In 1974, The Supreme Court Decision Of Milliken V

In 1896, the Plessey v. Ferguson court decision established the “separate but equal” doctrine, allowing that it was legal and fair to separate public school students by race and color as long as the education given was “equal”. As history has shown, the education was seldom fair or equal. Thus, in 1954 the landmark court decision of Brown v. Topeka Kansas struck down the 1896 decision. It outlawed racial segregation of public school students, ushering in the desegregation of public school institutions across the nation from elementary through college. Public schools were ordered by federal mandate to use race to equitably assign children to public schools; thus, eliminating the segregation that previously was determined by neighborhood residency. Today, there are two cases in the U.S. Supreme Court that challenge local public school board policies in Louisville and Seattle. The Bush Administration has publicly agreed with the parents, who brought the lawsuits that are in favor of desegregating these schools districts.

The lawsuits argue that desegregation policies are well-intentioned but not constitutional. In order to be legal, desegregation policies must be based on a “persuasive good reason”. The two lawsuits contend that no persuasive good reason exists in the Louisville and Seattle school districts, with the Louisville brief citing that “a well-intentioned quota is still a quota”. Many are sitting back and watching the outcome of these two Supreme Court cases. If the court decides in favor of the parents, the ruling could possibly affect 400 school districts in 17 states, which continue under court-ordered desegregation. Why do these parents and those against desegregation believe that now is the time to overturn Brown v. Topeka Kansas? First, the Bush Administration has publicly supported not only these public school cases but other lawsuits, as well, that seek to eliminate federal-mandated racial equity in business. Second, Harvard University’s Civil Rights Project has shown that public schools across America have been resegregating during this century.

Patterns of segregation exist at all levels of public education — district, state, regional and national levels. One key finding of the study is that white students are the most segregated of public school students, attending schools that are at least 80 percent white. Since the Milliken v. Bradley decision, many of the larger cities have suffered with segregation within their urban areas, with mostly minorities populating those sections of the cities. For example, 27 of the largest urban public school systems serve a fourth of their black and Latino student populations. Fourth reason, the Harvard study also found that even in desegregated public school systems in the United States, black students are segregated through student tracking and biased testing. America touts itself as a colorblind society within this century; yet, many minorities across the nation continue to experience a lack of quality, educational resources that are enjoyed by most white students. Many federal and state public school funding formulas ignore the segregation resource issues, adding to the unequitable and lack of resources for primarily minority public schools. Big business, both domestic and abroad, already has succeeded to some degree (with government support) in eroding the democratic right that everyone, regardless of race, color, creed or religion, has a right to work. Now, our public school systems are under attack.

Bangalore, also known as silicon city of India is experiencing vast positive growth trend in real-estate sector. With the emerging IT/ ITeS sectors the property market continues to be dominant in the city. Most of the working class is opting Bangalore as their permanent address due to developed infrastructure, security and well- maintained civic facilities. Residential, commercial and rental property, all are getting equal weightage in terms of property growth. Devarachikkanahalli is also abbreviated as DC Halli is located in the South Bangalore which connects Bannerghatta Road with Begur. It is well connected to Bangalore city b bus, auto and taxis. The nearest international airport is Kempegowda airport which is at a distance of 54 Km approx. Bangalore central railway station which is at a distance of 15 km. Devarachikkanahalli is a highly developing area and various residential as well as commercial projects are launching in the city and hence it is becoming a prominent real-estate hotspot of South Bangalore. Hexa Supreme is the synonym for ultra-modern living which is launched by renowned Hexa Builders in Bangalore. The project is offering spacious and well-constructed 2, 3 BHK residential apartment.

It is constructed over a total area of 1 acres constitutes 2 towers of 5 floors each and 68 units. The saleable area of the apartment is 1210-1830 sq. ft. Intact Avenue is a prominent project by Intact Builders which is located at the prime locations of Bangalore. The project is constructed over 0.18 acres of total area where 35% of the area will remain open. It has beautifully designed 2, 2.5and 3 BHK duplex apartments. To provide the maximum comfort to the residents, the project has all the modern amenities that facilitates the serene life to the inhabitants. Intact Avenue has power back up lift, vastu compliant architecture, rain water harvesting, party lawn, gymnasium, InterCom, individual car parking, Children’s play area and to name a few. The increase of commercial growth has increased the demand for residential properties too in Bangalore. The Information Technology workforce has helped in witnessing a positive price movement in most of the locations of Bangalore. The city is observing a rise in price preferring to budget housing units both in rental and capital market. The areas such as old airport, Kanakpura Road, Srjapur Road, Hedge Nagar and Sahakara Nagar are gaining high interest by the builders as well as potential buyers. Builders such as Prabhavathi Builders, Hexa Builders, Sapthagiri Developers, Shiviri Propertys and to name a few renowned builders are coming up with numerous residential and commercial properties in the city.

The Chief Justice of India Hon’ble Justice Dipak Misra launched various applications for the benefit of the litigants and lawyers during the third week of August, 2018 at an event in the Supreme Court of India. Honorable Justice M.B. Lokur, Judge in charge, eCommittee, Supreme Court of India, under whose guidance the eCourts project reached many milestones in the delivery of digital court services, explained the features and benefits of the applications. The path breaking citizen centric applications launched during the ceremony have been developed under the leadership of Honorable Justice M.B. Lokur, Judge in charge, eCommittee, Supreme Court of India. The principal components of the eCourts Project especially the crucial pan-Indian Wide Area Network (WAN) Connectivity programme has been steered by Dr. Alok Srivastava, Secretary, Department of Justice. Three applications of e-filing, e-pay, and NSTEP (National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes) created under the eCourts project were launched during the occasion.

The second phase of the eCourts project is implemented by Department of Justice during 2015 – 19 under the guidance of eCommittee, Supreme Court of India for ICT enablement of all district and subordinate courts in the country. Through the application, one can file cases from any part of India to any court on registration. Portfolio management of cases of litigants and lawyers is provided on this portal and one can get updates from time to time about filed cases, cases under objection or rejected cases. The facility of eSign is provided for those who cannot afford purchasing token for making digital signatures. The eFiling application will facilitate efficient administration of Judicial System, as it will ease pressure on filing counters and will speed up work flow processing. Data entry will be more accurate which will help to take data driven decisions in court administration. It will start building digital repositories which will auto generate paper books and can be quickly transmitted to Higher Courts which will reduce delays.

The platform is user friendly which can be used with very little self help. Payment is a safe and secure, quick and easy way to pay court fees . At present, the facility will be made operational in two states of Maharashtra and Haryana. OTP authentication provides secure way to financial transactions and one can get instant acknowledgement through SMS and print receipt. The application is beneficial to judicial administration since verification of court fees is more easy, secure and transparent and accurate figures of court fees collected can be generated for any court, district or State. NSTEP – National Service and Tracking of Electronic Processes is another innovative application launched as part of the eCourts Project, which is an collaboration between Case Information Software (CIS), Web portal and Mobile Application. It is a transparent and secure system for transmission of process from one location to another, and shall address delays in process serving particularly for processes beyond jurisdiction.

NSTEP will lead to secured auto generation of processes with unique QR Code through CIS, publishing processes on portal and transmission of processes to other court complexes in the country and ultimately to mobile app of the bailiffs. The eCourts Mission Mode Project Phase I was implemented during 2011 – 2015; wherein Rs. 639.41 crores was released for computerisation of district and subordinate courts. Under the Phase II of the Project (2015-19), Rs. 1078 crores has been released till date, against the financial outlay of Rs.1670 crores. Computerisation of 16,089 district and subordinate courts has been completed, through provisioning of computer hardware, Local Area Network (LAN), and installation of standard application software in district and subordinate courts. The National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) for district & subordinate courts has been created as an online platform which now provides information relating to judicial proceedings/decisions of 16,089 computerized district and subordinate courts of the country. The portal provides online information to litigants such as details of case registration, cause list, case status, daily orders, and final judgments. Currently litigants can access case status information in respect of over 10 crore cases and more than 7 crore orders / judgments. Case information is thus available speedily to the petitioners and respondents. The eCourts portal and National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG) also serve as tools of efficient court and case management for judiciary which aids in disposal of pending cases. The Department of Justice is administering a Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity project connecting all the district and taluka courts through BSNL in a single network grid under the eCourts Project. Department of Justice has issued work order to BSNL in May 2018 for establishing Wide Area Network (WAN) connectivity at 3064 Court Complexes, including 458 unconnected court complex sites under e-Courts Project at a cost of Rs. 169.61 crores, to complete in six months. Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.M.

The Indiana lawmaker is running as a Trump-leaning Democrat in one of the closest Senate races. Democratic Sen. Joe Donnelly of Indiana suggested Tuesday evening that he was open to ending birthright citizenship for children of immigrants, a policy that President Donald Trump is pushing ahead of the midterm elections. Donnelly, who is running in a tight race for re-election, framed himself as tough on undocumented immigrants during a debate against Republican challenger Mike Braun. The senator pointed to his support for a wall between the U.S. Mexico and, as part of the 2013 comprehensive immigration reform bill, his support for more border agents. Then Donnelly said he would review legislation that aimed to restrict birthright citizenship. “We have to take a look at that legislation,” he said. The bill would probably not be constitutional. And Trump’s vow on Monday to limit birthright citizenship by executive order was quickly shot down by legal experts and even members of his own party as an overreach of his authority. Anyone born in the U.S.

’t officials of a foreign government is an American citizen under the 14th Amendment, which was ratified by the states after the Civil War to extend rights and liberties to former slaves. That the amendment specifically applies to children of non-citizen immigrants has been affirmed by the Supreme Court. Legal scholars say changing birthright citizenship would require a constitutional amendment. But Trump has some backers for the idea in Congress. After the debate, Donnelly said in a written statement that the 14th Amendment is clear but the U.S. “As I have done in the past, I will work with both parties to find a solution that secures our borders and fixes our broken immigration laws,” he added. Donnelly’s GOP challenger also said he would be open to birthright citizenship legislation. “If Lindsey Graham is introducing it, I think it will be something I’ll take a look at,” Braun said. Donnelly has campaigned as a Democrat willing to sometimes break with his party to support the president, especially on immigration issues. He has repeatedly endorsed the idea of a wall on the Mexican border.

Major: Social Science Concentrations in Sociology, Early American History, U.S. If we as The People do not insist on upholding, protecting, defending, and preserving the U.S. Social issues of personal choices we make in the pursuit of happiness are already protected by the 1st Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution. The key is in preserving those protections today, including Congressional repeals and/or U.S. Supreme Court reversals of unconstitutional legislation, in whole or part. Today, Americans are realizing as never before in our history perhaps, our personal role as The People, the ongoing foundation of our government framework as a Constitutional Republic. Through the built-in system of checks and balances at every level of separations of power, democracy is our process of decision making–from the individual, to local districts, to State and Federal governments. Constitutionally, our founding philosophers from their writings intended and expected The People to be involved in the debates on issues, through various means of individual elected representation.

To remain a free People, as independent individuals in choices we make personally in the establishment of our lives, we must remember not to simply vote and leave the decision process untended by our own ability to contact elected officials. We must tell them what we believe concerning Constitutional decisions that are expected to represent Americans in our government. Therefore, we all must assume personal, individual responsibility for what our government does in accordance with our Constitution, at every level of constitutional, separations of power. We The People are the final resource on the lists of checks and balances wherever government decisions would change our lives in violation of Constitutional Law. Let us pray that America ‘s People continue to insist that our democratic process from the pyramid foundation up to the highest apex, representing the all-seeing eye of God, continues to uphold and preserve forever, our great American constitutional republic.

In an earlier post we had covered a decision of the Delhi High Court relating to mental insanity and the status of such an accused under criminal law. ] revisited the issue and explained the law as applicable in India in terms of Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code which governs the issue on this aspect. Holding that there was a difference between ‘legal insanity’ and ‘medical insanity’, the Supreme Court explained that not every conceited, odd, or irascible could be taken into account to determine the defence of an accused on grounds of insanity. Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is found in its Chapter IV, which deals with general exceptions. “The standard to be applied is whether according to the ordinary standard, adopted by reasonable men, the act was right or wrong. “Section 84 lays down the legal test of responsibility in cases of alleged unsoundness of mind. There is no definition of ‘unsoundness of mind’ in IPC. The courts have, however, mainly treated this expression as equivalent to insanity. But the term ‘insanity’ itself has no precise definition. It is a term used to describe varying degrees of mental disorder.

So, every person, who is mentally diseased, is not ipso facto exempted from criminal responsibility. A distinction is to be made between legal insanity and medical insanity. 9. In our opinion, an accused who seeks exoneration from liability of an act under Section 84 of the Indian Penal Code is to prove legal insanity and not medical insanity. Expression “unsoundness of mind” has not been defined in the Indian Penal Code and it has mainly been treated as equivalent to insanity. But the term insanity carries different meaning in different contexts and describes varying degrees of mental disorder. Every person who is suffering from mental disease is not ipso facto exempted from criminal liability. 10. Next question which needs consideration is as to on whom the onus lies to prove unsoundness of mind. In law, the presumption is that every person is sane to the extent that he knows the natural consequences of his act. The burden of proof in the face of Section 105 of the Evidence Act is on the accused. Though the burden is on the accused but he is not required to prove the same beyond all reasonable doubt, but merely satisfy the preponderance of probabilities. “9. Under the Evidence Act, the onus of proving any of the exceptions mentioned in the Chapter lies on the accused though the requisite standard of proof is not the same as expected from the prosecution. 10. In State of M.P. ]. The settled position of law is that every man is presumed to be sane and to possess a sufficient degree of reason to be responsible for his acts unless the contrary is proved. Mere ipse dixit of the accused is not enough for availing of the benefit of the exceptions under Chapter IV.

Earlier this month, recently seated Judge Don Willett of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote his first opinion in case involving sentencing enhancements. Judge Willett when he was Justice Willett of the Texas Supreme Court was well-known for his humorous tweets on Twitter. Indeed the Texas House of Representatives named him “Tweeter Laureate”. Given this background, you might expect his opinions to have a bit of humor woven into them and you wouldn’t be wrong. The case of US v. Maturino involved an appeal of the sentence received by Victor Maturino. Mr. Maturino thought he was buying 144 live grenades for a Mexican drug cartel. What he got was 143 duds and one live grenade. 35,000 in cash and took possession of the grenades (and other NFA items). The judge in the trial court gave Mr. Maturino an enhanced sentence because of the number of grenades involved in the illegal transaction. The appeal contended that he should have only been sentenced based on the number of live grenades he actually bought as opposed to the number he though he was getting. The 5th Circuit rejected his appeal in an unanimous decision concluding that the trial court’s application of the Sentencing Guidelines including an enhanced sentence was correct. Victor Maturino requested 144 high-explosive grenades; he received 143 non-explosive grenades. This is a sentencing appeal, though, and what matters for sentencing is what Maturino actively sought, not what he actually bought. Summing up, the sentencing court properly counted the number of firearms involved in Maturino’s offense and did not miscalculate his sentence under the Guidelines. Maturino’s plan for live grenades fell short, but close counts in horseshoes and hand-grenade cases. All I’m going to add is that Judge Willett is an American treasure and I’d love to see him as a Justice on the Supreme Court.