User talk:TrinaTrina

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    In Constitutional law there are several types of arguments in which lawyers utilize to persuade the court.  The focus of this comment will consider one particular argument frequently used in constitutional law.  That is the “intent of the framers” of the constitution.  I argue that if the intent of the framers were actually considered or applied in Brown v. Board of Education then we would still have the “separate but equal doctrine” which would allow racial discrimination in our school systems today.
    
    In Brown v. Board of Education, Brown and other students similarly situated were denied to public schools that white students could attend.  Several cases were handled along with Brown’s case and all were challenging laws, which either required or permitted the “separate but equal doctrine.”  The facts in Brown and the other related cases reveal that African American students were schooled in rotting wood classes, with one teacher to 47 students. Meanwhile white students were schooled in brick and stucco classes with one teacher to 28 students. 

The Court found that, “Segregation cannot be resolved by the framers intent. The historical sources of the 14th amendment at best are inconclusive, and enormous changes in the nature of education made history of little use in resolving this issue” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 1954

    The court uniquely stated that “segregation” couldn’t be resolved by the framers intent.  This is interesting because in Constitutional law we count so much on the “framers intent”, this court suggests that it is just not appropriate in this situation.  I agree that it is not appropriate in this situation specifically because George Washington, James Madison, and John Ruteluge were framers of the constitution, and slave owners.  What is troublesome is a court that picks and chooses whether the framers intent argument will be used.  My point is furthered in Brown when they state

“we cannot turn back the clock to 1868 when the 14th amendment was adopted or even when Plessy v. Ferguson was written, so we must consider public education in light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 1954

    I feel we should bear in mind that the intent of the framers, may have never been for the best intentions of all people.  This court made it clear that in the situation of education, the intent of the framers cannot be considered in light of today.  I would argue that the court could have addressed all areas of segregation, not just education.  It is true that following the Brown decision other area of segregation were found impermissible, but the court could have said it applied to other areas in the first place. 
    The “framers intent” is considered in light of the historical circumstances in their day, but that does not mean that their intent was ever the right way.  If the court in Brown would have considered the “framers intent” they may have had no choice but to rule against Brown.  
    In conclusion, the “framers intent” should not be applied in some cases and not in others.  The framers intent should not be used at all.  First, because no one can without a doubt, ever know what the framers had in mind.  Theorists can only examine documents, and try to interpret words.  Even if George Washington wrote specifically in a document labeled “my intentions,” one could still only speculate.  This is because times change, meanings change, language is used differently, and old George is not here to specifically explain what he or any of the others had in mind for future generations of the Constitution.  That and the fact that he may have never been able to fully anticipate where, or how this country would develop.
    Second, when the Brown court determined that the “framers intent” could not be applied in the realm of education, they should have considered other areas.  When you have unknown intentions of framers who owned slaves, at the very least we should conclude, their frame of mind was never consistent with today’s politically correct views.