of the district (to desegregate the schools) no matter what the price to individual children... the law must march on?"
"A difficult question, but yes, the law marches on...." (counsel for plaintiffs).
Along with the confidence of counsel with which this awesome governmental power would be asserted were expressions by busing proponents implying that opposition to forced busing was racist in nature. One such expression published in The San Diego Union prompted me to reply on September 18, 1977, in an article in the Union entitled Busing, Not Integration, Opposed (Appendix I):
... I submit the author is unfair in equating opposition to forced busing as being opposition to integration. Rather, the opposition is based on a truism well stated in 1620 when the Colonies were forming their first legislative assemblies: "Every man (and woman) will more willingly obey laws to which he (or she) hath yielded his (or her) consent."
In other words, the courts are judicially legislating forced busing without the consent of those whose children are being bused, contrary to the division of powers provisions of our U.S. and California Constitutions.
The reason for these requirements is that those insisting upon them have read into the Constitution and the case of Brown vs. Board of Education the right to impose them. The Brown case in 1954 declared state laws segregating the races in the field of public education unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
It appears from the facts of that case that Miss Brown, her parents, and others similarly situated, claimed their constitutional rights were violated because the state in which they lived forced black students, solely because of their race, to attend a particular public school.
Parents wonder, if it was unconstitutional for the