Dewey, I’m not sure if you are a lawyer, but didn’t the Supreme Court use the Fourteenth Amendment in Brown v. the Board of Education?
Yes, this was clearly used to strike down the “separate but equal” nonsense; but doesn’t it also establish that education is a “right” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment?
I don’t owe you a damn thing because I most certainly did not prove your point. I posted what any evolutionary biology book will tell you is essentially the standard definition of evolution. Feel free to look it up for yourself, instead of blithely making up your own definitions as you go along. If an individual does not accept evolution in the first place, it hardly makes them qualified to define it. And those are undoubtedly where you are getting your “not mutually agreed upon” definitions.
I spelled out quite clearly how “biological changes through time” is not equivalent to “evolution”. Evolution is a specific type of biological change through time. A simple concept, but one that seems to have escaped both your understanding and that of Ms. Cox.
You are very correct, and I should have been more specific; our right to a public education stems from the fact that others recieve a public education as well. In other words, because the the state of California provided other Cal citizens with a public education, it then was my right as a Cal citizen to have it provided for me as well, largely because of the 14th amendment. Its a shortcut to call it a right, when what it is is the right to take part equally in a privelage.
As in leanders quote from Brown vs BofE:
…Such an opportunity, where the state has undertaken to provide it, is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms…
So the point could be made that if only one public school in Georgia taught evolution in biology but others didnt, then the rights of all the kids that go to the other schools was being violated. 
Above and beyond all of that, I have no idea how much federal funding the state of Georgia gets for education funds, I dont think its one of the two or three to foregoe it altogether. Its not like the old days when states pretty much paid for their own school bills…the more the states go to the feds for money, the more of their sovereignty they give up.
KKKathy Cox has now decided that henceforth, gravity will be referred to as “that which makes things fall down” and George W. Bush will be referred to as “fearless leader.”
I call shenanigans! That was unfair, unless you’re FROM Georgia and know more about her than most of us do, insinuating that she’s in league with the KKK or somehow implying that she’s racist is inaccurate, uncalled-for, and unsupported by what we’ve seen in this thread or the original thread on this subject.
Citizens arrest, citizens arrest!** Blassie** referred to Kathy Cox as KKK Kathy Cox. Monitors do your thing, now! or else forever admit to your bias. 
Oh, my good granny Gray!
Do NOT tell me that Milum and I just agreed with each other about something!
It 's my position that a fair case can be made that anyone who is a Republican can be accused of being a racist-by-association. The Republican Party has won in the South by openly making overtures to racists and by supporting the agendas of racism, though always cloaking their support in terms of general conservatism. Goes right back to the time when the Southern states defended segregation on the grounds of “states rights.”
Please open a thread with that subject. I’d love to debate it with you (as I’m sure many others here would as well). But I won’t hijack this thread for that purpose.
DCT is a lawyer. But the quote clearly states it’s not a right. See my bolding:
This simply says that the state may not provide it unequally. It does not say that its overall quality must be of any level, that it need even be provided in the first place, nor that there must be some across-state standards that must be met.
And that would be DCU (Dewey) is a lawyer…
(HIJACK - with all due apologies)
Born in Columbus in 1962. Never lived in any other state.
Cox {snort} has made her incompetency very well known. And, quite honestly, she hitched her wagon to our Governor’s “bring back the rebel flag” wagon during campaign 2002. Although he backed away from this position when his feet were held to the fire by the tourism people among others, their (Governor Purdue and Porky Cox) true feelings were quite clear.
So unless you’re from Georgia, don’t question my opinion about what happens in my home state.
BTW, the “calling in the monitors” line gave me visions of Martin Prince.
(I now return you to thread you were so recently enjoying.)
You’ll notice, I hope, that I said “Unless you’re from Georgia and know more about her than we do…”
That means that we’re unlikely to take your word on the opinion until we get your bona fides as to a more intimate knowledge of the woman than most of us have.
And even at that, I’m reluctant to paint everyone who was in favor of keeping the rebel flag as a KKK member, if only because that would mean an awful huge mess o’ Georgians aired their bedsheets out by wearing them. That goes double for politicians, who are apparently genetically averse to going against the tide of public opinion.
No offense, Jay (really), but…
What more do we need to know? Rebel flag = redneck. Sorry. YMMV.
Do I know the woman personally? God, know. Then again, I didn’t know Bull Connor or George Wallace either. Didn’t have to. And yes, I equate basing a political campaign on restoring the confederate flag as the official flag of Georgia with what those those dim bulbs did. The evolution issue coupled with the young earth philosophy plainly puts her in the category of “people of limited intelligence.”
The best part of this is that Cox replaced another Republican female cut from the same cloth who is now the subject of a criminal investigation for financial improprieties while in office.
In eight years they have succeeded in placing Georgia in 51st place among the 50 states in quality of education. Pretty hard to do (although the Department of Education counts the District of Columbia as a state, so…)
Yes, I am a lawyer, and yes, they did use the 14th amendment (the equal protection clause, to be precise) to forbid racial discrimination in public education), but they did not create a “right to a decent education.”
No, for the reason John Mace astutely points out: Brown does not stand for the proposition that a state has to provide an education of any particular quality, or indeed, that they have to provide an education at all. In fact, the justices explicitly noted that education was something the states could elect to provide – it is not constitutionally mandated.
Wouldn’t work. The distinction isn’t based on a suspect class like race, and would thus only be subjected to rational basis inquiry – a test which is virtually impossible to fail.
Interestingly, no one in this thread has mentioned the one constitutional provision that does have an impact on the “creation in the classroom” debate: the first amendment’s establishment clause. IIRC, the Supreme Court has struck down laws explicitly mandating the teaching of creationism on establishment-of-religion grounds. That doesn’t apply to the Georgia case at hand, since it only replaces one secular phrase (“evolution”) with another (“biological changes over time”), but if you’re looking for a constitutional angle on this, that is your best bet.
[ If we are to be Semantically Correct we understand that it is impossible to highjack a train that is standing deadstill in the station so I won’t try to be Board Correct and offer obligatory apologies for highjacking this thread which was stillborn in the opening post. Rather, I like to think of this thread as an evolving thread. A happy thread, an ever evolving thread that gives the lucky poster licence. ]
Is zat so** Evil**? Well yesterday me and Andy were riding around the backwoods of Jackson County, sipping Jack Daniels and looking for caves and listening to right wing radio (or as Andy calls it "wigh wing wadio.) on station * 101.1 FM Radio Free Alabama.**
We listened as talk show host “Bert” was telling his partner “Kurt” about some class-action attorneys who were trying to scare up some live descendants of former slaves whose ancestors had been directly discriminated against and therefor had been harmed by a private bussiness or a private institution of that day. Apparently the shyster lawyers needed to file against these institutions in particular in order for their delinquent lawsuit to be acccepted by the courts, and to serve as a fat money source for the lawyer fees and the reparations they hoped would be payed.
Andy and I scratched our heads. We though and thought about the buisnesses of 140 years ago, but we couldn’t think of a private company or institution still extant today that could pay these lawyers their lawyer fees with maybe even a few pennies left over for the decendants of the aggrieved slaves.
Then suddenly Andy stopped the truck. A light bulb had turned on in his mind. He pointed his index finger to the sky and said quietly and profoundly… –> " The Democratic Party"
Then he cranked up the pick-up and we moved on.
Yeah it all fit perfectly. The Democratic Party. Who faught tooth and nail against freeing the slaves…–>The Democratic Party. Who after the Republician Party had freed the slaves established the practice of legal race segregation…–> The Democratic Party.
Neither Andy or I cuss or chew tobacco, but that day as we drove through the coves and over the plateaus of beautiful Jackson County we made a pact, we pledged that from that moment on, everytime we were forced by nature or circumstance to say the words -->“Democratic Party”, we would afterwards spit.
… SPIT !
Oh, the curriculum makes ample room for teaching “competing theories,” presumably to include “intelligent design.” Just what we need. A dose of Genesis in science class.
Sorry, but that is a pretty feeble argument. You might as well say that a vote for Clinton makes you guilty of infidelity-by-association, or a vote for Gore is a vote for stupidly-named wives.
Actually, there is an interesting point raised by the article cited in the OP that hasn’t been fully addressed here. Note the reason proffered for the change:
Putting aside questions about Cox being a political hack and notions that she’s just putting a happy face on creationism-by-the-back-door, is this a legitimate concern?
What she’s basically saying is this: “Hey, we have a lot of fundamentalist hicks in various parts of our state who simply won’t have anything to do with anything containing the word evolution – if they see that word, their minds will snap shut like a mousetrap. Isn’t it better to use a different phrase, even a somewhat-less-accurate phrase, if it allows us to educate those quarters of our society?”
I gotta admit, I think that’s a credible argument. A slightly imperfect education is better than no education at all. What do you guys think?
DCU:
It would depend on the further fleshing out of “biological changes over time”. If that phrase were imbued with the notion of genetics, random mutation, natural selection, and the formation of new species, then I would have no problem with it. If it were set up as “we don’t know what causes the changes”, then it would be psuedo-science. Some people try to dodge this issue with so-called “micro-evolution”. This concept accepts that small changes occur within species, but not enough to create new species.