Thoughts on Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954)

http://supreme.justia.com/us/347/483/case.html

Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 486-496.
…
(d) Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal. Pp. 347 U. S. 493-494.


The above should demonstrate to the astute reader that Brown substituted for the racist application the doctrine of “separate but equal” the racist foundation that “blacks can’t function on an equal footing with whites unless they are blessed with the presence of whites.”

There doesn’t seem to be a lot to recommend that sentiment. The subject should be revisited. Perhaps toward a policy that is less racist. (Maybe forced school busing wasn’t really the way to go.)



On the other hand:

Page 347 U. S. 490
…
In the first cases in this Court construing the Fourteenth Amendment, decided shortly after its adoption, the Court interpreted it as proscribing all state-imposed discriminations against the Negro race. [Footnote 5]

[Footnote 5]
83 U. S. 67-72 (1873); Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303, 100 U. S. 307-308 (1880):
It ordains that no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, or deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. What is this but declaring that the law in the States shall be the same for the black as for the white; that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color? The words of the amendment, it is true, are prohibitory, but they contain a necessary implication of a positive immunity, or right, most valuable to the colored race -- the right to exemption from unfriendly legislation against them distinctively as colored -- exemption from legal discriminations, implying inferiority in civil society, lessening the security of their enjoyment of the rights which others enjoy, and discriminations which are steps towards reducing them to the condition of a subject race."
See also Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 100 U. S. 318 (1880); Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 100 U. S. 344-345 (1880).

It’s plain from the above that the proper application of the Fourteenth Amendment is limited to the notion of the states treating black Americans the same as white Americans. Nothing else. No applying the First Amendment (“CONGRESS shall make no law…”) to the states (as in Gitlow v. New York, etc.). No applying the rest of the Bill of Rights to the states (Mapp v. Ohio, Miranda v. Arizona, etc.). And certainly no applying made up so-called “rights” to the states (Roe v. Wade, etc.).

Any questions?

From Maureen Dowd’s opinion column for today as found in the Grey Lady:

The dour prime minister was a blithe spirit despite a mutinous British press corps that was whingeing about the president snubbing the prime minister. First, President Obama sent back the bust of Winston Churchill that Tony Blair lent to W.; then the White House downgraded the “special relationship” to a “special partnership.” The Rose Garden press conference where Mr. Brown was going to stand “podium-to-podium with the Messiah,” as one British scribe dryly put it, was demoted to a “press availability” in the Oval.

Question: How could a “special partnership” be a step down from a “special relationship”?

It just demonstrates once again: Republicans may be crazy, but Dimocrats are stupid.

Here is a proposed political continuum:

Extreme Right - Anarchism
Moderate Right - Libertarianism
Center Right - Conservatism

Center Left - Socialism (non-totalitarian)
Moderate Left - National Socialism, Fascism, etc. (which collectively comprise fascism)
Extreme Left - International Socialism (totalitarian), i.e., Communism

Any questions?

Question: According to the U.S. Constitution, does habeas corpus or any other rights mentioned in that document apply to non-U.S. citizens? There are reasons other than explicit constitutional protection for extending all rights which apply to citizens to those visiting here legally and from countries with which we have reciprocal arrangements. Basically, we treat them as we wish our citizens to be treated in their countries. Why should this apply to citizens of "outlaw" countries or those in this country illegally? Why should it apply to aliens who may appear to be terrorists?

Does anyone wish to speculate?

Maureen Dowd has really put her foot in it this time. The conclusion of her opinion piece in today's NYT:

...
Obama now has the perfect excuse not to pick Hillary as his running mate. She has been too unseemly in her desire to be on the scene if he trips, or gets hit with a devastating story. She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings.

That’s where the runners-up can be found, prettily lurking, in case it turns out the girl with the crown has some naked pictures in her past.


The reference is to the loss in 1984 of the winner's crown by Vanessa Williams - the first black Miss America in history. Really, really poor taste, Maureen. As well as poor judgement. (You may want a new fact checker. I, for one, would not be worse. Such would be barely possible.)

The Gray Lady returns to this blog. From William Safire's On Language column for today:

May 4, 2008
On Language
Misspeaking Too Soon
By WILLIAM SAFIRE

As Wordwatchers Watch

“Perhaps you can explain the difference between misspeaking and lying,” e-mails Jorge Cano of Coral Gables, Fla.

...

The answer to Cano’s question rests in intent. If the imperfectly expressed thought — whether an amusing blooper or a serious gaffe — is unintentional, a mere slip of the lip, then such misspeaking is not lying. For that matter, any untruth spoken in the speaker’s belief that the words are true and without intent to deceive is not a lie. (And remember William Blake’s line: “A truth that’s told with bad intent/Beats all the lies you can invent.”)


One may recall that the ninth commandment is not "Thou shalt not lie", but "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor." Blake supported that concept ably in his "Auguries of Innocence".

http://www.artofeurope.com/blake/bla3.htm

An engineer, a physicist, a mathematician, and a philosopher were walking through the Scottish countryside. They saw a black sheep grazing in a nearby meadow. "Look," said the engineer, "The sheep in Scotland are black."

"At least one sheep in Scotland is black," corrected the physicist.

"On at least one side," added the mathematician.

"Actually, it has yet to be established that this sheep has more than one side," clarified the philosopher.

From the world of sports:

U.C.L.A. Pulls an Escape

By JOE LAPOINTE

U.C.L.A.’s 53-49 victory was the 12th straight for the Bruins, who will face Western Kentucky or San Diego next week in Phoenix.

Go Western! Give 'em Hill, Toppers!

(The WKU Hilltoppers represent this blogger's alma mater.)

I saw the following in today's New York Times.

March 15, 2008
Run on Big Wall St. Bank Spurs Rescue Backed by U.S.
By Landon Thomas Jr.

Just three days ago, the head of Bear Stearns, the beleaguered investment bank, sought to assure Wall Street that his firm was safe.

This raises a question for me. Why would any company that might have anything at all to do with Wall Street allow the word "bear" to appear in its name? "Bear" on Wall Street is like "bomb" at an airport, "hijack" on an airplane, "test" in a school, "layoff" in a work environment, or "Macbeth" in live theatre. It just isn't said out loud. If "Bear" is someones name, that is no excuse. Corporate America is rife
with companies that are designated by initials. This is just beyond my
comprehension.

I would like to provide my readers the opportunity to reflect upon the true significance of today, the 129th anniversary of the birth of Albert Einstein.

Remember e=m*c**2 everyone! And happy nativity Albert, wherever you are.