You can raise awareness by taking action and preregister to vote.
Answer:
Fifty years ago last January, George C. Wallace took the oath of office as governor of Alabama, pledging to defy the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision prohibiting separate public schools for black students. “I draw the line in the dust,” Wallace shouted, “and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, and segregation forever” (Wallace 1963).
Eight months later, at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, Martin Luther King Jr. set forth a different vision for American education. “I have a dream,” King proclaimed, that “one day right down in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.”
Wallace later recanted, saying, “I was wrong. Those days are over, and they ought to be over” (Windham 2012).
They ought to be over, but Wallace’s 1963 call for a line in the dust seems to have been more prescient than King’s vision. Racial isolation of African American children in separate schools located in separate neighborhoods has become a permanent feature of our landscape. Today, African American students are more isolated than they were 40 years ago, while most education policymakers and reformers have abandoned integration as a cause.
Stanford v. Kentucky, was a United States Supreme Court case in the year 1989 that sanctioned the imposition of the death penalty on offenders who were at least 16 years of age at the time of the crime.
The Supreme Court in the year 2005,while handling the Roper v. Simmons' case ruled that the death penalty is a disproportionate punishment for juveniles, and thus it violates the Eighth Amendment to impose a death sentence on a youthful murderer who committed the crime before age 18.
Christopher Simmons, who was 17 at the time, committed a crime that led to a death sentence.
The Court said that the society views juveniles as categorically less culpable than the average criminal. The supreme court argued than a man only becomes culpable of any criminal act when he reaches the age of 18, and claimed at imposing a death penalty on a young child who is not old enough to take charge of his own actions is wrong.
The supreme court claimed that a juvenile who committed a heinous crime can be made to forfeit his fundamental rights rather than being murdered.
Answer:
The court did not consider Ladd's appeal.
Explanation:
Quand Ladd agreed to cooperate with Uecker's claims about her disrespectful and abusive behavior towards him, she accepted that his charges were real and that they could harm her legally. Therefore, it is negligent on her part to appeal against Uecker, since she accepted his accusations. This means that the court does not accept the appeal issued, as it shows a behavior of bad faith and with exploratory characteristics.
