authorities fulfilled their constitutional obligations in the past.

I concluded my article by complaining that the present exercise of judicial power was going beyond that which created a constitutional crisis in earlier days:

The exercise of such power led to a constitutional crisis in the 1930s. President Franklin Roosevelt brought the matter into the political arena. He reminded the country that there was nothing in the Constitution expressly saying that the Supreme Court had the right and power to be its sole interpreter, and he proposed legislative curbs on the power of the courts.

A constitutional crisis was created then by the exercise of power to veto legislation which the President and many others claimed impinged on the legislative branch.

The constitutional crisis today is even more serious, for the majority of justices then were exercising a veto on legislation they found to be unconstitutional. Today the California Supreme Court is not satisfied to merely veto the actions of the people taken by initiative or through their elected representatives in the legislature or on school boards: they assert the power to legislate busing plans, even contrary to the wishes of school boards and the majority of their constituency, through the recommendations of panels and special masters, in accordance with the court's notion of what the plan should be — and to compel compliance by force, if school boards do not come up with what they determine is a "reasonably feasible desegregation plan."

Events following the publishing of this article were to increase my academic concern about busing and to lead to a pro bono representation, extending to the present time, of San Diegans opposed to "forced busing," whose leader, Larry Lester, had contacted me shortly after