How Does the Abstract Concept of Equality Relate to the Premises of Brown v. Board of Education?
Brown v. Board of Education of Uganda is a case of public schooling versus private education, in which the plaintiffs, Ms. Davidette Brown and Mr. Samuel L. Jackson, challenge the constitutionality of the Education Bill in Kampala, Uganda. This is part of their campaign for basic education for all children in the world. They claim that the bill violates their right to education. The case has become an important test of the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech. How does the excerpt on the bill pertain to the premises of the constitution of brown v. board of education?
In order to understand: how does the quote on the bill relate to the premises of v. board of education, we must answer the first question posed at the outset: What is the definition of “state law”? In most cases, state law is defined by the constitution and laws of a country. However, there are a few instances where a state legislature has been allowed to override the constitution if the citizens or representatives of a state can point to an existing statute or constitution that gives them the authority to enact a law. In this case, the states had to pass a resolution approving the charter, or “acts of assembly,” as it is referred to in the United States, and then they must send the resolution to the Supreme Court. The Court will then review the case and decide whether or not the state legislature exceeded the powers conferred upon them under the Constitution.
The crux of the second question in the second case to address: whether or not the excerpt from v. board of education, itself, indicates a likelihood of the Board being able to take over the school system in a future event. The lower court had ruled that the lower level of government was not below the level of the citizens’ right to petition the constitutionality of a law. This means, basically, that if the people believe they are being deprived of their right to have a higher education, they have every right to bring a legal challenge to court. This is exactly what the petitioners in Brown did, and the lower court was wrong. The original decision still stands.
How does the fifth clause of the fourth article: of the Bill of Rights relate to the premise that the people are endowed by the Constitution with the right to education? The lower court found that the clause does not recognize a right to education, but only an obligation to educate. A right to an education is defined as the ability to receive an education without governmental interference. In order to receive this education, the student must meet some minimum requirements and must be enrolled in a public or private educational program. In order to establish that the people have the right to have an education, this minimum requirement has to be met.
As the Fifth Amendment lawyer in Los Angeles once told me: when you read the Fourteenth Amendment, you don’t read it as a guarantee of what the state deprive the person within. You read it as guaranteeing that the person within cannot be deprived of his or her life, liberty, property, and freedom. The state cannot legally deprive you of these things, without showing probable cause that a continuing threat exists from that person, and without individualized instruction or trial. That is the reason the Fifth Amendment guarantees the right to trial, and is not simply a promise of impartiality. In fact, no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without being convicted thereof.
Justice Ginsburg also pointed out in her opinion: that the Equal Protection Clause “is a much more complex guarantee than the term ‘due process’ because it incorporates two separate concepts-the idea that persons are innocent until proven guilty, and the idea that a person cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without actual or constructive deprivation.” The disparate-treatment theory under the Fourteenth Amendment is inherently uneven because it is based on notions of racial inequality and the effects of racial discrimination. The Court has never held that color or nationality are relevant to a rational basis determination of the equality element of the Equal Protection Clause. Ginsburg’s opinion goes against a long line of cases previously decided by the Court. In my view, the Court must take another approach to the question of how does the abstract notion of equality under the Due Process Clause impact the lower courts’ interpretation of the Clause.