the majority of them).
Just in case you decide to question the constitution, yet again...
Art.I,sec.8,cl.18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause)
[Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Art.VI,cl.2 (The Supremacy Clause)
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Amendment 10 (limits how far Federal Powers may extend)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Amendment V (The Due Process Clause)
…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Amendment XIV, sec.1 (Equal Protection Clause)
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
