Busing —Not Integration— Opposed: Invoke Our Color-Blind Constitution to End It / Chapter Five |
77 | |||||||||||||||||||
Busing Advocacy Is Understandable, but Without Understanding |
||||||||||||||||||||
provision in the Constitution is indicative of its grand design, and blunts the criticism of its original design.)
(Browder, of course, did not involve students, but rather black passengers who objected to the governing agency mandating their seating, solely because of their race, to particular seats in the back of buses in Montgomery, Alabama. Browder v. Gayle, 142 F.Supp. 707 (1956). Browder was affirmed by per curiam order in Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956), citing Brown as the leading authority. Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954), which was incorporated into Brown, pointed out that classifications "based solely upon race must be scrutinized with particular care" and are "constitutionally suspect." This aspect of Brown, anti-busing students assert herein, is as applicable to their objections to a judge or school board indefinitely mandating their seating in particular schools, solely on the basis of their race, as it was to the objections of black plaintiffs in Bolling and Browder.) Part IV, Respecting the Grand Design, of my Daily Journal article on the Constitution, describes the great respect held for the Constitution, which its unique design has inspired, so vital to the transformation of the Brown decision into reality:
|
||||||||||||||||||||
Plessy |
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S.537 (1896) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Browder |
Browder v. Gayle, 142 F.Supp. 707 (1956) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Browder |
Gayle v. Browder, 352 U.S. 903 (1956) |
|||||||||||||||||||
Bolling |
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954) Washington, D.C. |
|||||||||||||||||||
Brown I | Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954) Topeka, Kansas |
|||||||||||||||||||
— Busing: Chapter 5, pages 67 - 80 — | ||||||||||||||||||||
|