Legal Research on Congressional Record S6520, S6521, S6931

Unannotated Secondary Research
June 9, 1982 - June 17, 1982

Cite this item
Legal Research on Congressional Record S6520, S6521, S6931 preview

Date is approximate.

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Legal Research on Congressional Record S6520, S6521, S6931, 1982. eb0d6e8a-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/752ece28-b664-421d-af72-4c4c7f2723c9/legal-research-on-congressional-record-s6520-s6521-s6931. Accessed November 23, 2025.

    Copied!

    996$? #5 $20; 1%?

/
I
’1

MW e

- &-.mmm '
Mikaela“, ”Jose. t
WWW“) Intact“

Rm—Whaher or

not
ercise 0! power involved in Change -
in will: 2 is hombook lain; not as

8W bythemajorny we“
mainstabedetérmined. What Cg:

    
   
     
 
  
   
  
 
   
 
  
   
   
    
  

.

" a“!
i_.

.-'.

standard is the constitutional standard
precisely because it is the proper
' standard for identifying discrimina.

tion. To establish a results standard. it
is true. will insure that no purposeful
discriminatory conduct goes unremeo

,. died; it will also insure that many

times more communities that have not
engaged in purposeful discriminatory
unduct will be-treated in an equiva-

‘ lent manner to wrong-doing communi-
‘tiest The magnitude of this over-.

breadth would be lncalculable. Indeed.

" . this point becomes even more appar-

is—has nothing whatsoever to

do with discrimination—the objective

of intent analysis. Unless one appreci-

-‘ ates this fact, one cannot appreciate
«3 the critical significance of the retreat
~ ;f_. from the intent standard.

7._ i _ The majority views also labor to dis-
itihsuish between their amendments
; and proposed amendments to statuto-
', .rily overturn the Roe against Wade
decision relating to abortion. I find ab-

solutely nothing in this analysis that

explains the distinction between these

efforts. Both involve attempts by Con-

-‘ gross to'impose statutory obligations

a .. upon the States that exceed the limits

 
  

' of the obligations placed upon the

' 7 States by the Constitution. overtum-

 

ing injthe process an explicit interpre-

' '.. tation of the Constitution by the 0.8.

 

"i Supreme Court.

S (2931, \LJM If?

'\ I

no in "’

T. 1 is v important to note that the
it”, 52mm" standard is clearly a
- : itutionai exercise of congresion-
"authority. It has been established
some time that Congress may.
or. the empowering clauses of the
‘War amendments, require more

   
 
 
 
  
  
   
 
 

< 1mm." Further, the Supreme
noted asrecentiy as 1980 that“ »
~ prior decisionsol this Court intuit:
-W that Canaries-may not.

‘tn auction) (of the 15th Amend-
.votim m that are dis-
.V “906-“ ‘1"“I.¥""".“ " ~-

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.