How does Brown v. Board's case fit into Constitutional law, as discussed in the chapter?
102871
The 14th Amendment of the Constitution states:  No state shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of any citizen of the United States. Not allowing a student to go to a closer school or a school that will offer the student more opportunities was unfair and a direct violation of the amendment.  Accorging to Chief Justice Earl Warren:\n“We come then to the question presented: Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities and other “tangible” factors may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities?  We believe that itdoes… We conclude that in the field of public education the doctrine of “separate but equal” has no place separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.  Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the lase guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”\n~I once did a paper on this I hope it helps.  Remember simpily seperate but equal is not equal.
1159068
No, the concept of the phrase is recognized as negative and that is all it does.\n\nThe second question will be answered by the trial court - once it returns there.\n\nThis is not a separation of church and state since the document was distributed to non-members of the church.  \n\nOn a sidenote, the Supreme Court of Iowa said it could go forward, it didn't however decided the case.  Now the US Supreme Court must determine if it wants to hear the case.  If they disagree with the Iowa court, then it returns for trial.  If they disagree, then the case will be dropped since there is no legal standing.\n\nThe point is that a ruling hasn't been made on the merits of the original case - this is just the finer points of the law being argued at this point.  In general, you can't just go out and smear somebody in writing without justification.  And that issue is for the trial court to decide eventually.
1186500
On all issues of law the final arbiter in the United States is the Supreme Court.  That body in the USA's tricameral system of government has frequently overruled the executive and/or legislative branches of government as to interpretations of existing law.  This in no way should lead one to make such statements as "the President is ignoring the constitution."  It merely demonstrates that a reading  of existing law has been more narrowly defined by the court as interpreted vis-a-vis the constitution and that the system of checks and balances work.
42919
comes from Marbury v. Madison.  It gave the court the right to decide the constitutionality of a law
705324
Only for non-US citizens.\n\nThe MCA directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent, and the plain text of the constitution, which mandates that 5th and 6th Amendment protections apply to anyone held in custody by the US govt, and anyone prosecuted by the US govt.\n\nIt also directly violates Article I Section 9, by suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus. As the Supreme Court ruled over a hundred years ago, the phrase "except during rebellion or invasion when the public safety may require it" means that as long as the federal courts are open for business, they can hear Habeas petitions for anyone detained or held prisoner by the federal government.  \n\nThe law is facially unconstitutional. The only question is, can someone come up with a creative jurisdictional standing argument and find a way to get a federal court to hear the constitutional challenge?
278466
To interpret the law and its constitutionality
72966
It appears the NY Appeals Court which ruled on this case held that a city or subdivision of the state cannot legislate in areas which are explicitly or implicitly preempted by a state law.\n\n\n"The State Legislature may expressly articulate its intent to occupy a field, but may also do so by implication. An implied intent to preempt may be found in a "declaration of State policy [*9]by the Legislature . . . or from the fact that the Legislature has enacted a comprehensive and detailed regulatory scheme in a particular area" (Consolidated Edison Co. v Town of Red Hook, supra at 105). In that event, a local government is "precluded from legislating on the same subject matter unless it has received 'clear and explicit' authority to the contrary" (People v De Jesus, supra at 469, quoting Robin v Incorporated Village of Hempstead, 30 NY2d 347, 350-351)." \n\nThe Legislature's intent to preempt local legislation in an area may be either express or implied. Implied preemption occurs where, notwithstanding the absence of an express exemption, State law indicates a purpose to "occupy the entire field so as to prohibit additional regulation by local authorities in the same area." Robin v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead, 30 N.Y.2d 347, 350 (1972).
230630
If you mean the actual law, it is constitutional law.  If you mean the best for understanding interpretation of those laws than try books on law from your local library.  Most are written for laymen rather than for lawyers.
284598
Administration of Court-Ordered School Desegregation in Urban School Districts: The Law and Experience, The\nJournal of Negro Education, The,  Summer 2004  by Hunter, Richard C\n\n Save a personal copy of this article and quickly find it again with Furl.net. It's free! Save it.\nIt has been 50 years since the United States Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education (1954). This article discusses race relations and education before Brown and reviews both decisions in this important case that did so much to provide hope for African Americans that public education would be improved for their children in this country. The "massive resistance" movement in the South that delayed the implementation of public school desegregation for more than a decade and several seminal cases in both higher education and public school desegregation are reviewed. In this article, the impact of "White flight" and other demographic factors on urban public education are presented. Also, the administration of court-ordered desegregation in Bradley v. Richmond School Board (1971) is a primary subject of the article. Finally, a review of the effects of public school desegregation on public education in urban school districts are presented; including the economic costs, racial isolation, student achievement, metropolitan desegregation, and an outlook for the future.\n\nBACKGROUND\n\nContinue article\nAdvertisement\n\nIt is useful to consider race relations and education before discussing public school desegregation in the period leading up to the now famous decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education, 1954 (Brown I). The institution of slavery was the low point in race relations in America and was conceived by some as a means of converting Blacks to Christianity. Still others maintain that slavery was used to provide this rapidly growing country with a steady supply of inexpensive labor. Nevertheless, divisions over the treatment of slaves in the colonies developed and influenced several northern states to abolish slavery, including Pennsylvania (1780), Massachusetts (1783), Connecticut (1784), and Rhode Island (1784). Although sentiment against slavery was strong in the North, Blacks were denied the right to vote and to use public conveyances and in 1860 only 7% of free Blacks in the North were allowed to attend schools. Prior to the Civil War, public education was limited in most southern communities and formal education for slaves was illegal. However, after President Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the Civil War ended, the 13th Amendment was passed, and race relations improved for Blacks in the United States. This period of good extended to all states in the union, particularly in the North. Unfortunately, once again racist Whites created "black codes" to restrict the rights and freedoms of the newly freed slaves. These codes did not permit Blacks to hold political office or to vote and influenced passage of the Civil "Rights Act of 1866, which was incorporated in the 14th Amendment. This legislation made it illegal for states to deny equal protection to anyone under their jurisdiction. Congress established the Freedman's Bureau for slaves, which operated from 1865-1872 and created 4,200 schools that enrolled almost 250,000 pupils. Nevertheless, only 5% of the Black, school-age population was served by the Freedman Bureau's schools. It was reported in 1871 that the State Supreme Courts of Ohio and Indiana decided that separate schools were legal, if they were equal. Because of this condition, the education of Blacks in the North was not much better than it was in the South. The right of Blacks to vote was ratified in 1868 by the 15th Amendment. However, because federal troops were removed from the South, Blacks were effectively disenfranchised from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests in every state in this region (S
980104
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.\n\nSection 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.\n\nSection 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.\n\nSection 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.\n\nSection 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.\n\n\nOk, nutshell explanation, anyone born on US soil is a natural-born citizen, as per Article I. Article II over-rides the previous statute of slaves being 3/5 of a person, now any male over 21 could vote, and representation in the House was adjusted to incorporate the possible influx of members due to the recalibration. Article III basically states that any member of a rebellion against the United States *cough Confederate States of America cough* can't hold any office, military of civilian, unless Congress overrules the disability with a 2/3 majority vote, on a case-by-case basis. Article IV states that the US won't pay reparations for lost slaves, or the CSA's debts. Article V is just there to say Congress will make states do this.\n\nIt's significance is this: Have you heard the term anchor-babies? An anchor baby is a child, born in America, to illegal alien parents, and the parents use the child to get welfare, get it an education, which the parents normally don't care about anyways, and whenever someone comes sniffing, say "They're an American citizen, don't split up our family!" As of the last Congress, there were proposals to alter Article I, to require that one parent must be a US citizen to make you a natural citizen, and if neither were, you weren't a citizen, and could be deported, with the parents, to the parent's home cou
1169301
I can find no law by that name, but the idea you are talking about seems to be enshrined in case law:\n\nThose beneficiaries represented by appellant whose interests or whereabouts could not with due diligence be ascertained come clearly within this category. As to them the statutory notice is sufficient. However great the odds that publication will never reach the eyes of such unknown parties, it is not in the typical case much more likely to fail than any of the choices open to legislators endeavoring to prescribe the best notice practicable. \n\nNor do we consider it unreasonable for the State to dispense with more certain notice to those beneficiaries whose interests are either conjectural or future or, although they could be discovered upon investigation, do not in due course of business come to knowledge of the common trustee. Whatever searches might be required in another situation under ordinary standards of diligence, in view of the character of the proceedings and the nature of the interests here involved we think them unnecessary. We recognize the practical difficulties and costs that would be attendant on frequent investigations into the status of great numbers of beneficiaries, many of whose interests in the common fund are so remote as to be ephemeral; and we have no doubt that such impracticable and extended searches are not required in the [339 U.S. 306, 318]   name of due process. The expense of keeping informed from day to day of substitutions among even current income beneficiaries and presumptive remaindermen, to say nothing of the far greater number of contingent beneficiaries, would impose a severe burden on the plan, and would likely dissipate its advantages. These are practical matters in which we should be reluctant to disturb the judgment of the state authorities. \n\nAccordingly we overrule appellant's constitutional objections to published notice insofar as they are urged on behalf of any beneficiaries whose interests or addresses are unknown to the trustee.
778020
The only way Constitutional laws apply to your case is in theory, by the spirit of natural laws contained in the First Amendment, if you equate the situation you are in with a form of "due process" or "petitioning" to redress grievances and to establish justice. \n\nThis same First Amendment that proclaims the freedom of speech, or of the press (written or spoken communication) also protects the right of the people "peaceably" to assemble and to petition for redress of grievances.  So any abuse of freedom of speech, press or religion to cause disruption or "breach of the peace" actually violates the same set of laws that naturally check and balance each other when considered together in context.  \n\nThis inherent balance between First Amendment rights can be seen in Oliver Wendell Holmes' famous example, that you cannot abuse freedom of speech to the point of yelling fire in a crowded theatre.  My point is that since this would cause an undue disturbance or breach of the peace, it abridges the right of the people "peaceably" to assembly in the theatre, and thus violates the very same law used to invoke free speech.\n\nToday, more specific legislation has been written concerning hate\ncrimes and harassment, which also concern this same natural check on personal freedoms.\n\nOnly if both parties in a dialogue agree to abide by the same rules and respect the peace while they "petition" each other, can these Constitutional laws be used to protect you from invasion or infringement of your equal right to peace and freedom and protection.  If the other party does not seem to respect your rights equally, you can peacefully "petition" to do so by addressing them directly as a peer to correct the problem between you as amicably as possible, and advising them that failure to resolve this civilly will force you to report this to authorities as a criminal threat issued over the internet.  If the person has published false or damaging statements about you, to do so in spoken word is slander and to do so in written word is libel; and both are unlawful and are grounds for lawsuit.  However, given the expense of a lawsuit, I would rather pursue mediation instead.  It tends to resolve the issue more effectively, without the high cost or risk of legal action, and restores the dignity to both parties.\n\nIf this person has any respect for the very same Constitutional laws by which we invoke freedom of speech and press to communicate, he or she should be compelled to answer your petition as long as you are equally answering their grievances.  Indeed, since the First Amendment reflects natural laws that govern all human nature, I have found most people do respond favorably when asked to help correct a grievance peacefully out of respect for the very laws that they enjoy exercising so freely.\n\nBoth sides would have to agree to stop the threatening behavior and to restore civil communications; or the resulting breach or disruption of the peace is, itself, infringing on the rights and freedom of both parties to petition each other peacefully, through spoken or written word, as equally respectful human beings.
1084363
A little note on the particulars of lawmaking and judgments (which are NOT the same).  The creation of laws is done by the legislative branch (ie. Congress or Administrative Agencies - whose legitimacy can be debated as well).  The interpretation of laws is done by the Judicial Branch (ie. judges, ultimately the Supreme Court).  \n\nThere are several types of law in the United States, which is followed from the ancestors from England...Common Law, Natural Law, positive Law, Administrative Law, Ordinances, State Law,  and Constitutional Law.  Most people have no idea how these all fit together.  BASICALLY....\n\nWhen an entity (usually a person) appeals a case to the United States Supreme Court, and it is accepted for review by the Court, the parties are arguing points of law, not whether something happened or not.  In reviewing a case, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are supposed to use above all else for their considerations the United States Constitution - the SUPREME law of this land.  (This is how if something is found unconstitutional, the case is over becuase it is by nature illegal.)  \n\nThe Constitution however is viewed through the lenses of human eyes that have had experiences and posses hidden motives.  These are what move a Justice to decide one or another.  \n\n(In regards to a precedent....this applies to Common Law only, which is the lowest forms of law in this country.  All that a precedent is, is a way another Justice at some level decided in a particular region.  That is, if an Alabama judge decided a case for a certain reason...other Alabama judges would be expected to find the same decision in similar cases.  This precedent would not at all apply to courts in Colorado or Maine or...any other state.  Precedents are most similar to ordinances - "don't do that because we have realized it causes harm to many.")
253308
constitutional law... that's their job
896956
Federal trump state. State trumps local. Constitution trumps statute. Statute trumps case law.\n\nSo, from the top -- federal constitutional text, then US Supreme Court interpreting federal constitution, then federal statute, then other federal case law, then state constitution, etc....\n\nAs far as one state relative to another, neither is binding on the other.
469314
this is against the brown vs board of education resolution...
782299
Well, my opinion is that the document is outdated.  It's just a piece of paper,  made by men after all, and yet it is revered as if made by the hand of God.  \n\nI think it should be considered to draw up a new constitution: One that wouldn't need exhaustive amounts of amendments, and would apply to the state of affairs in 2006 versus 1776.  It could also include and merge all the standing supreme court decisions, which would allow the justices to refer to the constitution instead of court precedent, a practice I find to be admirable but not necessarily wise.  (A decision handed down in the past may nonetheless have been in error.)\n\nI realize that this is an extremely radical viewpoint.  But nonetheless I think people should consider the fact that the constitution is more symbolic now than truly effective.