A couple of years ago Attorney Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity contacted NANS about the possibility of a School Litigation Reform Act (patterned after the Prison Litigation Reform Act passed in the 1990's) in an effort to limit the scope and duration of school desegregation lawsuits.

The "selling feature" to get such an act passed is that it plows no new ground. If Congress was willing to pass the Prison Litigation Reform Act, it should be equally willing to pass the School Litigation Reform Act.

The Act spells out appropriate remedies in school desegregation cases. The remedy should extend no further than necessary to correct the violation of the federal right of a plaintiff or plaintiffs.

Any relief ordered by the court should be terminable upon the motion of any party or intervenor (i) 3 years after the court granted or approved the relief (ii) one year after the date the court entered an order denying termination or (iii) in the case of an order issued on or before the date of enactment of the School Litigation Reform Act, 3 years after the date of such enactment.

The Reform Act also called for Consent Decrees and Settlements to comply with the same limitations.

NANS has expressed some concerns regarding wording we perceive as possible "loopholes," but these have the possibility of being modified by amendment.

The important things to note are: (1) The Act would probably stand a much better chance of passage than anything proposed previously because it is directly modeled after another act which did pass in the 1990's. (2) It's passage would be an important expression by Congress and the President of an active interest in the type of orders handed down as relief from purposeful segregation, of their interest in the duration of court oversight, and of their interest in ending racial and ethnic manipulation of American citizens in a social engineering scheme.

An encouraging understanding of the dangers of judicial activism is spreading across the nation. More and more court actions are usurping the will of the governed "...actions usurp the will of the governed by allowing a select few to conclusively rule on issues that are radically reshaping our nation's traditions," in the words of Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky)

Several recent rulings have prompted this awakening such as a court ruling on the Pledge to the Flag, on the public display of the Ten Commandments, the Supreme Court ruling in the Michigan University case which basically said that a little bit of racial discrimination (use of race as a factor) was O.K. -- and more --

Additionally, with growing frequency, the Supreme Court has relied on decisions of foreign judicial tribunals when deciding U.S. Constitutional and statutory cases.

Rep. Tom Feeney (R-Fl) points out that six of our Supreme Court justices have written or joined opinions that cited foreign authorities to justify their decisions. Lower federal courts are beginning to follow this disturbing trend.

Article IV of the Constitution of our nation unambiguously states that the Constitution and federal statutes are the supreme law of the land. Federal judges swear an oath to defend the Constitution and interpret the law in a manner that preserves it.

Unfortunately, in the increased awakening and outcry about judicial activism and usurpation, seldom is there any mention of the devastation of hundreds of public school systems and the lives and education of the involved students. via such court orders.

Is it because most Americans don't care about the abuse of our nation's children? Is it because we have fallen for the deceit that such rulings are necessary and just to achieve desegregation and equal opportunity for all? Is it because the media has deliberately painted the wrong picture for readers and viewers and listeners? Is it because the more than a million citizens across the nation who signed NANS petitions in support of a constitutional amendment to end the social engineering practice in 1978 have given up and are no longer communicating with their senators and congressmen about the matter -- no longer actively working on the matter?

Is it because more and more parents have attempted to throw themselves on the mercy of these same offending courts in hopes that someday, when the devastation is complete, they will be free and can, at great expense, rebuild their school systems? Is it because those who have managed to escape to private schools, other districts, and homeschooling, have simply drawn giant sighs of relief and washed their hands of the matter?

At any rate, for whatever reason, the increased awareness of the dangers of judicial activism is welcome, and efforts by congressmen and senators to check the activism are needed and welcome, and will ultimately affect the activism that has devastated our school systems.

Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky) offered "The Congressional Accountability for Judicial Activism" which would have given Congress permission to overrule certain U.S. Supreme Court rulings if two-thirds of both house of Congress vote for it.

Referring to the historic 1803 U.S. Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison, Rep. Lewis says the U.S. Constitution in reality does not allow the right of judicial review because it would threaten the equality of the three branches of government.

The price of gasoline is still climbing. New attacks are surfacing on the air pollution caused by diesel exhaust of school buses. Not only is the outside air polluted, but the air the students are forced to breathe inside the buses is unbelievably dangerous.

A 4/25/04 article in the Chicago Tribune ("School bus becomes new filthy air target") points out that the fumes are more than an oily nuisance that often cause students to be light headed. It is full of tiny soot particles that can damage the lungs and aggravate asthma and bronchitis and even cause cancer. In fact, the article points out, research has found the air inside a school bus can contain more diesel exhaust than children breathe outside, and the soot concentrations inside the bus more than double when windows are closed.

Districts are being pushed to purchase new buses, better made to lessen the pollution dangers. Neighborhood schools would help conserve our precious resources, lessen outside air pollution, and virtually end the danger to the students. The money saved would help provide the programs and resources needed for our children in schools close to their homes.

Yet federal judges and the U.S. Justice Department continue to insist on plans requiring student travel, and districts all across the nation continue to have an over abundance of magnet schools to lure students away from neighborhood schools.

Kenosha - Parents whose children were denied transfers because their presence at their school of choice would have upset the district's prescribed racial balance in those schools are considering challenging the policy in court.

Heidi Barnett whose daughter was denied a transfer said, "They (the district) shouldn't be teaching kids that it's all right to discriminate by race like this." (Kenosha News 3/13/04)

Racine: The policy in Racine is equally discriminatory, and the policy is a hot topic as the district is struggling to rework its attendance boundaries because some of the schools have "fallen out of compliance with the policy"

WISCONSIN RESIDENTS NEED TO LOBBY FOR STATE LEGISLATION AND/OR A STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FORBIDDING THE USE OF RACE OR NATIONAL ORIGIN AS FACTORS IN SCHOOL ASSIGNMENT.