Jackson advocate. [volume] (Jackson, Miss.) 1939-current, 1953-11-28
NAACP LAWYER
Continued from Page One)


parents in these cases, argue that
segregation per Sc is discrimina
ton and violation of the equal
protection clause of the 18th
Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States. The District
of Columbia case is based on the
due process clause of the Fifth
Amendment.
The school boards in the lower
courts based their arguments main
! ly on the outdated, outmoded sep
arate but equal doctrine" They
contend that the local provisions
for separate schools are not in con-
flict with the Fourteenth and Fifth
Amendments.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
! Questions One and Two:
/. What evidence is there that
the Congress which submitted and
the State Legislatures and con-
ventions which ratified the Four
teenth Amendment contemplated OF
did not contemplate, understood or
did not understand, that it would
abolish segregation in public
schools?
2. If neither the Congress in
submitting nor the States in rati-
fying the Fourteenth Amendment
understood that compliance with
it would require the immediate
abolition of segregation in public
schools, was it nevertheless t h e
understanding of the trainers OF
the Amendment.
(a) that future Congresses might,
in the exercise of their power under
Sec. 5 of the Amendment, abolish
such segregation, or
(b) that it would be within the
judicial power, in light of future
conditions to construe the Amend
ment as abolishing such segrega
ton of it's own force?
Answers to One and Two:
"There is ample evidence that
the Congress which submitted ana
the states which ratified the l4th
Amendment contemplated and I'M
derstood that the amendment would
deprive the states of the power to
impose any racial distinctions IN
determining when, where and how
it's citizens would enjoy the va
rious civil rights afforded by the
states,' it is argued in the brief"
the right to public school edu~
cation was one of the civil rights
with respect to which the states
were deprived of the power to M
pose racial distinctions.
The trainers of the 14th Amend
mont were men with a well
defined background of Abolition
list doctrine dedicated to the equal
itarian principles of real and com
plete equality for all men, the
lawyers cited.
The era prior to the Civil War
was marked by determined efforts
to secure recognition of the prln-
ciple of complete and real equality
for all men within the existing con-
stitutional framework of our gov
eminent"
NAACP attorneys stated that the
39th Congress, trainers OF the l4th
Amendment, "were formulating a
constitutional provision setting
broad standards for determination
of the relationship of the state to
the Individual" but could not list
all of ! the specific categories OF
existing and prospective state &C
tivity which were to come within
the constitutional don'ts.
"In short" NAACP lawyers ar
que, "the 14th Amendment was
designed to take from the states
all power to enforce caste or class
distinctions"
The evidence as to the under
standing of the states is equally
convincing, the brief points out.
The amendment was ratified in
1868 by the states, 10 years before
the separate but equal doctrine
came into existence.
The lawyers for the Negro stu