According to Prudence L. Carter of Stanford University, "at-risk students" is a code-word for lower class racial and ethnic minorities.
That means that his school for "at-risk" kids that gives them a bunch of free goodies is unconstitutional under the 14th Amendment as per the Brown v. Board of Education decision.
How to BTFO LeBron for Trump: Shut down his school for "at-risk" students for being unconstiutional
Wyatt Thomas
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Dominic Bennett
Clarence Thomas on Brown v. Board of Education:
>Public school systems that separated blacks and provided them with superior educational resources making blacks "feel" superior to whites sent to lesser schools—would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, whether or not the white students felt stigmatized, just as do school systems in which the positions of the races are reversed. Psychological injury or benefit is irrelevant …
en.wikipedia.org
Oliver Morris
I like it. whats the plan stan?
Christopher Murphy
Get some white kid in Akron to sue the school and hire a good jew lawyer, I guess.
This is a pilot test to see if they can get away with doing this. Something like this has probably been in the works for a while. But it's not legal.
Landon Anderson
Bumping for potential
Christian Ward
Really I'm just hoping this idea starts to germinate out into the ether and more people start thinking about it and considering this angle.
Jonathan Scott
I learn something different on Jow Forums every day, thanks based OP, great thread.
kinda offtopic but what was unconstitutional with say, bush v. gore ? was it because of equal protection of the law so nothing really regarding citizenship ? I can understand the first for racial segregation but I fail to understand the others. Is it some kind of a loophole they used or was it based ?
>Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
>Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation
>Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion
>Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election
>Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage
Jordan Perry
I agree. First step is exposure about its existence. Maybe now that the Qanon lads have been btfo by spicer they will be bored enough to take this on
I hate lebron and all the niggerball players
Tyler Morgan
But we don't want segregation to be deemed unconstitutional. We need the SC to reverse Brown.
John Howard
I like it.
Liam Perry
The Qanon schizos will destroy anything just by being associated with it, since they'll find a way to bring their schizo delusions into it somehow and make any sane person stay away. As seen with pizzagate.
The moment they touch this fucking thing, it goes from a legit attempt at fucking over LeBron with a legal case, to a conspiracy theory about how the "at-risk" schools are used to traffick children. And that's when it dies.
Xavier Taylor
such a nigger
and didn't he just run out of his team for more shekels elsewhere?
Jack Thompson
I'm not a lawyer and haven't studied Bush v. Gore very closely, tbqh.
Roe v. Wade is an example of the Court legislating from the bench. Not even lefty law professors defend it on any grounds other than "it's already precedent".
There's not Constitutional "right to privacy", as much as we may wish that there was. Nobody thought when any of the Amendments were drafted that they were granting women a right to have an abortion.
Obergefell v. Hodges is kind of a tricky one. I understand the decision as being that given the fact that marriage licenses are issued by the government, the government can't have undue burdens over who can get a license and who can't.
The thing that gets me about it is that marriage licenses only became a thing in the USA to prevent race mixing. Originally you only needed a license to have a mixed-race marriage.
Before that all marriages were strictly common law marriages. You didn't need to ask permission and purchase a license from the government to get marriage.
After Loving v. Virginia, restricting marriage licenses on the basis of race was no longer legal. That opened to door for Obergfell.
We should have stuck with common law marriage.
Dylan Roberts
>we don't want segregation to be deemed unconstitutional
It already is, you retard.
Cameron Green
I get it now, I think ?
>purchase a license from the government to get marriage
>OI ! DO YOU HAVE A LOICENCE FOR THIS MARRIAGE
that was...unexpected.
Another thing I learned from this thread, thanks OP
Dominic Perez
No offense OP but I don't think even anyone on Jow Forums is stupid enough to think this is a valid strategy. It's an obvious own goal.
The only people are replying are lefties like you.
Camden Watson
>bring their schizo delusions into it somehow and make any sane person stay away. As seen with pizzagate.
>STILL cant debunk a SINGLE post related to pedogate
pedo defenders are some of the saddest sacks of shit
Elijah Mitchell
>>purchase a license from the government to get marriage
>>OI ! DO YOU HAVE A LOICENCE FOR THIS MARRIAGE
that's literally what marriage is in the USA in every state that doesn't still allow common-law marriages. Some states still recognize common-law marriage.
In most states IT HAS BEEN OUTLAWED.
So, yeah, "OI ! DO YOU HAVE A LOICENCE FOR THIS MARRIAGE" indeed.
Liam Fisher
>No offense OP but I don't think even anyone on Jow Forums is stupid enough to think this is a valid strategy. It's an obvious own goal.
If something is unconstitutional, it should be ruled unconstitutional even if it's popular.
Adam Perez
>The only people are replying are lefties like you.
I think you hit a nerve when you mentioned "qanon lads", bongfag is concerned
last bump for me
Brayden James
I wasn't the one who mentioned QAnon though.
Nice chatting with you, au revoir.
Nathaniel Allen
That would be good optics for an active politician...
Fucking hell use your brains for once retards. They are hypocrites for racially discriminating but we aren't at the point where the hypocrisy exceeds the (targeted) virtue in the eyes of the public.
Chase Richardson
I'm not saying that Trump should be involved.