----- Original Message ----- From: "JDG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Killer Bs Discussion" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2004 5:48 PM Subject: WAS Re: Gay marriage update
> At 04:15 PM 5/22/2004 -0500 Dan Minette wrote: > >>I could also point out that desegregation of schools didn't > >> really begin in force until Congress passed subsequently passed a Civil > >> Rights Act - whose specific name is eluding me at the moment. > > > >Sigh, I lived through that history. School desegregation was by court > >order. Indeed, if you look at the civil rights act of 1964, you will find > >very little of it has to do with public school desegregation. I just read > >it at > > > >http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/laws/majorlaw/civilr19.htm > > Uhhh.... I hope that it was clear from my actual words that I was NOT > referring to THE Civil Rights Act. I took the time this time to find out > what it was... the specific legislation was called the Elementary and > Secondary Education Act. Its 600 pages, so I didn't read the whole thing. But it is clear that the purpose of the bill is to establishes a federal program for spending money on education. Indeed, the "No Child Left Behind" legislation was implemented by ammending and extending this bill. The reality of the '60s and '70s and even into the '90s is desegregation was pushed by court order. What happened was, after roughly 10 years, courts decided that "all due speed" was not being used and started getting involved in the nitty gritty of deciding exactly how desegregation was to be implemented. In other words, the leadership of the court was strengthened during this period, to the constant howls of "judicial tyrrany." I won't argue that the funding provisions in this law didn't help move this process along at all, but the lead was definately taken by the courts. My latest experience with this was when a good friend of mine lost his bid at being re-elected to the school board because he wanted to work on implementing court ordered desegregation, instead of fighting it. This was in the '90s. > But again, darn it Dan, why not actually try and defend what the > Massachusetts Supreme Court is doing rather than insist upon refighting old > battles? It seems to me that this "Racist Republicans" thing has become a > convenient excuse for you to duck criticizing liberal excesses. The point I'm adressing is your criticism of judges for interpreting the Constitution of Mass. The people of Mass. should know full well the consequences of their provisions for ammending the constitution. From the very start of the US, it was clear that the constitution would be viewed in different ways by different people. At the very least, since Brown vs. Board of Education, it should be crystal clear that the result of a change in the interpretation of the constitution would result in important changes. In other words, the courts role in interpreting the constitution is not to just stop new unconstitutional laws from being implemented, its to stop implementation and actions that have long been unconstitutional, in the opinion of the court. In short, I saw are two parts to your statement. 1) The Mass. Supreme Court made the wrong decision 2) The Mass. Supreme Court had no right to make this decision; it is inappropriate for a court to make this type of decision. I can see both sides of the arguement for point 1, so I didn't pick that point to counter. I differ with point 2, and I pointed out another example of this type of action that I considered valid and that was the poster boy for "judicial tyrrany" for much of my life. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
