Skip to content

New Doc #9

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
rajattiwari01 wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

New Doc #9

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
88 changes: 57 additions & 31 deletions index.html
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -1,30 +1,50 @@
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Brown v. Board of Education
<!doctype html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<!-- Required meta tags -->
<meta charset="utf-8">
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1, shrink-to-fit=no">

<!-- Bootstrap CSS -->
<link rel="stylesheet" href="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/bootstrap@4.5.3/dist/css/bootstrap.min.css" integrity="sha384-TX8t27EcRE3e/ihU7zmQxVncDAy5uIKz4rEkgIXeMed4M0jlfIDPvg6uqKI2xXr2" crossorigin="anonymous">
<link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css">
<title>CSJ HTML BASIC MARKUP</title>
</head>
<body>
<h3>SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES</h3>

<p>Brown v. Board of Education
347 U.S. 483 (1954) (USSC+)

Argued December 9, 1952
Reargued December 8, 1953
<br>
Argued December 9, 1952<br>
Reargued December 8, 1953<br>
Decided May 17, 1954

<br><b>
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS*
</b>
<br>
<img src="integrated_classroom.jpg" alt="integrated classroom">

[PHOTO]
<br>
Integration at Ole Miss Univ. MST 10/9/62. Photo by Warren K. Leffler (link)

<br><h5>
Syllabus

</h5>
<br>
Segregation of white and Negro children in the public schools of a State solely on the basis of race, pursuant to state laws permitting or requiring such segregation, denies to Negro children the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment -- even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors of white and Negro schools may be equal.

<br>
The history of the Fourteenth Amendment is inconclusive as to its intended effect on public education.
The question presented in these cases must be determined not on the basis of conditions existing when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, but in the light of the full development of public education and its present place in American life throughout the Nation.
Where a State has undertaken to provide an opportunity for an education in its public schools, such an opportunity is a right which must be made available to all on equal terms.
Segregation of children in public schools solely on the basis of race deprives children of the minority group of equal educational opportunities, even though the physical facilities and other "tangible" factors may be equal.
The "separate but equal" doctrine adopted in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, has no place in the field of public education.
The cases are restored to the docket for further argument on specified questions relating to the forms of the decrees.

Opinion

<br>
<h5>
Opinion</h5>
<br>
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN delivered the opinion of the Court.

These cases come to us from the States of Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware. They are premised on different facts and different local conditions, but a common legal question justifies their consideration together in this consolidated opinion.
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -56,27 +76,33 @@
We conclude that, in the field of public education, the doctrine of "separate but equal" has no place. Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal. Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others 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. This disposition makes unnecessary any discussion whether such segregation also violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because these are class actions, because of the wide applicability of this decision, and because of the great variety of local conditions, the formulation of decrees in these cases presents problems of considerable complexity. On reargument, the consideration of appropriate relief was necessarily subordinated to the primary question -- the constitutionality of segregation in public education. We have now announced that such segregation is a denial of the equal protection of the laws. In order that we may have the full assistance of the parties in formulating decrees, the cases will be restored to the docket, and the parties are requested to present further argument on Questions 4 and 5 previously propounded by the Court for the reargument this Term The Attorney General of the United States is again invited to participate. The Attorneys General of the states requiring or permitting segregation in public education will also be permitted to appear as amici curiae upon request to do so by September 15, 1954, and submission of briefs by October 1, 1954.

<br>
It is so ordered.

* Together with No. 2, Briggs et al. v. Elliott et al., on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of South Carolina, argued December 9-10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953; No. 4, Davis et al. v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, Virginia, et al. , on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, argued December 10, 1952, reargued December 7-8, 1953, and No. 10, Gebhart et al. v. Belton et al., on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Delaware, argued December 11, 1952, reargued December 9, 1953.

Transcription courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service's Brown V Board Of Education National Historic Site website.

Justices of the Court

U.S. Supreme Court Justices of the 1953 session (link)
Transcription courtesy of the U.S. National Park Service's Brown V Board Of Education National Historic Site website.<br>
<b>
Justices of the Court</b>
<br>
<img src="warren-court.jpg">
<br>
U.S. Supreme Court Justices of the 1953 session (link)<br>
Harris and Ewing/Library of Congress, Prints and Photographs Division

Front row, left to right:
Felix Frankfurter (1939-1962)
Hugo Black (1937-1971)
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969)
Stanley F. Reed (1938-1957)
William O. Douglas (1939-1975)

Back row, left to right:
Tom C. Clark (1949-1967)
Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954)
Harold H. Burton (1945-1958)
Sherman Minton (1949-1956)
<br><h6>
Front row, left to right:</h6>
Felix Frankfurter (1939-1962)<br>
Hugo Black (1937-1971)<br>
Chief Justice Earl Warren (1953-1969)<br>
Stanley F. Reed (1938-1957)<br>
William O. Douglas (1939-1975)<br>
<br><h6>
Back row, left to right:</h6>
Tom C. Clark (1949-1967)<br>
Robert H. Jackson (1941-1954)<br>
Harold H. Burton (1945-1958)<br>
Sherman Minton (1949-1956)</p>
<script src="https://code.jquery.com/jquery-3.5.1.slim.min.js" integrity="sha384-DfXdz2htPH0lsSSs5nCTpuj/zy4C+OGpamoFVy38MVBnE+IbbVYUew+OrCXaRkfj" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
<script src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/npm/bootstrap@4.5.3/dist/js/bootstrap.bundle.min.js" integrity="sha384-ho+j7jyWK8fNQe+A12Hb8AhRq26LrZ/JpcUGGOn+Y7RsweNrtN/tE3MoK7ZeZDyx" crossorigin="anonymous"></script>
</body>
</html>
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions styles.css
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
*{
font-size: 10px;
background-color: aliceblue;
}
h3{
text-align: center;
}
p{
text-align: justify;
}
img{
align-items: center;
}