Separate is Not Equal: Brown v. The Board of Education

In 1954 on May 17th the Supreme Court made a decision that would change the way people lived in the United States forever.

It was on this day that the Supreme Court overturned the decision of Plessy v. Ferguson. For 50 years, the Supreme Court upheld precedent which permitted racial segregation in public facilities.

Separate bathrooms, separate water fountains, separate schools, separate rail cars etc... It was determined that "separate was equal."

However, it is well known that these separate schools were hardly equal. The black schools were the ones that were worn down. The black schools had the old books. The black schools were further away. The black bathrooms weren't cleaned as often. The black rail cars were not close the platform... this is not equal.

It was this way until a little girl and her family fought back.

The case was actually a class action suit filed against the Board of Education of the City of Topeka, Kansas, made up of 13 Topeka parents fighting on behalf of their 20 children.

Linda Brown, a 3rd grader, was denied enrollment in a white school just seven blocks from her home, and was instead instructed to go to her designated black school, which was across a set of rail road tracks and over 1 hour away This, is not equal.

Future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall led brown’s legal team. Marshall was sensitive to issues like this. Incidentally, Marshall applied to go to the University of Maryland Law School, but was denied admission because he was Black. Instead, Marshall went to Howard University Law School where the new dean instilled a desire in the the students to apply the tenets of the Constitution to all Americans.

Marshall, was reluctantly living the life of the Plessy v. Ferguson era. Going to a black school, having been denied acceptance into the white school. He would, however get his just deserts, as his first major court case came in 1933 when he successfully sued the University of Maryland to admit a young African American. That is justice.

In the Brown case, Presiding Cheif Justice Earl Warren wrote the unanimous decision stating that racial segregation was unconstitutional… (totally different world to think that anyone would think the opposite.)

The decision's basis was that "separate is inherently unequal…" Our Constitution's 14th Amendment clearly states that no citizen of the united states should be denied the right to life or liberty.

"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."

I don't see any ambiguity in this one... No State, shall make any Law which shall abridge the privileges of its citizens. Period.

This case, paved the way for civil rights and should be celebrated as one of the greatest victories in American History...

PS:

Excellent resource for classrooms: http://www.landmarkcases.org/brown/background2.html

Federal Records of the case: http://www.archives.gov/publications/ref-info-papers/112/

Read More...

Summary only...

Losing Trust in the American Government.. is nothing new.

If you've lost trust in the Government from Watergate and beyond, then you've been misinformed of the ills of our Government from the many years before that. Not unlike 'democratic' Governments of Ancient Greece and Rome, our United States government has not earned the trust of the American people from day one.

Let's begin with the original writing of the Constitution. The original constitution left a lot to be desired as far as human rights were concerned. The main articles of the constitution did a good job explaining the legislative process but didn't quite complete the job with the inclusion of the rights of the people.

The 'Elastic Clause' as it has come to be named, leaves an open door for the Legislative Branch to do whatever they'd like as long as the deem it 'necessary and proper'. Which is a phrase, much like the rest of the Constitution, that is ambiguous and can be interpreted many different ways.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18, states:

"The 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 Office thereof."

In other words, if it is NOT written in the constitution, then congress can decide what should be written there if they consider "necessary and proper" for that given moment. Put frankly, it left the door open for them to fill in the blanks.

The second way our original Constitution was not to be trusted was with the absence of our individual rights. The constitution gave plenty of rights to the government, namely the Congress, the Courts and the Executive Branch, but didn't list ANY right of the citizens. Many states would not ratify the constitution for this reason. The authors of the famous Federalist Papers were in favor of this 'big government' and were persuading the public to support the new Constitution.

Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay, just might be the first politicians to try and pull the wool over our heads. Their Federalist Papers tried to convince t he public to ratify the Constitution, as is. But many anti-federalists demanded that individual rights be included in the new constitution, and they were.

Thus, the first 10 Amendments, or changes were made to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights serve as a reminder that the Government can't get away with everything. Had nobody fought for our rights in the 1787 and 1788, when the Constitution was being debated, then our world would be entirely different.

Thank you Thomas Paine!

The list of Government mistrust goes on and on. We could talk about Andrew Jackson and his spoils system, the Election of 1824, the corrupt Presidencies of U.S. Grant and James Garfield, or any politician during the Gilded Age. But I think the strongest argument can be said for the precedent set by the Constitution and its original inability to provide for the common good of all men.

PS. Despite my accusations of the authors of the Federalist Papers, I think the views of all the founding fathers were instrumental in creating our great democracy. Incidentally, Alexander Hamilton is one of my favorite 'fathers' for his efforts with the banking system and the economy.

Read More...

Summary only...