Separate But Equal (1991 Movie Transcript)

Separate But Equal (1991 Movie)

This post is modified with corrections from a similar post on Mario Apuzzo's blog on April 2, 2015 at 8:47 PM.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/03/a-response-to-neil-katyal-and-paul.html

<<>>

Sometimes the Obots, whom I like to refer to as “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers because they promote the absurdity that POTUS eligibility allows dual U.S./foreign citizenship, are so incoherent about John Jay's original intent in underlining the word born in “natural born Citizen” and so they assume that the Fourteenth Amendment original intent also was dual U.S./foreign citizenship for POTUS eligibility.

How about some educational entertainment?

Here is a partial transcript of the excellent 1991 movie Separate But Equal, a 1991 movie about the landmark 1953 Supreme Court desegregation case Brown v. Board of Education which held that the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson doctrine of "separate but equal" in education was not constitutional. My observation is that “separate but equal” anything, education or water fountains or restaurants or motels or etc., was NOT the moral original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Sidney Poitier is NAACP attorney Thurgood Marshall, Richard Kiley is Chief Justice Earl Warren, former Governor of California, Burt Lancaster is defense lawyer John W. Davis.

Part 1 – 1h 36m
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjbhxqtbyps
Part 2 – 1h 38m
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l58TMnarEFQ

Viewers of the movie will notice the attempt by the NAACP plaintiff attorneys to find the 1868 original intent of the framers, and also the effort by the defense attorneys to convince the Supreme Court that the “separate but equal” theory was the original intent of the framers because “separate but equal” was a Fourteenth Amendment presupposition as revealed by the fact that the races were separated in the Washington D.C. schools since 1868 (until Brown v. Board of Education in 1953), as defense attorney John Davis mentions in Part 2 @ 18m 55s.

Of course, Chief Justice Earl Warren's “original intent” conclusion (5 paragraphs are below from part 2 @ 1h 30m 05s) in the 1953 Brown v. Board of Education decision had nothing to do with the 1787 “original intent” meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. I recommend this dramatized account of the rejection of “separate but equal,” 57 years after the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson decision, to point to the “court of public opinion” aspect in the 1953 search by the NAACP attorneys for the “original intent” of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and that they expected the original intent of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment would support their position that the Supreme Court's 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” decision was NOT moral and NOT constitutional*. The one best original intent source they found was Radical Republican abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens—this is his quote in the movie in Part 2 @ 51m 25s related to the equal protection clause in the Fourteenth Amendment:

“Where any state makes distinctions between different classes of individuals, Congress shall have the power to correct such discriminations in inequality. No distinction will be tolerated in this purified Republic but what rose from merit and conduct.”

* My “NOT constitutional” contention is that “separate but equal” was NOT the explicit OR implicit original intent of the “equal protection” words of the 1868 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. The original intent of "born" was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation. Being a "citizen" of ONLY one nation WAS the 1868 explicit original genesis (aka "born") original intent for the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes. Just as the tacit intent to be inferred from the word "naturalized" in "All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction..." was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for naturalized citizens, so also the tacit intent to be inferred from the word "born" in “All persons born or naturalized...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction....” was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for "born" citizens. The explicit original intent for the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was implicit in BOTH words "born" and "naturalized."

So, to make this dramatic movie pertinent to Article II, specifically the use of the “original intent” defense by both the plaintiff and defense attorneys, and also the moral “original intent” conclusion of new Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren who wrote the decision, after the Slaughter-House Cases quote about the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, there are two questions for 2008-2015 “natural born Citizen” new meaning neo-birthers who ignore original birther John Jay and tacitly reject his 1787 “natural born Citizen” original genesis (aka "born") original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation and so that is their reason to also reject that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation was the original intent of John Bingham's and Jacob Howard 1868 introductory words in the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment, words which were affirmed by the Court in the 1873 Slaughter-Houses Cases*: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States...subject to the [U.S.] jurisdiction...are citizens....”:

* ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Slaughter-House_Cases/Opinion_of_the_Court )
or ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=83&invol=36 )

United States Supreme Court
83 U.S. 36
SLAUGHTER-HOUSE CASES
Error to the Supreme Court of Louisiana
Argued: January 11, 1872; Reargued February 3-5, 1873 – Decided: April 14, 1873

[...snip...]

“The first section of the fourteenth article, to which our attention is more specially invited, opens with a definition of citizenship-not only citizenship of the United States, but citizenship of the States. No such definition was previously found in the Constitution, nor had any attempt been made to define it by act of Congress. ... It had been said by eminent judges that no man was a citizen of the United States, except as he was a citizen of one of the States composing the Union. ... But it had been held by this court, in the celebrated Dred Scott case, only a few years before the outbreak of the civil war, that a man of African descent, whether a slave or not, was not and could not be a citizen of a State or of the United States. This decision, while it met the condemnation of some of the ablest statesmen and constitutional lawyers of the country, had never been overruled; and if it was to be accepted as a constitutional limitation of the right of citizenship, then all the negro race who had recently been made freemen, were still, not only not citizens, but were incapable of becoming so by anything short of an amendment to the Constitution.

“To remove this difficulty primarily, and to establish a clear and comprehensive definition of citizenship which should declare what should constitute citizenship of the United States, and also citizenship of a State, the first clause of the first section was framed.

“ 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' ”

The obvious conclusion of the Slaughter-House Cases language is that the 1865 Thirteenth Amendment free Negroes were 1868 Fourteenth Amendment citizens with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation and of ONLY one state, with the common sense implication that future Caucasian and Negro “citizens” would be U.S. citizens only, “citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside”*, ONLY by being born on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural, with the additional implication that if BOTH parents were NOT U.S. citizens the child would be an alien**. Concurrent in 1868 since 1787 was the common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance of a child when the wife by marriage*** acquired the U.S. citizenship of the husband, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of their child, implicitly understood for Caucasian males and females since 1787 and also implicitly understood for ALL males and females, Caucasians and Negroes, since 1868.

Q #1 –
Who can NOT go to the Supreme Court asking for protection under the “equal protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

A –
(1a) Persons who claim POTUS eligibility who were born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship “at birth” by being born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.
(1b) Persons who claim POTUS eligibility were were born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship “at birth” by being born on foreign soil to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents.

Q #2 –
Who does NOT need to go to the Supreme Court asking for protection under the “equal protection” clause of Amendment 14?

A –
Persons who claim POTUS eligibility who were born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship “by birth” and being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen married parents.

* The COURT in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision declared that a child born on U.S. soil WAS a U.S. citizen even when born to two parents who were NOT U.S. citizens. This decision should be corrected by the Supreme Court, by the Congress or with a constitutional amendment and returned to the original intent of the 1868 framers of the Fourteenth Amendment of citizenship being acquired only by birth on U.S. soil only by birth to “two” U.S. citizen parents for POTUS eligibility, and for citizenship being acquired only by birth on U.S. soil only by birth to to “one” U.S. citizen parent and NOT eligible to be POTUS. Birth on U.S. soil to "zero" U.S. citizen (anchor baby citizenship) should NOT be allowed for voting eligibility or for POTUS eligibility.

** A further implication of the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment language is that POTUS eligibility was determined ONLY by singular U.S. citizenship according to Article II of the 1787 Constitution, so dual U.S./foreign citizenship could NOT be the implicit original intent of framer Sen. Jacob Howard, the author of the first sentence of Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment “All persons born or naturalized... .”.

*** Here are two sources about the citizenship rights of women, from 1933 and 1998.
American Citizenship Rights of Women (1933)
( http://loc.gov/law/find/hearings/pdf/0014160126A.pdf )

Prologue Magazine (Summer 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2 )
Women and Naturalization (1802-1940)
Part 1: ( http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html )
Part 2: ( http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-2.html )

Part 1 @ 39m 20s

Defendant lawyer Josiah C. Tulley/Graham Beckel:
If the court please, the Plessy / Ferguson case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1896 established the principle of separate but equal. Since then, the right of the states to have laws separating the races has been upheld seven times by the Supreme Court. Segregation is legal. There is no reason to cover that ground again.

Part 1 @ 1h 2m 25s

Court Judge #1:
Mr. Tulley, you may make your final argument.

Defendant lawyer Josiah C. Tulley/Graham Beckel:
Your Honor's will remember that the very same Congress that passed the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 also passed the law that set up segregated schools in Washington, D.C. Since then, seventeen state legislatures have passed laws requiring segregation in public schools. Now, this practice of separate but equal has been repeatedly upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States, … . Segregation is legal in education so long as it's equal.

Part 2 @ 12m 22s
[December 9, 1952, Washington D.C., Supreme Court]

Thurgood Marshall/Sidney Poitier:
[in response to a question from Justice Frankfurter]

What is important is that we get the principle established. Segregation by race is not legal. It is impossible right now to say precisely how it will work.

Part 2 @ 18m
[set in a restaurant]

Robert L. 'Bob' Carter/Cleavon Little:
I think we made a number of points very effectively.

Thurgood Marshall/Sidney Poitier:
The truth is fellas, I wasn't very good.

Thurgood Marshall/Sidney Poitier:
An experienced lawyer is prepared for that. I let myself get bogged down in details. The one thing I wanted to do was find a way to talk about the principle, convince them segregation is morally wrong, that there is no such thing as separate equality.

Part 2 @ 18m 55s
[set in the Supreme Court]

John W. Davis/Burt Lancaster:
Let me come now to what is the crux of this case. That is the meaning and interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Your Honor's have said it is your duty, I quote: To place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed the instrument. Now what was the condition of those who framed the instrument? I will tell you. The resolution proposing the Fourteenth Amendment was proffered by Congress in June of 1866. One month later the same Congress established separate schools for the races right here in the District of Columbia, and from that good day to this, Congress has not wavered in that policy. So, clearly, the Congress does not believe that the Constitution speaks against segregated schools.

Part 2 @ 32m 30s
[set in the NAACP office]

Thurgood Marshall/Sidney Poitier:
[speaking to Professor Franklin] Do you know what else you're going to be doing? You're going to be working for me. I need the best historians and constitutional scholars. The Supreme Court wants to know what those white men were thinking a hundred years ago when they passed the Fourteenth Amendment.

Part 2 @ 34m 48s
[set in the John W. Davis law office]

John W. Davis/Burt Lancaster:
The research will show that the states were determined to retain the right to shape their schools to fit their particular region. Now the Marshall people will be looking for something specific. Something that shows that Congress intended for the Fourteenth Amendment to prohibit separate schools, and they won't find it.

Part 2 @ 51m 25s
[set in the NAACP office]

Professor Kelly:
This is it!

Professor Kelly:
Thaddeus Stevens. Thaddeus Stevens in the debate on the floor of Congress when the amendment was first presented: [reading from a book]: Where any state makes distinctions between different classes of individuals, Congress shall have the power to correct such discriminations in inequality.

William Coleman/Jeffrey Wright:
[continues reading from the book]: No distinction will be tolerated in this purified Republic but what rose from merit and conduct.

Part 2 @ 1h 4m 15s
[set in Justice Frankfurter's office]

Frankfurter Clerk Mark Baldwin/John Ottavino:
How are you getting on with the new Chief?

Justice Felix Frankfurter/Mike Nussbaum:
I've discovered that he listens, though he is untutored in the law.

Frankfurter Clerk Mark Baldwin/John Ottavino:
Well, it could be argued that's an ideal combination for a Chief Justice; open minded and flexible. Well, I hope you all get down to it. It's not that tough a call, as I see it.

Justice Felix Frankfurter/Mike Nussbaum:
For those who do not have to decide, it is easy. The humanitarian thing to do is to strike down segregation, but nothing presented to us, neither history or legal precedent, offers any help. I think Jackson wants to toss it to Congress. The authority for enforcing the Fourteenth Amendment... [interrupted]

Frankfurter Clerk Mark Baldwin/John Ottavino:
Sir. Sir, if I may, the Negroes are the group for whom the Fourteenth Amendment was written. It's for their protection, and since 1868 everybody else has come to this Court invoking the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Corporations and Chinese and aliens and everybody else come in and claim they've been denied equal protection of the laws. They come to the Supreme Court of the United States and you listen to them, and if you find that their rights have been violated, then you take care of them, but when the one group for whose protection the Fourteenth Amendment was written, the Negroes, come in and ask you for relief, Jackson wants you to say, yes, your constitutional rights have been violated, but don't come to us, you go across the street, you ask Congress to give you relief. We're not going to give you a damn thing.

Justice Felix Frankfurter/Mike Nussbaum:
Mark, at Harvard I would have given you an “A” for that.

Part 2 @ 1h 30m 05s
[set in the Supreme Court – the movie transcript below is from three different paragraphs of Chief Justice Warren's actual opinion.
( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=347&invol=483 )

Chief Justice Earl Warren/Richard Kiley:
In approaching this question, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896 when Plessy versus Ferguson was written. We must consider public education in the light of its present place in American life. Only in this way can it be determined if segregation in public schools deprives these young plaintiffs of the equal protection of the laws.

We come then to the question presented. Does segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race, even though the physical facilities may be equal, deprive the children of the minority group of equal education opportunities? We believe, unanimously, that it does.

We conclude that in the field of public education that the doctrine of separate but equal has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore we hold that the plaintiffs similarly situated, for whom the actions have been brought, are by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

It is so ordered.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are more pages of Separate But Equal, http://originalbirtherdocument25.blogspot.com/ .

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )