in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Compulsory education laws in this hypothetical case are comparable to those in California's Education Code, Sec. 48293. They subject intervening parents to fines and imprisonment if they fail to comply with mandatory busing assignments, under the requirement that every one of the intervening students between the ages of 6 and 16, not exempted, is subject to compulsory full-time education.

The continuing federal judicial assignment of intervening students, on a racial basis, under the current facts, constitutes an unreasonable interference with the liberty of intervening parents under the United States Constitution.

II — D. The Constitution Does Not Grant the Federal Judiciary the Power to Indefinitely Assign These Intervening Students to Particular Schools on a Racial Basis.

The emergence of intervening parents, as taxpayer-electors in City School District, raises the question of judicial authority in a different context than in preceding desegregation cases. To paraphrase Justice Scalia in Freeman, democratic processes remain suspended in school operations in the City District over 40 years after Brown I.

Such a suspension adversely affects the rights of parent-taxpayer-electors in the City District to the governing participation to which they are entitled in school operations — particularly as to the assignment of their children — under the constitution and laws of the state creating City District.

City District was created pursuant to the laws of "State", a state whose constitution is modeled, like the California Constitution, after that of the United States Constitution:

The powers of state government are legislative, executive, and judicial. Persons charged with the exercise of one power may not exercise either of the others except as permitted by this Constitution. Compare Cal. Const., Art. III, Sec. 3.