cch5432

Should get interesting. Hannah Giles, the female "prostitute", is an aspiring journalist and daughter of a Townhall.com contributor!

Sounds good. I'll start spreading the "Brossart to Lloyd rumor"

Are you really a rapper if your logo is a teddy bear? I thought rap ain't nothin but a g thang.

I didn't mean to make you sad, heck I only said it because you made me :cry: in the Rand Paul thread.

Geez Clyde you can't catch a break, I got what you were saying. Where is Dave Brossart now, anyways?

Hangman and Boondock...be honest, without looking, did you all know the names of all those lead singers, or did you look up the band's singer? If so, bravo.

I wasn't speaking of content, merely the ways that the tests are set-up, and IMO the ACT is tougher in that respect. (Actually, looking at a chart, I think I scored better on the SAT as well)

I'd take the ACT as a 7th-grader because it is a more difficult test in terms of stamina (merely because, relative to the SAT, the sections are not broken up as frequently) and therefore when he takes it in high school, he will know what to expect. The SAT (which, FWIW, seems to matter a lot less in the South relative to the North) isn't as difficult because everything is broken up into sections that are less than 45 minutes, if I remember correctly.

Only because we are talking about Milk, a movie about gay rights, I will note that Van Sant is homosexual, for anyone who did not know.

Do the ACT.

If it was before TheOldGuy was old, then it is too long ago.

No, I'm just criticizing the Court's practice of making decisions based on policy preference rather than a legal/constitutionalist perspective. As for the Civils Rights Act of 1964, I think that was the proper channel for segregation to send (although it came 10 years after the SC's decision to end segregation in Brown v BOE). And (on a different topic, the original one that I wanted to discuss) as noted in the first post, the SC overstepped the boundaries there as well.

Coles won't play that poorly again, but with or without TJ, it doesn't matter, this offense is terrible. RT #73 (Collins?) is so horrible, and the untimely penalties kill everything. D looked good but we'll see what happens when we play decent teams.

True, but you are making it seem like the amendments' writers from the 1860's didn't want it to include segregation because it was a different time. If so, I agree with you- which is why there should have been a different amendment. I think it goes against the spirit/mentality of the Constitution (and 14th Amendment) but it is not specifically addressed by any part of the Constitution, and it is clear from the 39th Congress's actions regarding segregation that the amendment was not meant to outlaw segregation.

Sure is great that I started Palmer instead of Schaub. :irked: I did call Cadillac Williams, though.

We'll just have to agree to disagree, I suppose. If the writers of the 14th Amendment, the 39th Congress, intended for it to end segregation, then I don't understand why that same Congress would segregate their own schools (in DC) AFTER passing the amendment.

That is what I'm trying to illustrate- it did NOT violate the 14th amendment, and for three primary reasons: 1) (as noted earlier) If the creators of the 14th amendment were trying to desegregate, than why did Congress in 1874 (AFTER THE AMENDMENT) "enacted legislation which specifically provided for separation of the races in the schools of the District of Columbia." As noted by the Atlantic from above, "It is difficult to think that the Congressmen of that time proposed to require by constitutional amendment that the states do what Congress was unwilling to require of the District." 2) In fact, Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter charged in law clerk to determine the intentions of the framers of the 14th Amendment, and he found, "It is impossible to conclude that the 39th Congress intended that segregation be abolished; impossible also to conclude that they foresaw it might be, under the language they were adopting." However, Justice Frankfurter merely took "impossible to conclude" as a reason for him to make his own choice of what they want. 3) As noted by Richard Kluger, “Could it be reasonably claimed that segregation had been outlawed by the Fourteenth when the yet more basic emblem of citizenship—the ballot—had been withheld from the Negro under that amendment?” Putting all thoughts about the noble cause of desegregation aside, the fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court didn't make a legal decision, but a policy preference. The 14th Amendment's original intents were ignored by the SC. There should have been another Constitutional Amendment. I go to all these lengths to illustrate the mindset that SC operates at times, and it is dangerous for us to allow men who have been appointed for life to create laws for our country. Rather, we should rely on a primary value of republicanism, that elected officials make the laws.

Let me clarify a few things: When I started the thread, I was going to merely discuss the philosophies behind desegregation and integration- why desegregation was a valid cause, but integration was merely "discrimination to end discrimination." However, the discussion has morphed into something completely different that I also wanted to discuss, which is policy-making from the bench. I am not making an argument against desegregation, but I am (trying to) illustrate why the Supreme Court's decision in Brown v BOE was NOT based on the intention of the framers of the 14th amendment, but rather a personal policy preference. The way that desegregation should have been implemented is through an act of Congress or an amendment to the Constitution. I know it is a contentious issue and I hope no one misinterprets my motivation as racist, I am discussing nothing beyond judicial "interpretation".

Ahh, after 36 hours of seeing this, I just realized what this means- Greatest Of All Time. :lol:

Welcome to the Libertarian Party.

Nowhere did I say that it was "ok in this country to set up school systems based on race." I find it morally unacceptable. However, it was not unconstitutional at the time- what part of the Constitution did it violate? An amendment to the Constitution was needed. However, instead of an amendment, we got a Supreme Court Justice making personal policy preferences, when they should have given a purely legal decision. What I'm driving at is that there is a proper way to create new laws, but the SC is not it. The Constitution is a document that is meant to bind down politicians. Unless the Constitution explicitly permits government to create laws, then it is unconstitutional. Since the Constitution and its amendments have no reference of how to run a school system- and there is evidence that the 14th amendment specifically left out the school segregation issue- there is no reason why the Supreme Court should create the new rule. Rather, the issue should be decided by our elected officials, the Congress.

As we argue, keep in mind that I absolutely believe that "separate but equal" is bogus and absolutely should have been made illegal- just by the correct channels. How was it unconstitutional? The ruling centered on the 14th Amendment (1868), which mentions nothing about segregation. As noted by The Atlantic..."In...1874, the Congress enacted legislation which specifically provided for separation of the races in the schools of the District of Columbia. It is difficult to think that the Congressmen of that time proposed to require by constitutional amendment that the states do what Congress was unwilling to require of the District." There should have been a separate amendment or a Congressional act that ended segregation, not a SC justice's policy preference when he should be making a legal decision based on current laws.

I understand that one is a more legal term, but, from the way that I am looking at it: They are essentially the same practice aiming for opposite goals. Desegregation is forcing races to stay separate, integration is forcing races to be together in school. Desegregation is valid because "separate but equal" was bogus and no one should be denied school access because of the color of their skin. However, integration is not valid because it violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964, is a form of discrimination, and puts race at the forefront instead of being color-blind. The Supreme Court's act of forcing African-American students to bus 2 hours both ways to school just to fill a percentage of black students was an unconstitutional and egregious action.

Both correct, but neither relevant. School segregation and the "separate but equal" ideas are both morally impermissible. But we live in a republic- laws are crafted by elected officials, not appointees. Laws should not be made from the bench.

Let's take a trip back to the mid-20th century. First of all, let's ignore the fact that the Supreme Court's decision to desegregate the schools was, while the right thing to do, extremely unconstitutional (laws should be made from the legislature, not the bench, and the 14th Amendment intentionally left out the schools). [sIDENOTE: I'm not against desegregation, I just think that Congress should have initiated it, not the SC). Anyways, so the schools are desegregated at this point. However, due to the natural and voluntary decisions on all Americans, many neighborhoods happened to be (and still happen to be) racially "imbalanced." Human beings tend to live closer to members of their own ethnic groups. Therefore, schools tended to (not always, but tended to) be racially imbalanced. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a landmark case for African-American rights. Note what it says: "Nothing herein shall empower any official or court of the United States to issue any order seeking to achieve a racial balance in any school by requiring the transportation of pupils or students from one school to another or one school district to another in order to achieve such racial balance." Similarly, the chief litigator of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund during Brown v BOE, future Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, had said that the Constitution required an end to segregation, NOT integration (although of course Marshall changed his position once he reached the SC). So, let's think about Swann v Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education. The Charlotte board proposed a plan that had 9 of its 10 high schools being between 17-36% black, while the tenth was on 2% black. For some reason, this plan was unaccetable, and the Supreme Court ordered that black students be bused into the suburban schools, and white student be bused into the city schools, is this a clear violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Is this a classic case of discrimination to end discrimination? Furthermore, does the SC (or even Congress for that matter) have the right to integrate? Keep in mind the key differences between integration and desegregation.