OCR Text |
Show Page 4 The UTAH INDEPENDENT June 25, 1971 High Court and Racial Busing Continued From Page 1 teachers in order to overcome racial imbalance) and the Office of Education Appropriation Act 1971 (which provides that no pu. rhe funds contained in this Act shall be used to force any school or school district which is desegregated as that term is defined in Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. . . to take any action to force the busing of basically this: that de jure segregation De jure (according to law) refers to segregation sanc- the hands of the eminent trict Court This Constitution, and the laws 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. . . . asserts: tribunal Few things concerned framers reversed its previous stand, claiming that the rules of the game had been changed. On February 5, 1970, the Court approved a desegregation plan tioned by law, of the type banned by the 1954 Brown decision. De facto (in fact) refers to segregation which exists naturally as a simple matter of fact, such as the natural makeup of residential .patterns, etc. which existed prior to the Brown decision had of the Constitution more than the possibility that the federal judi- which contained busing provisions proposed by a special ciary would usurp powers deleTreaties. Laws of Congress. gated to the other branches. In consultant chosen by the Court of The three months earlier. (It is perThe Constitution itself. All are Essay Seventy-eigh- t mentioned as being factors which Federalist Papers, for instance, haps worthwhile to note that the combine as the supreme law of Alexander Hamilton wrote that consultant selected by the Court the land. But nothing is said courts of justice could not en- had earlier been involved in the such a significant posthumous indanger the genera! liberty of the case as a partisan witness for the fluence on later patterns of de students). Yet, on other about Supreme Court edicts. grounds, both of these laws are Actually, a Supreme Court people so long as the judiciary plaintiffs.) The School Board was facto segregation as to merit also blatantly decision like decisions of other remains truly distinct from both unwilling to accept this plan, and court action against such taintsince there is no authorization courts relates solely to the liti- the legislature and the Execu-tivfollowing another period of legal ed de facto segregation. Thus, whatsoever in the Constitution but agreed with maneuvering and wrangling, the for the present, it is only Southgants involved in the specific case for the federal government to before the Court. In his excellent Montesquieu that there is no case eventually reached the U.S. ern children of all races who, in meddle in the field of education. book, Your American Yardstick , liberty if the power of judging be District Court of Appeals, where the words of Senator Sam J. Erviq Even the Warren Court's 1954 the noted Constitutional author- not separated from the egislative Judge James B. McMillan, one of Carolina), have been reduced to the status of helpless decision (Brown vs. Board of ity Hamilton A. Long explains: and executive powers. Lyndon Johnsons Education ), which arbitrarily Consider then what has judicial appointees in 1968, pawns by the Supreme Court. Conreversed over fifty years of Supreme Court decisions do happened. It is not possible to list upheld a lower court decision But the North will undoubtedly stitutional precedent, is so tame not constitute the "Supreme law all of the essential details of favoring Swann. From there, the get its share of busing at some g compared to the recent busing of the Land. Its decision in a Swann v. case ascended to the Supreme later, and more politically expeddecision that it, too, has been case is limited by the facts in- Board of Education, but here is a Court, whose nine members, led ient, date. cited as a case in point by those volved and constitutes only the brief chronological review which by Chief Justice Warren Earl Brown The law of the case, binding merely includes some of the highlights: A question in the minds of opposed to busing. Buiger, unanimously upheld all decision, for instance, specifically the parties to the case. This is true Prior to the Supreme Courts parts of Judge McMillans ruling many during the development of precluded race as a factor in as to all cases and all courts , in- 1954 Brown decision, the School in favor of the radical busing the busing controversy has been: assigning students to, or barring cluding the Supreme Court. Even Board of Charlotte and order. (In related decisions hand.Where does President Nixon them from, public schools. But in a case involving consideration Mecklenburg Counties in North ed down the same really stand on this issue? There day, the Court decisSwann the Burger Courts of the Constitution , therefore , Carolina operated a dual (i.e., (I) struck down North Carolinas is good reason to be confused. ion actually makes race the chief the Supreme Courts decision While a candidate for the Presi- racially segregated) public school law; (2) ordered a new criterion for assigning children to involving a mixture of legal rules system, as authorized by plan involving busing for the inte- dency in 1968, Mr. Nixon made it the schools affected. It is, literas and principles g applied to the interpretations of gration of schools in Mobile , unequivocally clear that he decision. a racist and does the Fourteenth Amendments Alabama; and (3) upheld an inteally, facts involved cannot opposed busing. I am against It is significant that the Burger not constitute a part of the su- equal protection clause. After the gration plan for a city and county busing, he asserted on the C.B.S. Supreme Court has moved so far preme Law of the Land; which Brown decision, however, the in Georgia which assigns students Face The Nation program of to the Left that even the the Constitution (Article VI) School Board established a uni- to schools away from their neigh- October 27, 1968. I am against laws and decisdefines as including only this tary public school system prov- borhoods on the basis of race.) busing, he reiterated on N.B.C.s ion of the recent past have now fundamental law itself, as well as iding for admissions on a Meet The Press a week later. Federal Acts The impact of this particular Laws, meaning become arrows in the quiver of basis. James Swann of non-raciWhich was fine, except that treaties and (which first brought suit against the decision will be felt most heavily President Nixon, on February 3, those attempting to defend what Congress, remains of our Constitutional conform to the Constitution). School Board in 1965, claiming in the South, since it is limited to 1969, appointed James E. Allen the Board had still not gone far those areas of the country which Jr., one of the nations system. Even so, in our view, the As President Abraham Lincoln enough in achieving integration. in times past practied de jure best argument against the Courts and strongest advoFirst his in remains used noted d Inaugural But the U.S. District Court for segregation. The reasoning cates of busing, as both busing pronouncement the Constitution itself, which Address: the Western District of North to justify partiality of this sort is On Page 10 nowhere authorizes any branch Carolina ruled that the School . ..if the policy of the goverof the federal government to Board had complied with the nment, upon vital questions, requirements of the equal procompel racial balance. So if you want to obey the law affecting the whole people, is to tection clause (as set forth in the of the land, what do you do? be irrevocably fixed by decisions Brown decision), and rejected of the Supreme Court, the instant Swanns motion. Congress has passed laws which Specializing in the finest In 1968, however, a federal ban busing, but the Burger Court they are made, in ordinary litigaPrime Rib and Steaks tion between parties, in personal court decision in another case has issued an edict compelling busing. Following the Swann actions, the people will have opened a door enabling Swann to ceased to be their own rulers, take further action against the decision, Vhite House press secretary Ronald Ziegler issued a brief having, to that extent, practically School Board. Another motion PImsc Join Us statement implying that the resigned their government into was filed, and this time the Dis for on decision would be considered Experience in the law of the land by the Dining Administration. But the myth AO Pants M weet ' Meeiy that Supreme Court decisions are Cleaned'ana Pressed ( ) the law of the land, and the 4 - e, (D.-Nor- th last-minu- te Charlotte-Mecklenbur- anti-busin- g then-existin- al best-know- n Commis-Continue- 00 NOW OPEN wide acceptance of that myth by the public, is but one more example of how far the American people have been led from the paths of sound Coastitutional thinking. If decisions of the Supreme Court are indeed the law of the land, where is the legal authorization for the Courts legislative activity? The first section of the first Article of the Constitution states: All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consjst of a Senate and House of Representatives. Further along, the Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Section 2) RITE- - WA Y CLEANERS 3724 South 5th Eit Fhono 2664)117 ot fas mmss CLINTONS WHEAT SHOP Home of Clinton's Famous Wholewheat "COMPLETE DRY CLEANING SERVICE" NO PRESERVATIVES Good Selection of Food Supplements Bookstore Quality 71. West 3rd South Salt Lake City, Utah 363-773- 5 As well as our regular stock we now have available Metaphysical, Religious, and British-- srael literature. 1 irk'kiviviv'k Jsick'k'kickiv'kirk iv A New Taste Delight O Whole Wheat Donuts O O O O Raisin Filled Cookies Date Pinwheel Cookies Oatmeal Cookies Chlorealla-f- or people on the go. Just Off Bountiful Exit of 529 So. 500 West Bountiful 295-340- 5 |