Court-ordered School Busing: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-seventh Congress, First Session, on S. 528, S. 1005, S. 1147, S. 1647, S. 1743, and S. 1760 ... May 22, September 30, October 1 and 16, 1981
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982 - Busing for school integration - 1082 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
achievement action amendment American appear areas assignment attendance authority basis bill Board busing Chairman cities Civil Committee concern conclusions Congress constitutional course decision discrimination district effect enrollment equal established evidence experience fact federal courts findings hearings housing important increase integration interest involved issue judge judicial jurisdiction Justice learning legislation limit look lower majority matter means minority neighborhood opportunity parents percent persons political positive present problem Professor programs protection public schools question race racial reason recent remedy responsibility school desegregation school district school systems scores segregation Senator Senator Baucus Senator East social statement statute studies subcommittee suggest Supreme Court Thank things tion United University white flight
Page 327 - Desegregation" means the assignment of students to public schools and within such schools without regard to their race, color, religion, or national origin, but "desegregation" shall not mean the assignment of students to public schools in order to overcome racial imbalance.
Page 413 - If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation ; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.
Page 291 - It is a proposition too plain to be contested that the Constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it, or that the legislature may alter the Constitution by an ordinary act.
Page 795 - The mere necessity of uniformity in the interpretation of the national laws, decides the question. Thirteen independent courts of final jurisdiction over the same causes, arising upon the same laws, is a hydra in government, from which nothing but contradiction and confusion can proceed.
Page 52 - No court of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent injunction in any case involving or growing out of any labor dispute to prohibit any person or persons participating or interested in such dispute...
Page 411 - As men, whose intentions require no concealment, generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said.
Page 244 - We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," and then they feel that that moral sentiment taught in that day evidences their relation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle in them, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood of the blood, and flesh of the flesh of the men who wrote that Declaration, (loud and long continued applause) and so they are.
Page 813 - The complete independence of the courts of justice is peculiarly essential in a limited Constitution. By a limited Constitution I understand one which contains certain specified exceptions to the legislative authority; such, for instance, as that it shall pass no bills of attainder, no ex post facto laws, and the like.
Page 362 - Courts of justice ; whose duty it must be to declare all Acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.
Page 796 - ... If there is in each State a court of final jurisdiction, there may be as many different final determinations on the same point as there are courts. There are endless diversities in the opinions of men. We often see not only different courts but the judges of the same court differing from each other. To avoid the confusion which would unavoidably result from the contradictory decisions of a number of independent judicatories, all nations have found it necessary to establish one court paramount...