SCOTUS Rules On Race As A Placement Factor

[Annie]

Umm, actually this is a blow to racial diversity in schools. So saying that isn't a "dishonest ploy" its actually the truth. And it hasn't overturned Brown v. Board of Ed, but it certainly went against the spirit of it.

Nothing is as simple as it appears. The intent of 'forcing school integration' was well meaning, but the results were not what would be hoped. Today we have many areas where the public schools are not capable of educating most of their students; many on the right and considerable numbers of economically disadvantaged parents, say give 'choice' a chance; many others say that 'choice' would lead to a further breakdown in the public schools, ignoring the fact that 'further breakdown' might mean closing failing schools.

Part, not all of the problems may be laid at the feet of busing, under consent decrees or voluntary. Why? Many parents truly were prejudiced and didn't want their children being forced to interact with minorities. A much greater number though, didn't want their children being bused long distances or attending schools that they perceived would not provide the type of education that they wanted their children to have available-through their choices of where to live and sacrifice to do so, (read property taxes).

So even when the demographics of a community may not change in fact, the demographics of the public schools in that community may have. Parents opted to remove their children and put them in private schools. Losinging the children of bigots may not have been a bad thing. Losing the children of those that had education as their first priority would be a bad thing. Children of parents that care about education are likely to be exposed to enrichment activities that they share in class, including those that are not exposed to such. They are likely to be the students that excel in school and their enthusiasm, especially in the younger grades can be infectious with their peers.

Go into schools in areas where there is integration and good public schools and what do you find? For the most part the children are either 'gifted' or there is no forced integration. Why? Regardless of race or other 'minority factors' the families share more of a common view of morals, aspirations, and expectations for their children. It is a community. Force seldom works out according to the expectations of the one making the 'demand', whether it's a parent that sets up a power struggle over eating 'every single thing on your plate' or system of government that tries to force people working for the greater good and denying 'God' or picking a god for them. Choice and its consequences not only work more often, those choosing learn more quickly from their mistakes.

 

[red states rule]

The parents of the kids are not upset - why is the left


snip

As Cybercast News Service previously reported the schools used race as a determining factor when approving school choice requests, favoring racial diversity in the schools over other factors, including proximity.

The policy in place in Seattle allowed officials to give preference to minority students in an effort to create racial diversity in the classroom. The Kentucky school district had a quota system requiring student bodies to be no less than 15 percent and no more than 50 percent African-American.

"In our view, they should have long ago stopped using race to decide what schools the Seattle schoolchildren get to attend," Harry Korrell, attorney for the Parents Involved in Community Schools, said during a conference call Thursday.

"The court ruled this morning that absent the need to remedy past discrimination, the government cannot make student admission assignments ... based on a student's skin color," he said.

"If you don't have the lingering effects of past discrimination, you need to stop looking at students as components of a racial class and start looking at them as individuals," Korrell added.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/CUL20070629a.html

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Federal Government CAN NOT just pay for what ever, nor exert control over what ever they want. READ the Constitution. Read the EXCUSE used when the framers fought against the Bill of Rights. They claimed that since the Federal Government could ONLY do what it was stated they could do in the Constitution there was no need for a list of "rights".

It is why the clause giving the Federal Government the power over Interstate Commerce is so stretched as to be meaningless. That is the favorite clause to claim some new power falls under AND in the case of Education it has been argued that is the clause that applies.

The Constitution specifies SPECIFIC powers and areas that the Federal Government has Jurisidiction over. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that all OTHER powers and areas are reserved to the States or the People.

Education is a power of the States. You do not like that? Create and pass an Amendment that gives the Federal Government authority over Education.

Now where is Maineman to claim my opinion means nothing because I am not 5 of the Supreme Court Justices?

 

[Annie]

The Federal Government CAN NOT just pay for what ever, nor exert control over what ever they want. READ the Constitution. Read the EXCUSE used when the framers fought against the Bill of Rights. They claimed that since the Federal Government could ONLY do what it was stated they could do in the Constitution there was no need for a list of "rights".

It is why the clause giving the Federal Government the power over Interstate Commerce is so stretched as to be meaningless. That is the favorite clause to claim some new power falls under AND in the case of Education it has been argued that is the clause that applies.

The Constitution specifies SPECIFIC powers and areas that the Federal Government has Jurisidiction over. The 10th Amendment makes it clear that all OTHER powers and areas are reserved to the States or the People.

Education is a power of the States. You do not like that? Create and pass an Amendment that gives the Federal Government authority over Education.

Now where is Maineman to claim my opinion means nothing because I am not 5 of the Supreme Court Justices?

Absent the states failing to respond to obvious wrongs: such as Jim Crow laws; 'separate but equal' schools in the sense that the South practiced a long time ago, where children were walking past good schools to attend segregated and ill supplied schools; allowing 'red lining practices' to stand, I agree with you.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Absent the states failing to respond to obvious wrongs: such as Jim Crow laws; 'separate but equal' schools in the sense that the South practiced a long time ago, where children were walking past good schools to attend segregated and ill supplied schools; allowing 'red lining practices' to stand, I agree with you.

Such action is not the Federal Government controlling education. It is the Federal Government ensuring all have the same basic rights, which IS covered by Amendments to the Constitution.

These Amendments do NOT however apply to uniform methods of how states pay for schools and education. As long as the laws of the State show no bias based on race, creed or such then the federal Government has NO authority.

 

[Annie]

Such action is not the Federal Government controlling education. It is the Federal Government ensuring all have the same basic rights, which IS covered by Amendments to the Constitution.

These Amendments do NOT however apply to uniform methods of how states pay for schools and education. As long as the laws of the State show no bias based on race, creed or such then the federal Government has NO authority.

Yes it is, when the states refuse to follow the constitution, the Fed may and should step in. The states are not separate countries. The states actually participating in such happens rarely, but when it does, the citizens of the United States do have a right to be guaranteed the rights outline in the Declaration and provided in the Constitution.

 

[William Joyce]

Haven't read the opinion, but to paraphrase CJ Roberts...

The races will never be equal because the races aren't equal.

The entire thrust of all this litigation, from Brown forward, is that black students don't do as well academically as white students. There are several reasons for this, but one powerful and never-discussed reason is that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. The average black IQ is 15 points lower than the average white IQ, and as explained in The Bell Curve, this difference is almost entirely INHERITED.

Therefore, no amount of government spending will "fix" this "problem." It's like insisting that cats will start barking if we just decrease "dog racism" and spend more tax dollars on "cat barking" programs.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes it is, when the states refuse to follow the constitution, the Fed may and should step in. The states are not separate countries. The states actually participating in such happens rarely, but when it does, the citizens of the United States do have a right to be guaranteed the rights outline in the Declaration and provided in the Constitution.

You just ignored what I said. The federal Government has no authority over Education in the Individual States UNLESS they violate the Constitution ( this includes of course amendments).

So long as the State has a UNIFORM law , procedures and policies, that do NOT differentiate based on race, creed, color, religion, etc etc, then the Federal Government has no authority. If County A has more people willing to be taxed for school then County B and the State law is that Counties fund above a base amount by bond or special tax, then this IS NOT Unconstitutional.

Don't like that method? Change the applicable laws or Constitution of THAT State.

 

[Larkinn]

Go into schools in areas where there is integration and good public schools and what do you find? For the most part the children are either 'gifted' or there is no forced integration. Why? Regardless of race or other 'minority factors' the families share more of a common view of morals, aspirations, and expectations for their children. It is a community

Yes, this is the ideal. This is why my school was like...there are two parts of my town. The outer suburbs which are mainly white, and the downtown area which is largely black. Then there is the part of town near the river which is insanely expensive...Rosie O'Donnell lives there and I believe Bono had/has a house there.

There was a vote in town a while ago whether to build another school or not. We are not overcrowded, we don't need one. But some of the white suburbanites wanted a school that was...well more wealthy and affluent (aka, white). The population of the town voted down the plan...and I think our school and town have benefited greatly from the integration. Not that the town isn't still segregated, it is, but its gotten better since I went to school there, 10 years ago, and really I think it added something to my educational experience.

I don't know the anwser to this problem. But I would prefer it be left up to states and localities to decide whether they feel the need to implement these programs or not. After all, it is complicated, and I would rather not have a one system fits all for the entire country.

The parents of the kids are not upset - why is the left

Derr...the parents brought the lawsuits. Because the parents don't care about society in general, they just care about their kids.

The Federal Government CAN NOT just pay for what ever, nor exert control over what ever they want. READ the Constitution.

Yes, they can pay for whatever they want. They can't exert control over whatever they want.

And thanks, I've read it. Don't assume you are right, its about interpretation. I interpret it differently than you do.

Read the EXCUSE used when the framers fought against the Bill of Rights. They claimed that since the Federal Government could ONLY do what it was stated they could do in the Constitution there was no need for a list of "rights".

Does it say in the Constitution the government can hire someone to mow the white house lawn? How about hire a janitor? No?...then obviously unconstitutional.

 

[Annie]

You just ignored what I said. The federal Government has no authority over Education in the Individual States UNLESS they violate the Constitution ( this includes of course amendments).

So long as the State has a UNIFORM law , procedures and policies, that do NOT differentiate based on race, creed, color, religion, etc etc, then the Federal Government has no authority. If County A has more people willing to be taxed for school then County B and the State law is that Counties fund above a base amount by bond or special tax, then this IS NOT Unconstitutional.

Don't like that method? Change the applicable laws or Constitution of THAT State.

No, i read too fast, I apologize.

 

[red states rule]

Yes, this is the ideal. This is why my school was like...there are two parts of my town. The outer suburbs which are mainly white, and the downtown area which is largely black. Then there is the part of town near the river which is insanely expensive...Rosie O'Donnell lives there and I believe Bono had/has a house there.

There was a vote in town a while ago whether to build another school or not. We are not overcrowded, we don't need one. But some of the white suburbanites wanted a school that was...well more wealthy and affluent (aka, white). The population of the town voted down the plan...and I think our school and town have benefited greatly from the integration. Not that the town isn't still segregated, it is, but its gotten better since I went to school there, 10 years ago, and really I think it added something to my educational experience.

I don't know the anwser to this problem. But I would prefer it be left up to states and localities to decide whether they feel the need to implement these programs or not. After all, it is complicated, and I would rather not have a one system fits all for the entire country.



Derr...the parents brought the lawsuits. Because the parents don't care about society in general, they just care about their kids.



Yes, they can pay for whatever they want. They can't exert control over whatever they want.

And thanks, I've read it. Don't assume you are right, its about interpretation. I interpret it differently than you do.


Does it say in the Constitution the government can hire someone to mow the white house lawn? How about hire a janitor? No?...then obviously unconstitutional.

You are one screwed up lib

Now parents should care more about "society" then their own children? Please, seek some professional help

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, this is the ideal. This is why my school was like...there are two parts of my town. The outer suburbs which are mainly white, and the downtown area which is largely black. Then there is the part of town near the river which is insanely expensive...Rosie O'Donnell lives there and I believe Bono had/has a house there.

There was a vote in town a while ago whether to build another school or not. We are not overcrowded, we don't need one. But some of the white suburbanites wanted a school that was...well more wealthy and affluent (aka, white). The population of the town voted down the plan...and I think our school and town have benefited greatly from the integration. Not that the town isn't still segregated, it is, but its gotten better since I went to school there, 10 years ago, and really I think it added something to my educational experience.

I don't know the anwser to this problem. But I would prefer it be left up to states and localities to decide whether they feel the need to implement these programs or not. After all, it is complicated, and I would rather not have a one system fits all for the entire country.



Derr...the parents brought the lawsuits. Because the parents don't care about society in general, they just care about their kids.



Yes, they can pay for whatever they want. They can't exert control over whatever they want.

And thanks, I've read it. Don't assume you are right, its about interpretation. I interpret it differently than you do.


Does it say in the Constitution the government can hire someone to mow the white house lawn? How about hire a janitor? No?...then obviously unconstitutional.

It states that within the areas that the federal Government has authority they can and will do what ever neccassary to maintain that authority, so your lawn mower is nothing more than a red herring.

 

[Annie]

Haven't read the opinion, but to paraphrase CJ Roberts...

The races will never be equal because the races aren't equal.

The entire thrust of all this litigation, from Brown forward, is that black students don't do as well academically as white students. There are several reasons for this, but one powerful and never-discussed reason is that blacks are inherently less intelligent than whites. The average black IQ is 15 points lower than the average white IQ, and as explained in The Bell Curve, this difference is almost entirely INHERITED.

Therefore, no amount of government spending will "fix" this "problem." It's like insisting that cats will start barking if we just decrease "dog racism" and spend more tax dollars on "cat barking" programs.

WJ, your paraphrasing is more than a little off, surely it was unintentional:

"The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

 

[Larkinn]

Now parents should care more about "society" then their own children? Please, seek some professional help

mmmm more lies. How fun.

It states that within the areas that the federal Government has authority they can and will do what ever neccassary to maintain that authority, so your lawn mower is nothing more than a red herring.

So tell me where mowing the lawn is necessary to maintain that authority?

My point is a simple one. The Constitution requires interpretation. Hence, the need for a USSC. Hence there is no clear cut 100% right anwser.

 

[red states rule]

mmmm more lies. How fun.



So tell me where mowing the lawn is necessary to maintain that authority?

My point is a simple one. The Constitution requires interpretation. Hence, the need for a USSC. Hence there is no clear cut 100% right anwser.

More lies? Here is your quote

Because the parents don't care about society in general, they just care about their kids.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

mmmm more lies. How fun.



So tell me where mowing the lawn is necessary to maintain that authority?

My point is a simple one. The Constitution requires interpretation. Hence, the need for a USSC. Hence there is no clear cut 100% right anwser.

Find a better argument. You are of Course aware that the White House is in Washington DC? That this area is owned and under sole control of the Federal Government as Federal property for a specific purpose?

Exactly who should pay for mowing the White House lawn if not the Government entity that OWNS the lawn? Who should pay for the cooks and staff inside the White House if NOT the Federal Government? The Constitution is clear DC is a legal entity of the Federal Government, it is IN the Constitution. BUT even assuming it was not, The Constitution clearly states that each of the branches exist and have the power, authority and right to establish facilities as needed to exersize their power, authority, etc. THIS alone justifies why the Government would pay for Lawn Care at ANY Federal facility. Maintaining said facilities falls directly under the power granted the Government to operate and exist.

 

[Larkinn]

More lies? Here is your quote

Because the parents don't care about society in general, they just care about their kids.

There is a difference between stating what someone believes and stating what they should believe. I stated what they believe, you (lied) and said I said something about what they should believe.

Exactly who should pay for mowing the White House lawn if not the Government entity that OWNS the lawn?

Merely because there is nobody else to do it does not give them the right to do it. After all, the Constitution needs to specifically say that can do that.

Find a better argument. You are of Course aware that the White House is in Washington DC? That this area is owned and under sole control of the Federal Government as Federal property for a specific purpose?

And where in the Constitution does it give the feds the right to do that?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Try Article I Section 8

and Article IV Section 3.

Section 8 is a big one so here is the portion you want specifically...

To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Cat got your tongue?

 

[Chips Rafferty]

You are as ignorant as the people you claim to attack.

Lets see, Joseph Smith lived in the early 1800's. There wer a LOT of people that were white that did more than claim blacks were descendents of Cain and cursed. Same with Brigham Young and the third Prophet of the Church.

The 10th Prophet was quite some time ago also.

Your ignorance is astounding. You are aware of course that Mormons do NOT practice pologomy anymore? That the church through the Prophet declared it unacceptable before the turn of the 20th Century?

Further you are aware the Church has allowed blacks to be members for a VERY long time? The restriction being they could not be ordained in the Priesthoods or be allowed to attend Temple ( a lot of Mormons never gain the right to go to Temple).

The way it works , for the unenlightened, is that the leader of the Church is considered a Prophet of God. This means he can receive Divine Guidance from God. In 1978 such occurred and was also delivered to the 12.

For those unaware the church requires that each member be informed of this Guidance and that they pray and through the guidance of pray accept the word.

Were the original Mormons bigots? Most likely they were, as was the vast majority of people living in that time. Are present day Mormons bigots? I am sure, since we are humans, some are. But the Church is not. And the Church believed, correctly, what was taught by the Prophets. Just as the Church now accepts that the curse has been lifted and all members are granted the ability to be ordained in the priesthoods and hold any office in the church.

The real bigot here is Chips, he hates religion, all religion and anyone that believes in God through organized religion. Well at least Christian religions.

Let’s appraise your so-called religion, shall we?

In The Beginning there were these (frequently) criminals who called themselves “Profits.” True to form for madcap Christian cults, these Profits claim(ed) to exclusively command the attention of fictional authority figures in the firmament.

At first glance these Mormon Gods, who BTW were also polygamously married - presumably to pasty-faced decent family values Mormon WHITE women - seemed to me to be nothing but lapsed Judeo-Christian Gods. Except that their laws and pussy obsessed practices only remotely resemble the more socially acceptable Judeo-Christian God…oops, G-d. (Shit, a man could end up in a covert Goulash Archipelago for a slip like that!)

To begin with, the semi-divine pedophile John Smith got fellow pedophiles (Mormons L-O-V-E nubile Lolita brides) society’s fringe dwelling fruitcakes, and similar misogynistic perverts who couldn’t win a self-respecting woman for themselves, to believe they too could have whole harems of compliant pussy to screw, as well as squillions of imaginary Mormon Gods at their exclusive beck and call.

However, quite soon afterward their Profits, ostensibly at the behest of their ******-hating misogynistic Good Ol’ Boy Mormon Gods, began doing an about-face and started changing their attitude to coons. It was either this or lose the little credibility they had as a religion.

Originally, the Mormon God’s couldn’t stand coons. But as uber-Christian America (funny how all these hydrophobic cults originate in America ) belatedly came into line with the rest of the world on slavery, They realised their depraved racism toward these dusky sub-humans was a voter turn-off. Accordingly They quickly re-evaluated eons of prejudicial thinking and became bleeding heart Libruls.

The same tardy process was also PUBLICLY applied to that other sub-human species, women. Although to this day little Elizabeth Smarts as still getting "married" (code for fucked) to old men. So, to all intents and purposes then, it wasn’t long before the Gods became pussy-whipped Marxist-Feminist wimps.

Now it appears you are tongue-in-cheek intimating that ALL Mormon Gods are monogamously married to mousy June Cleaverish church ladies (who think oral sex is satanic and would divorce Gods if They dared suggested they “do it” dog style) meant solely for incubating more Mormon Gods.

Poor Mormon Gods, I bet They regularly sneak out of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic compound in the Mormon hairless vagina Heaven to the top-secret Latin quarter and get Themselves fucked and sucked senseless by long-legged, high-assed, Creole honey-pots and 12-year-old Catholic school girls in full school uniform.

There. I think that gets the gist of your progressive ever evolving religion.

To paraphrase you, “Your gullibility is astounding.”