Since education clauses provide little textual substance, it is unsurprising that their analysis by courts is occasionally nothing more than a bald assertion obscured by fallacious reasoning.
Not exact matches
Ever
since 1947, when the Supreme Court first applied the First Amendment's establishment
clause to the states in Everson v. Board of
Education, the court has held that government must be neutral on matters of religion.
Since Bolling v. Sharpe, a Supreme Court decisions that came out the same day as Brown v. Board of
Education, the 5th amendment's Due Process
clause has been interpreted by the courts to also imply a guarantee of equal protection under federal law.
Further, provisions like
clauses (f), (g), (h) of Section 29 are also inadequate for the same reasons;
since they fail to clearly define the purpose for which these modifications and restructuring is needed and also fall short of making a definite statement in in favor of inclusive
education.
Forty - three years have passed
since the U.S. Supreme Court narrowly ruled in the landmark San Antonio v. Rodriguez school - funding case that
education was not a constitutional right and that the disparate spending on
education for students from low - income neighborhoods was not a violation of the equal protection
clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The 14th Amendment, and especially its Equal Protection
Clause, has been a powerful tool in the battle for civil rights in our courts ever
since the 1954 Brown v Board of
Education ruling that determined schools segregated by race were unconstitutional.