Sunday, June 3, 2007

The 25th Anniversary of Plyler v. Doe

Education Week (here) (Published Online: June 1, 2007; Published in Print: June 6, 2007) has an interesting article on the 25th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Plyer v. Doe, which barred a Texas school district it, and other public school systems, from charging tuition for undocumented children. Twenty-five years ago, the Supreme Court decided the Plyler v. Doe case involving the education of undocumented children in Tyler, Texas. Now, amid debate about illegal immigration, some complain about undocumented Mexican men who often gather in a local parking lot for day labor.

KJ

P.S.  Mary Ann Zehr, the author of the the article linked above, has posted a blog entry (here) that mentions Michael A. Olivas' (Houston)'s chapter on Plyler v. Doe in Immigration Stories (2005) that provides details about Peter Roos and the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund's role in the case.

P.S.S.  For more on the 25th anniversary,

http://www.dallasnews.com/s/dws/photography/2007/plyler/

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/061107dnmetplyler.3a34e2f.html

http://www.aldiatx.com/

https://lawprofessors.typepad.com/immigration/2007/06/the_25th_annive.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bfae553ef00df351ef3b28834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The 25th Anniversary of Plyler v. Doe:

Comments

Plyler vs Doe is an abomination that amounted to a usurpation of power by a branch of government, and is manifestly unconstitutional. If brought before the present Court, it would no doubt be overturned. For the Burger Court to establish what's in the best interests of the nation without deferring to Constitutional prerogative that is the Legislative Branch function was outrageous. Moreover, how can it be construed that it is the right of those who violate our immigration laws to be granted the privilege of an education at the expense of the citizen who declared illegal aliens to be deportable outlaws? It strains reason to the breaking point. Surely it should be up to the voting citizen, through his elected representative, to determine whether he should make such outlays of precious national treasure for non-voting foreign nationals. After all, isn't the stated purpose of the Constitution, as written in its preamble, still to promote the common welfare of the persons alive at the time and their posterity, i.e. citizens? I have news for you, a case could never be made that our forefathers had illegal aliens in mind when they expressed concerned for the common welfare. That's a perverted modernistic approach promulgated by those contemptuous of the citizen's right to govern the socioeconomic direction of his sovereign nation. Moreover, since out forefathers and their successor Congressmen never established public education as a right, an education through the 12th grade cannot be construed as being protected by the 14th Amendment. The citizen should never be forced to appropriate money for such purposes without informed consent of his elected representatives. The outrage perpetrated by a Court which appointed itself masters of the universe at the time of the ruling, is precisely what our Declaration of Independence was about, government by consent of the governed. Simply substitute the Court for the King in the charges made therein, and you'll view the ruling in its appropriate light. This was judical activism at its worst.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 3, 2007 3:23:25 PM

Plyler vs Doe is an abomination that amounted to a usurpation of power by a branch of government, and is manifestly unconstitutional. If brought before the present Court, it would no doubt be overturned. For the Burger Court to establish what's in the best interests of the nation without deferring to Constitutional prerogative that is the Legislative Branch function was outrageous. Moreover, how can it be construed that it is the right of those who violate our immigration laws to be granted the privilege of an education at the expense of the citizen who declared illegal aliens to be deportable outlaws? It strains reason to the breaking point. Surely it should be up to the voting citizen, through his elected representative, to determine whether he should make such outlays of precious national treasure for non-voting foreign nationals. After all, isn't the stated purpose of the Constitution, as written in its preamble, still to promote the common welfare of the persons alive at the time and their posterity, i.e. citizens? I have news for you, a case could never be made that our forefathers had illegal aliens in mind when they expressed concerned for the common welfare. That's a perverted modernistic approach promulgated by those contemptuous of the citizen's right to govern the socioeconomic direction of his sovereign nation. Moreover, since out forefathers and their successor Congressmen never established public education as a right, an education through the 12th grade cannot be construed as being protected by the 14th Amendment. The citizen should never be forced to appropriate money for such purposes without informed consent of his elected representatives. The outrage perpetrated by a Court which appointed itself masters of the universe at the time of the ruling, is precisely what our Declaration of Independence was about, government by consent of the governed. Simply substitute the Court for the King in the charges made therein, and you'll view the ruling in its appropriate light. This was judicial activism at its worst.

Posted by: Horace | Jun 3, 2007 3:23:35 PM

Post a comment