On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:33:56 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
wrote:

>bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:16:57 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <alichtenstein@erols.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>"snip"
>>
>>>Wrong. Public schools are REQUIRED to take everyone, because that is
>>>the right of each citizen.
>>
>>The only point I wish to address here is that education is not a "right" that is
>>recognized under the US Constitution.
>
>Education is required by the constitutions of all 50 states. The 14th
>amendment therefore makes this a "right" for every citizen.
>
I perhaps you could point out where. My copy says nothing about it.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Giving society cheap abundant energy . . . would be the equivalent of
giving an idiot child a machine gun." -- Dr. Paul Ehrlich

"There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other
is wrong, but the middle is always evil." -- Ayn Rand

"...observe that in all the propaganda of the ecologists amidst all
their appeals to nature and pleas for 'harmony with nature' there is
no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival.
Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot
survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision
i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears..." - AYN RAND
"The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left, 136.

"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us,
'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -- Dosteovsky

Joseph R. Darancette
res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net

res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Jun 2003 03:33:56 GMT, Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>wrote:

>>Education is required by the constitutions of all 50 states. The 14th
>>amendment therefore makes this a "right" for every citizen.
>>
>I perhaps you could point out where. My copy says nothing about it.

>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.

The case law in this has primarily been in regards to race. But a key
paragraph from Findlaw shows the underlying applicability of the 14th
to "free and appropriate public education in the least restrictive
environment"

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt14/25.html#1
> Brown v. Board of Education .--''Separate but equal'' was formally
> abandoned in Brown v. Board of Education, 15 involving challenges to
> segregation per se in the schools of four States in which the lower
> courts had found that the schools provided were equalized or were in
> the process of being equalized. Though the Court had asked for
> argument on the intent of the framers, extensive research had proved
> inconclusive, and the Court asserted that it could not ''turn the
> clock back to 1867. . . or even to 1896,'' but must rather consider
> the issue in the context of the vital importance of education in
> 1954. The Court reasoned that denial of opportunity for an adequate
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
> education would often be a denial of the opportunity to succeed in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> life, that separation of the races in the schools solely on the basis
^^^^
> of race must necessarily generate feelings of inferiority in the
> disfavored race adversely affecting education as well as other
> matters, and therefore that the equal protection clause was violated
> by such separation. ''We conclude that in the field of public
> education the doctrine of 'separate but equal' has no place. Separate

^^^^^^^^
> educational facilities are inherently unequal.'' 16
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

while a different section discusses the general constraint implied by
the 14th:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...nt14/18.html#1

> SECTION 1. RIGHTS GUARANTEED: EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
>
> Scope and Application
>
> State Action .--''[T]he action inhibited by the first section of the
> Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be
> that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely
> private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.'' 1 The
> Amendment by its express terms provides that ''[n]o State . . .'' and
> ''nor shall any State . . .'' engage in the proscribed conduct. ''It
> is State action of a particular character that is prohibited.
> Individual invasion of individual rights is not the subject matter of
> the amendment. It has a deeper and broader scope. It nullifies and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> makes void all State legislation, and State action of every kind,
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> which impairs the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> States, or which injures them in life, liberty, or property without
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> due process of law, or which denies to any of them the equal
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^
> protection of the laws.'' 2 While the state action doctrine is
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> equally applicable to denials of privileges or immunities, due
> process, and equal protection, it is actually only with the last
> great right of the Fourteenth Amendment that the doctrine is
> invariably associated. 3
>
>''The vital requirement is State responsibility,'' Justice Frankfurter
> once wrote, ''that somewhere, somehow, to some extent, there be an
> infusion of conduct by officials, panoplied with State power, into
> any scheme'' to deny protected rights. 4 Certainly, state legislation

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> commanding a discriminatory result is state action condemned by the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, and is void. 5 But the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
> difficulty for the Court has begun when the conduct complained of is
> not so clearly the action of a State but is, perhaps, the action of a
> minor state official not authorized or perhaps forbidden by state law
> so to act, or is, perhaps on the other hand, the action of a private
> party who nonetheless has some relationship with governmental
> authority.
>
>The continuum of state action ranges from obvious legislated denial of
> equal protection to private action that is no longer so significantly
> related to or brigaded with state action that the Amendment applies.
> The prohibitions of the Amendment ''have reference to actions of the
> political body denominated by a State, by whatever instruments or in
> whatever modes that action may be taken. A State acts by its
> legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act
> in no other way. The constitutional provision, therefore, must mean
> that no agency of the State, or of the officers or agents by whom its
> powers are exerted, shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction
> the equal protection of the laws. Whoever, by virtue of public
> position under a State government, deprives another of property,
> life, or liberty, without due process of law, or denies or takes away
> the equal protection of the laws, violates the constitutional
> inhibition; and as he acts in the name and for the State, and is
> clothed with the State's power, his act is that of the State.'' 6
>
>...
>
>It has long been established that the actions of state officers and
> agents are attributable to the State. Thus, application of a federal
> statute imposing a criminal penalty on a state judge who excluded
> African Americans from jury duty was upheld as within congressional
> power under the Fourteenth Amendment; the judge's action constituted
> state action even though state law did not authorize him to select
> the jury in a racially discriminatory manner. 16 The fact that the
> ''state action'' category is not limited to situations in which state
> law affirmatively authorizes discriminatory action was made clearer
> in Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 17 in which the Court found unconstitutional
> state action in the discriminatory administration of an ordinance
> fair and non-discriminatory on its face. Not even the fact that the
> actions of the state agents are illegal under state law makes the
> action nonattributable to the State for purposes of the Fourteenth
> Amendment. 18 ''Misuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and
> made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the
> authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law.''
> 19 When the denial of equal protection is not commanded by law or by
> administrative regulation but is nonetheless accomplished through
> police enforcement of ''custom'' 20 or through hortatory admonitions
> by public officials to private parties to act in a discriminatory
> manner, 21 the action is state action. When a State clothes a private
> party with official authority, he may not engage in conduct forbidden
> the State. 22

lojbab

res0mp8t@NOSPAMverizon.net (Captain Compassion) wrote:
>You forgot the 10th ammendment. As with many things the handeling of
>public education was left to the people and the states.

The 14th amendment came after the 10th and overrides it in the matter
of citizenship and rights and privileges of the people.

lojbab

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> bondrock@ifx.net (Info Junkie) wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Jun 2003 15:16:57 -0400, Alan Lichtenstein <alichtenstein@erols.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>"snip"
>>
>>
>>>Wrong. Public schools are REQUIRED to take everyone, because that is
>>>the right of each citizen.
>>
>>The only point I wish to address here is that education is not a "right" that is
>>recognized under the US Constitution.
>
>
> Education is required by the constitutions of all 50 states. The 14th
> amendment therefore makes this a "right" for every citizen.

The 14 amendment says that a state cannot treat one group
of people as not having rights that they recognized that
another group has.

The intent was to stop a state from saying that whites have
a right to vote, attend school, and so forth, while blacks
don't have that right.

If a state was to abandon public education, and say "you're
on your own" to it's people, the "right" to education would
cease to exist.

A state can also put entrance requirements on going to
certain schools, or on going to a school, period.

Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>> Education is required by the constitutions of all 50 states. The 14th
>> amendment therefore makes this a "right" for every citizen.
>
>The 14 amendment says that a state cannot treat one group
>of people as not having rights that they recognized that
>another group has.
>
>The intent was to stop a state from saying that whites have
>a right to vote, attend school, and so forth, while blacks
>don't have that right.
>
>If a state was to abandon public education, and say "you're
>on your own" to it's people, the "right" to education would
>cease to exist.

I believe that every state has public education defined and required
in its constitution. Thus it is non-trivial for them to abandon
public education.

>A state can also put entrance requirements on going to
>certain schools, or on going to a school, period.

Not for public education. Compulsory education laws mean that the
state has to provide some form of schooling for all kids, and the 14th
amendment "equal protection clause" means that this schooling has to
be equal to the schooling provided for others, and Brown vs Board
means that "separate but equal" isn't good enough.

Elite schools can exist with objective entrance criteria, but they
have to be available to all who meet those criteria, and the state has
to provide for all the other kids as well.

lojbab

Bob LeChevalier wrote:
> Stuart Grey <user@example.net> wrote:
>
>>>Education is required by the constitutions of all 50 states. The 14th
>>>amendment therefore makes this a "right" for every citizen.
>>
>>The 14 amendment says that a state cannot treat one group
>>of people as not having rights that they recognized that
>>another group has.
>>
>>The intent was to stop a state from saying that whites have
>>a right to vote, attend school, and so forth, while blacks
>>don't have that right.
>>
>>If a state was to abandon public education, and say "you're
>>on your own" to it's people, the "right" to education would
>>cease to exist.
>
>
> I believe that every state has public education defined and required
> in its constitution. Thus it is non-trivial for them to abandon
> public education.
>
>
>>A state can also put entrance requirements on going to
>>certain schools, or on going to a school, period.
>
>
> Not for public education. Compulsory education laws mean that the
> state has to provide some form of schooling for all kids, and the 14th
> amendment "equal protection clause" means that this schooling has to
> be equal to the schooling provided for others, and Brown vs Board
> means that "separate but equal" isn't good enough.

Again, you mistake what the 14th says; states must threat
their people equally. It doesn't say that if people in another
state have benefits, that your state has to give you the same.


> Elite schools can exist with objective entrance criteria, but they
> have to be available to all who meet those criteria, and the state has
> to provide for all the other kids as well.

Actually, the SCOTUS just said that if your black, then you
don't have to meet the same high standards that whites and
Asians are required to meet.