Conversation 090-003

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

We call this the... We've got pretty good records.

We've got pretty good records.

You've got a huge secret.

You're the only senator in Congress to care about business.

All right.

Well, this morning.

No, no, no.

He's close.

All right.

Okay, okay.

All right.

I know you will call when I come to this meeting.

I said only the people that introduced the appendix.

So that's why we're glad to hear that.

Well, that was reasonable.

Yeah.

Tom, how are you?

You know, you can just call him.

You know, Tom, he's the congressman.

He was telling us that this was going to be a congressman.

We both wanted to know what we were doing.

And that's what the education labor committee was.

I was speaking to this committee, and I was saying to them, that's partly why they're going to forget to give us activities.

And I'm telling them, my first chairman, where we all were going.

So I think that's what we're going to do.

That's what we're going to do.

Well, let's get on with our meeting post.

Oh, are you running?

Let me say this, I want you to turn here just a little bit.

Olli, you can distribute that, of course, to your usual members here.

Any of them that would like to distribute it to their neighbors, it would be all right.

I'll give you a little privacy check.

I didn't get it.

I also like having the numbers in the house.

I got it here.

Let me cut away.

I cannot understand how many fair-minded, objective persons, liberals and conservatives,

It could be from us.

I already heard it from New York City.

Basically, on this issue, it's a very good point.

It's a very good point.

What he said is such a well-known point.

That's what you really need.

I oppose the use of funding for the purpose of achieving racial justice.

Second, I favor local control of schools.

Of course, if there is a, let's talk about local schools, that I believe the concept of the neighborhood school and all that you know is in our state of the city, I've said it many times, looking at those three principles, I then talk into the problem that I have, and then you do it.

I have to naturally enforce the law.

Let me say parenthetically and accurately, I don't say this because there are some that say it.

Let's get away from this crap.

Approximately 40%

black children in the south of the majority of white schools, and only 25% of black children in the north of the majority of white schools.

So the problem's turned around.

And we all realize that that is what we're talking about.

We're talking about these problems.

You've got a Grimm here, and you've got a Harry Bird here, and you've got a Fisher, a Brock, and all the rest.

So that's what the standard does at the top of the top.

The problem, however, is constituted by the fact that just being against busing, being for the neighborhood school, and being for local control of local schools cannot be effective for the chief executive or for the attorney general, who also has a responsibility for very confident law.

In the event that the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, requires another course of action,

That's why we wanted to talk to you.

I have had the opportunity to explore the problems of constitutional amendments, as well as legislation for many months.

We've been looking at the situation.

I've also had our own staff here at the White House, and I'm here to explore the situation.

We have a variety of views and expressions.

As I'm sure you have found, actually the tradition remains.

From the standpoint of public supporters, about 80% of your constituents support the constitutional message.

From the standpoint of whether or not an amendment can be effective and is the proper revenue by many constitutions.

And you'll find a very severe split.

You'll find honest people who kind of push lawyers and say this is the wrong way to do it.

You can't take the problem out.

You have to select it out and attack it this way.

It ought to be done, but it's hard off to be done at all, and so forth and so on.

Well, let us understand here that what we are all trying to find is the right way to deal with the problem we're all agreed on.

We do not want custody for the purpose of achieving racial justice.

We want the children to go to their neighborhoods, schools, wherever they possibly can help.

That's how many put it on the basis of Brown vs. the Board of Education.

I read that case when I was around, and it came down.

What happened, may I also say, I talked to Bill Rogers last night, and he was on the next hearing, and he said, when that case came down, we didn't dream that it would later be interpreted.

To do what it presently does, because when it came down, Brown versus the Board of Education was not about integration so much as about education.

And it said that legally segregated education was inferior education.

That's all that it said.

They did not require legally enforced immigration.

They just said legally segregated.

Now, that hasn't been handed down.

The courts have gone pretty much beyond that, as we know.

But as far as that case is concerned...

It said if education was legally segregated, it was incurred.

I take another proposition to that.

Education, which is the result of massive busing, is inferior education.

So we've got to balance that, too.

Are we putting it in terms of education, quality education?

I think we would agree, some may not, but I feel strongly that...

If you had, in this country, legally, a dual system, a dual school system, with legally enforced segregation, that would be inverted.

I think, right now, that if you have a situation where you have...

by the use of the bus for that purpose and for that purpose.

And I believe that is also true.

That's the way I look at it.

So what we're trying to do is to find a way through that jump, a way where we can...

We don't say the fact that there can be and shall continue to be legally record-based education.

But also, where we say that in attacking that problem, or moving from that problem to the other, we do not resort to the use of a device.

which, by its application, will produce inferior education, which is, in my opinion, what must be done.

That's what we're trying to find.

Now, we come to the amendments.

Without going into all the discussions, I think the best thing, since you were first on base, Howard, I think the rest of you, I guess some of you may have been present, but Howard has had a lot of thinking on this today.

I thought if he would take off and you would present the case for your amendment, and particularly if you would address yourself hard to this problem, some of the critics are going to raise, and maybe raise with you, as to whether this is regressing, turning back, for example, with regard to their business and their business interests.

Because if we can get her up on time, we have accomplished something.

Now let me say this.

Before we finish the meeting, I would like to think what our procedure here will be to explore further and review on others we haven't met.

But I selected this particular group because I think

The methods that you have prepared, all of you are, that you're trying to get at, is probably the way that I try to describe it here, rather than the blunderbuss, which looks damn good for the voters, but would simply, well, I don't know if it's a green person, say that a constitutional amendment is yet constitutional to pay for.

Right, sir?

Looks like they have.

All right, Mr. President.

So go ahead.

Mr. President, thank you very much.

I appreciate the opportunity to lead off.

And I'm going to lead off first by saying that Bill Brock and Bob Griffin and the Senate and Harry Bird and others have been as much or more of a leader in this field than I have.

So I make no undue credit.

But if you will permit me to make the assumption that in the interest of time and...

Your best purpose is for us all to assume that we all know the fundamentals of our own business.

We all know the issues involved.

We all know the amendments in general.

We know the political situation.

I mean, that is all defense.

That's a democratic sense.

I hate to say this, but I'm not a democratic person.

You can also look at the facts, and I say out here,

I would say that it is a liberalist move to correct the various presidential candidates' sentiments.

The data changes every day.

I can't talk about the political in the sense that it expresses that it is an emotional issue in the country, and it's kind of that small of a thing.

If I can assume all those things, I'd like to go directly with the rest of the two.

I've discussed in part with John B. Tilden Park on previous occasions, and with Richard and others here.

not for the sake of making an identity recommendation, but for opening up another conversation.

I think, Mr. President, the first thing that needs to be done is to require, by any device that we can, a further clarification of the law in this meeting.

I think that your statements, especially your message of March 1970, is superb.

I think that it's well written, and I suppose it reads, and I think it states not only the law that existed prior to SWAN, but the law itself that...

I think, however, that it recognizes, and we recognize, that the Supreme Court, for instance, has never said what a unitary school system is.

They've never really clearly defined the distinction of what they now acknowledge as between desegregation and integration.

They had never quite said on what basis you could use the several devices that were available under SWAN, including buses.

And in the Berger memorandum, which he sent out after some of the lower court decisions, he kind of excited the lower courts for misinterpreting SWAN.

He thought, in other words, that he thought they were going beyond the swamp, at least what he thought.

And of course, what effect does that have on the memory?

I remember this time it came out, I said, well, when they said that they had sent a red flag to the lower parts of the Bay, Howard said, listen, this was a Chief Justice act.

Mr. President, all of that, in my mind at least, indicates a strong feeling that there ought to be an intervention by the Executive Department in representing pending cases on appeals to clarify these issues.

I think you have to set your authority under the 1960s and 40s on the right side to intervene as a party in action.

When there's a constitution protecting right and law, and to seek a permanent leave for a declaration of precedence.

If I were to come on it out in Section 9, whatever it is, I don't know.

Section 902 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960.

I don't know.

Okay, your request, go ahead.

All right.

That there should be a early prompt intervention by the Solicitor General to ask for a further requirement and definition of the obligations to the rights of the state law and sex laws.

And I said, in addition to that, Mr. President, it would be my hope that the Solicitor General would advance the position of the administration in these respects.

That is, he would put forward the statements that you have made on busing.

As a policy position, I ask the court to consider it in conjunction with the pending deal.

That way, Mr. President, people know, the country knows, everybody knows, that you are opposed to busing, that the position of the administration is in opposition to busing, that the matter is constitutionally unclear, and that you're doing what the law permits you to do, that is, you're intervening in the judicial process to try for relief.

I would hope number two, Mr. President, that at that time you might recommend to the Congress that since you are doing this, since you are intervening, and asking for this clarification of the traditional situation, that you might ask the Congress to consider legislation to save the effect of any litigation not pending.

I think you have that statutory authority.

I don't believe the court would strike him down since it's a temporary exceeding and fairly justified.

Beyond that, Mr. President, it would be my hope that the Supreme Court would act very confidently, and I think they would.

And that we would then know what kind of action or means of legislative remedies, judicial remedies, or constitutional remedies were required to effectuate the technical public purpose.

I mean, we know whether we need to have a constitutional amendment or not.

A constitutional amendment, according to Professor Victor Leggeo, whom I have a great respect for, is like shooting a cannon and killing a man.

And it really isn't a good way to approach this from a theoretical standpoint, but it's the only way you can kill the man, you know, if it's all you've got, and that's what you've got to do.

But I think by intervening and asking for the brother to find these things, we know how narrow or how broad that amendment has to be.

Right, and you can come to the legislature and stay with it.

You've got to prepare for that.

Oh yeah, he's very worse than that, which I see, you know.

It's just awful.

But beyond that, after the Supreme Court acts, then we'll know whether we can do as fickle things we can do, and that is create a public policy statement to the legislative route that the court will listen to.

He thinks, of course, in fighting us to do that, I don't like it either.

I agree with that point that we might send an undead firefighter.

For instance, here it says that in short, there is nothing in the act, speaking of the 64th act, which provides us support, material assistance in answering the question of remedy for safety for segregation and violation of ground law.

Fickle says that means they want the Congress, the Supreme Court wants the Congress to tell them what to do.

Well, I think that's a generous interpretation, but after the intervention we know whether the court is inviting a legislative policy statement.

We know whether we have to have a constitutional amendment of some sort.

And beyond that, the administration, the Congress, and all those who are genuinely interested,

would try and formulate a policy for educational banking in the next steps.

And that we then would set about trying to implement it, such as trying to go to the problems of disparity, projected investment in education, such as busting, or busting is needed for some other purpose, such as the question of public policy on what is desirable in the mix, what not desirable.

and that we can do all these things by legislation, but the two features of it, Mr. President, in my mind, are to avoid aggregating ground.

As many of our amendments would do, I'm afraid, to avoid that, to avoid the criticism of aggregating ground, to avoid going by, oh, let that matter, to avoid aggregating ground by simply saying the court has been exercised

The court should hold thus and so in the opinion of the executive department.

If the court doesn't do that, then we'll know what our rights, our opportunities, our obligations are legislatively over the Constitutional Amendment, and the court should do this promptly.

In the meantime, the Congress should legislatively say he needs further busting or other similar activity until there is such a determination of this impending Constitutional Brexit.

Now, that has only the merit of being a haunted barge, it doesn't have any merit expressed, but for whatever it's worth, I'd wager that I thought more hell over busting than any person in the room.

I probably have thought about it more than any person in the room.

If you have more jobs, it's only because Texas is bigger.

But that's for the purpose of this discussion.

I would very much hope...

I think that...

You must present interventions in representative cases and ask the Congress for a say that the inevitable effect would be to stop any further proceedings on constitutional amendments or legislation until that case is heard.

That means that we probably will get a decision from the court on some representative cases this summer in June or July, which may or may not be good, but what would you do for it?

Well, I'd see what they got to say, and then I'd propose a amendment, or legislate as the case may be, or I might even recommend that the state even see the legislative setting.

I think it's unlikely that the court is going to be able now to summon up a definitive solution, a perfect solution.

They've failed miserably so far, and it's hard for me to think they're going to do it now.

Now, one thing that might happen, as the courts might say very well and good, if you deprive us, as you threaten to do, of the freedom to act in this respect, the Congress can restrict the jurisdictions of lower courts.

You can pass constitutional amendments here, blue in the face, but this court has primary jurisdiction, and we will appoint hearing examiners.

And we'll try these cases to know what do we see, please, whereupon we would have precipitated the greatest constitutional crisis since Jackson.

Really, even under the heat of buses, we need to avoid that.

So, Mr. President, I think we need to give the military some time.

A matter of weeks, months, this long.

Even though we'll catch some hell for that.

But I think we need to be prepared to fight promptly after the court acts.

And I think we'll probably end up having a combination of legislative relief, judicial relief, and possibly constitutional amendment.

But if we do, we make it to the place where we can just say this in a constitutional manner.

Nothing in this constitution shall be construed as to require the transportation of any public school student for purposes related to race.

That would not have to be granted.

That is almost unforgivably narrow to be embedded in a charter document.

If we had to, we had to.

But that's my view.

I've taken too much, and I don't have a lot of things to say.

Art, aren't you assuming that the court will roll back squash...

Looking at the facts of the Charlottesville case, I'm very willing to stand with that.

I'm gambling that Berger can translate his memorandum into the city.

I just did.

I just wanted to be clear on this.

In the Charles Mecklenburg case, the court was merely saying that Sir John had acted within his power in requiring what he did.

It didn't go so far as to say that the Constitution could tell a remedy that far-reaching.

And it did leave open the question of

You touched on the other sentence with respect to the educational values involved.

At one point, reckoning with the point of departure that Fort Brown said, this was done in the name of equality of educational opportunity for the benefit of the children.

At some point, countervailing considerations arise from prolonged blessing itself depending on the age of the children.

The court recognized that there was some other reason

And so there is a range still left for undetermined.

And we have been getting a certain amount of thoughts along these lines, too.

The question I'm about to say didn't occur to me until we heard two of the whole show.

that there may be a basis for intervention in which, in effect, for the first time we propose expert testimony to the effect of what these cultivating considerations are, so that we have in some way made a record on that point.

This we have never done up to now, and it would be a way of presenting to

...appropriate cost to the president, the government, to the Supreme Court, a basis...

...I mean, that would actually... ...what you could do is expect to be a percent of the brown type brief on a bus ticket... ...that brown segregation did educate...

I think you've never really had that on a bussing bed.

Well, not really.

Not at all.

That's hanging on the desk where you've got the...

I've had many, many people as a result, but only fairly recently, beginning to think in terms of what that kind of testimony would sound like in the light of fatigue factors and so on.

As the journey passed on the education process itself, I think I can switch ways and say words on that point.

I think that Gary is right.

However, I want to note that he knows that my own personal conviction is that blessing for Steve is the starting device.

and that it should not be sanctioned with no other interest available for the elimination of the last vestiges of institutional segregation.

I think we're going to get into further rocks and stones if we say we can prove that a little less is all right and a whole lot isn't.

Well, how do you rationalize that part with the swans?

Today, children approach a course in tourism

However, I want to note that you know that

is destructive device and that it should not be sanctioned for the elimination of the last vestiges of institutional segregation.

I think we're going to get into further rocks and stones if we say we can prove that a little less is all right and a little less isn't.

Well, how do you rationalize that part with the Swans?

But it's a long process.

I think the question, though, is not whether or not you get to release on intervention.

What you're trying to do is buy time.

Well, I don't think that either.

I think the question is whether or not you can honestly and genuinely say that we've done all we can within the legislative process to try to rectify this problem before we start trying to do something else on the road.

How do you think about that procedure?

Good question.

I don't think that there's anybody coming back to the Congress next year that hasn't faced this issue, because I think there's enough arousing parents in this country to make sure that happens.

And they're going to want some action.

We have taken action, we have, because we think the time has come.

The caucus has to stand up and get counted.

People want some action.

Well, the caucus has to express some time.

You have to report to us about it.

Yes.

And, uh, so... We have a... Well, you're aware, we have a discharge petition that I'm author of, which was discharged to the committee upon the adoption of which the Judiciary Committee would be discharged of the last constitutional amendment.

Now, this rule is an open rule that would give, uh,

We have...

I think it's about 65.

Now, I think that there's some help.

We were persuaded, maybe not to 218, but Chairman Falmer, I filed a letter asking for a hearing.

He's still hopeful that he can...

I think the courts have already made it clear that they think they have this power and this authority, and that until the Constitution tells them they do not, there's no way to get them to back them.

Yes, sir.

I had two black men and one white man tell me that if anything happens to this child, my sons are going to feel like this.

Now, these are good people.

They're not violent people.

The Attorney General of the Galactic Corps is not going to accept it.

We have these schools, tax-based schools, and we've got to find some way to assure that every school district is adequately financed.

And that's why I've been interested in a substitute for that, or a tax-based program, because that is one of the real financing meetings of schools.

As you know, we went all over.

We've got to be sure

I have to take care of that point.

What everybody fails to understand, you've got to just breathe, what everybody does realize is that in Detroit and in the home cities, that population is not all black in the central city.

But there are more white, more Appalachian whites, Bob, in Detroit, in Chicago, in Pittsburgh.

But if I see only the blacks out in the suburban schools,

And what have you done about the political facts?

That the problem is not in racialism, but particularly in the economic system.

The economic system cannot cope, because we've drained the centers to be able to treat those things.

We've impacted poor people, and if you told us the African-Americans that they're not going to be interested, they can't do it.

These are values that have dollars that Congress has been...

Thank you.

Thank you for watching!

I think Senator Judge is going to take over the country entirely if they aren't stopped.

I don't believe that Supreme Court will ignore their constitutional amendment.

I think they will live with it now.

When Judge should find the constitutional mandate for busing, I don't read it in it, but they're just taking it off the top of their heads as long as they can get away with it.

...getting more and more power to themselves, we're going to keep on doing it.

There's human beings in it.

And I'd be just mad if I could, if I had the time to give you a good factual story on the petition of federal judges.

Judge Berger and I are trying to save $40 million in federal construction by avoiding that petition.

And the fact of the matter is that

You can do some.

You can just be part of it.

Congress has got to take up to the fact that this money don't exist.

American people expected that.

And I'm going to do everything in my power to make Congress face this issue again.

I have to make Congress face it by the end of school, by the end of this year.

You know, I oppose the amendment.

I oppose the amendment.

And I think it's going to go on and get worse.

And it's tearing the people up.

You talk to the black mothers in my district.

They're more militant than the white.

Oh yes.

And Mr. President, I've been elected 12 times, and I've never gotten a vote against the black girls in my district, so I have a right for it.

No votes came from 62.9% of those in favor.

63% of blacks in Detroit are against bus lanes.

63%.

I have a question.

Would you be willing to have your children, bus and children in this neighborhood go to a school at a further distance from home than a school that they now attend in order to go to an integrated school?

I don't know.

I think another point that I think Bill Brock made, I know that we address ourselves with this on our education program.

Let's get away from this hypocrisy to the effect that the whole busing bit is about...

Also, our revenue sharing helps us.

We're already sharing.

But it's a point where we're uncertain.

Bob, what is your opinion now about the procedure?

Well, I would generally agree with what Howard has said.

Except that I think I would, if I were you, and I think in the interest of the country, and also in terms of the

It's not going to happen.

Thank you for watching!

30 seconds.

Let me say one thing once again.

I'm not recommending that you do this banking on changing the court's mind.

That's impossible.

Having done it, I believe we're in far better grace than to proceed with the Constitution.

Well, I think that without committing to the course of actions that we've been doing well, I think we'll all agree we can consider all this, your views and others in general.

I think what your argument is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that you feel our case is foreign to the Constitution, and that we've exhausted all other randomness, and that we shouldn't go to the Constitutional, that we shouldn't go to the Parliament, well, until you try to get rid of the Constitution.

On the other hand, what I'm trying to tell you is that

But that's really a factless argument.

You wouldn't use that term with your attorney.

You wouldn't be fine with your sentence.

But it's a factless argument because he just has no confidence in what's going to come out of the court.

You would however, I think, agree that his judgment on that might be correct.

I think it does.

If that happens, let's suppose that the court, and here's one of these cases, let's suppose the decision is that it might be 99 to 9.

And then we'll move the constitutional amendment through the Democratic Convention, through the Republican Convention, all the exacerbation of the issue and so forth.

We also have to make a look at what we're doing for the country on this.

We know busing is having a terrible effect on communities.

Of course, I don't agree more than that.

I wrote a little article here.

It's having a terrible effect.

And I'm totally against it for the reasons that I've mentioned.

I said, of course, after people come here, after I hear the president say something about it, of course, I am also carrying out the law of the land.

This is the policy we want.

The second point is so that we want to realize that the way we handle this issue

must be one that is responsible and one that will not tear them out of the apartment.

I would agree certainly with your appraisal that as an all-national poll, I have seen children, a majority of black parents, oppose busing.

A majority of people oppose busing.

However,

95% of the black establishment favors Grayson.

This is simple.

We have to realize that.

So what we're going to have to face here is the fact that the Constitutional Amendment and the black establishment is going to take the line of the factional liberals.

They have to.

The line of the editorial of the Washington Post yesterday, which says, well, it makes the... You may allude to it, but you're right.

I think that...

I like your job.

This is quite cool.

What are your feelings?

As a friend of mine, I've been sure to say that I'm probably somewhere in between now and now, and I think that as an academic, political scientist, and a former educator myself,

Therefore, I think that your own credibility could suck it here, because the president has made a statement that it's still not going to be done, waiting for the issue to resolve itself.

And it doesn't resolve itself, of course.

Let me say a word to the president.

I. I.

I think that after November, we won't have any problem getting to their vote for Senate anywhere else.

I think that there needs to be a check this year, because I don't know the further point of it.

I was being touched on very briefly in the outset, but it seems to me very important to come to terms with this situation as you look at the alternative procedures.

And that is that we're not really talking here about the choice between some kind of process that seems very...

and an amendment that deals with a specific purpose you outlined in the beginning of preventing busing for purposes of racial balance and so on and in order to preserve the opportunity to attend a political school the amendments that have actually been proposed

All these interpretations on one side, one extreme, is interpretations that would in effect nullify and fragment all that had taken place since then by way of ending dual school systems, rolling things back way beyond time to the point at which

for intervening on the subject of busing in the Swans case.

Now, that is a narrow interpretation, but it is a possible interpretation that the amendments would even permit, would even prohibit racially neutral zoning, but prohibit the zoning where undertaken in order to bring about a relative degree integration, or in order to end racial escalation.

And that is a possible interpretation.

At the opposite extreme,

It is an interpretation that the language of the amendment ratifies not only Brown does want, because it says in effect that you can.

Taking any action that would have the result of requiring any person to attend public school because of his race.

Now this invites...

The argument is that what the language means is that any perpetuation of dual school systems is outlawed, and is thus merely declaratory of Brown and all such institutions.

It is even imposed by some of the indigenous lawyers who have been communicating to the Catholic seller on this, that the language goes even beyond that.

Because it is not limited as the 14th Amendment is to state action.

So therefore, whatever has brought about segregation of flags within communities, that in turn leads to their attendance of all grad schools within those communities, is in effect requiring them to attend schools that come their

Now, there's a third, there's a fourth interpretation, which is that sense is important to us, to the constitution.

Since you've been required to educate by three quarters of the states, for the event to become effective, it's much more difficult in the countries of men and sex that their history is, that is, so...

I ask not for debate, because whatever it is, and most states don't keep records of their states, they don't have a basis for being sure on what grounds a state may have voted to ratify.

It could therefore be open and targeted to the United States, and the question of whether to do this,

They say it's possible for the court to treat you in a way that not only doesn't do what you intend, but would enforce more radical desegregation.

Mr. President, I don't think any of us is married in any specific manner.

I think in Brockland it's okay, I'm all for that.

But I don't think we're in the office of marriage in any specific manner.

I think the court should see the period and try to find a suitable life.

And it occurs to me it's a great fortune that he's coming back to life's second history in the third promise of the United States of America.

Good night.

Essentially, we're all trying to keep the same objective as the purpose of our sentence, which I mean, by and off, to get to that point.

And I'd like to see some questions you guys want to give us, some of the people who said that.

And with that, I'd like to see Greg Koch make a small statement on his part.

It's very easy for us.

First,

Direktion 2.

Direktion 1.

Direktion 2.

Third, I think we do have to cover the other stages of the order to protect our subject as to the charge of immigration and prison.

And if there is a question about the application practice, unless there is legislation that spells out exactly what we would have to change, exactly, in specific terms, that can be done.

All of this is based upon the fact that we recognize the difficulty of containing immediately a two-thirds majority in the Senate.

I would agree that the House is far more favorable right now than our side, unfortunately.

So, Mr. President, I think you're going to have to, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know, I don't know,

This, this, of course, has created a kind of an example of our culture, the white community, because we've got a good black-black association with that.

There's no such thing as a problem of how many people have saved their four-to-two-foot trees, because black or white, we don't have to do anything to do with it.

We don't have to do anything to do with it.

We have to do it ourselves.

Because nothing does deal with it, I didn't get it, but I just got it.

Here's the problem.

It requires equal funding to put down half of the debt.

If you come to the high end, you don't get courted.

I want to say I recognize the...

It's very difficult to say that you have to break.

You were the only one of us who got to do that.

But I would hope that you could find some way to support the Constitution.

I am very much inclined for you, as expressed by Tom, to see that I would use the same terminology regarding judges necessarily, because I have a confidence in them.

I think this is a measure of what magnitude

It involves local government.

It doesn't matter if it covers local, blind, or independent communities.

It's not a great magnitude for people to come and work for it.

It's not all the time about it.

You can make it as you want to be able to, but you don't do it if you tear the country apart.

It's not a great magnitude for that.

On the other hand, if nothing is done, we run the risk of terrorist conditions for Russia.

I recognize that...

I have no particular one to recommend.

I think this is a problem that needs to be solved.

That's it for that.

Thank you, Mr. President.

I have something to bring with me.

I can't agree with that.

I believe that we have come at the same time.

Actually, that's very beautiful.

Thank you very much.

Det bet bet bet bet bet bet bet bet bet bet bet

which was built on the ground case of curative legislation, which is really an unparalleled theory of unrealistic requirements.

And I come to the conclusion that the only thing we can do is to respond to constitutional amendments.

That's my problem, and it's probably the one that I'm on.

But let's see this regress.

Let's see what I'm doing.

Hold still.

Now let me ask you to start to proceed with everything.

You can hold it.

Okay.

You don't have to hold up with the light.

You can hold it.

All right, wait a minute.

You're perfecting that.

You're doing it all for us.

I don't really have too much faith in the courts.

I don't think that he meant to do that.

I don't think he meant to do that.

In that case, it was a little black girl who was running to a school point two blocks away from the academy, and the school collapsed.

And today, it's more like the facts are brought.

So, I don't know why they have all these names, because I've never practically looked at them.

At this time, this is actually the time that I've looked for in this past year.

I've looked at this ground rather than after this ground, and then...

It's time to put tools and bases on top.

It carries forward the trust of all of our inter-distributing controllers.

We have been booked in and out, counseling, funding accommodations, giving you the credit on the train, and more.

We are supposed to take dreams into consideration.

We're supposed to be calling for them.

This is what you said, and I regret it.

This is taking us out with the law that we have on the book.

So, bravo.

On the other hand, I think, by the time that I'm in New York, there will be a complete 183th term on the part of civil rights advocates, and you still in New York City, who very much know we're urging class as an education system.

In 1969, New York City had the New York State Constitution Act.

at the urging of the black community, which was put in New York City, which was once one unified Central School, and whacked it up into somewhere between 20 to 30 individual school districts.

At the urging of the black community, they were not going to sign this bill, because they wanted to make it into schools, they wanted community control, they wanted federal schools, rather than doing it by trying for their children.

But in the same way the governor signed that bill, he also signed the bill which I am happy with, which is very much a long word in this text of the amendment, which was done in the law by Robert Fulton, a liberal fellow, who said that the government couldn't be a scientist if it wasn't for the government.

I don't have any faith in how it does in the Supreme Court, because when I, because of what it's saying, when it puts in the law of 1960, when it puts it in the United States Supreme Court, and you manage to search for everything, under the lower court decision of Greenman, Jerry Butler, we can't tell that law to be under our supervision.

So we don't have a problem in New York as you mentioned, only because we had a moratorium by virtue of this type of law, which was recently began to be played out next to what I think Congress will now bring back to Europe as a service, and not in regards to having to do with this type of game, which is already happening.

Well, I would just say to your principal legal advisor that we've done quite a lot of work on the development of possible language, and I would just suggest that while I don't think there is any discrepancy in the objective,

The kind of language we've seen are, I think, what Mr. Landis said with respect to the effect of...

Carrying up the purpose of the ground is an eviction of this, and when you come to the introduction of the word transportation, and then you've had problems as to what is or what is not religiousness.

The president said earlier that he would support not just about too much busing, because that implies some busing is good, but of course quite a part of something.

It's obvious that quite a part of the Constitution applies to the six-piece education.

Every half of all children in the United States are busing school, and it's always a different thing.

I think also we ought to do more work on statutory language.

We have been working on some.

which has the advantage of ace being more readily subject to fixing it if it goes wrong or is interpreted in a way other than that at the state.

And it has the further advantage, two further advantages.

One, it can go into effect on a magnet.

Two, it can, by the very character of statutory language, be made more narrowly addressed to the particular objective situation we have.

It reminds all of us as well that once again what I said as a proposal was that the president intervenes before he intervenes.

That he has to come through for the sake of any of us to intervene.

That after we have terminated a court along for intervention.

Back then we decided, and as you will now hear, to support for legislation to prevent busing.

We have an approach to the 50th Amendment to prevent busing, to announce that the nation is not waiting for us.

And in the meantime, we tried to help, you see, I'm going to go there, and that's legislation policy, or legislative statements.

In the course of this conversation, I think you would stress that, well, that means that I've seen the accurate basis of the U.S. Amendment.

In my head, it was probably yes.

But let me back up and say that I don't think it necessarily has to be that way.

I've seen it in the others.

You know, let me go ahead and come out with a constitutional amendment, or even hearings on constitutional amendments and modifications.

There is nothing that exists with doing that, and that's what I propose.

So, I want to do whatever is necessary to stop this practice.

And if I can only give one brief word to Hunter, on behalf of my president,

I also want to clear the people of this country that not only is this another post-polling, but it's doing everything it can for science.

Everything it can will be different, but it will make things better, and it will be different for all of us.

President, I already said we had the politics here just for a moment.

As you know, many of the members of the House make a great deal of chance to come back here and get their primaries.

And we had a primary the whole time.

And I was glad we started to make markets live.

Markets.

I had this in mind the whole time.

I think that...

There are many, many members out there that want an opportunity, but that's the people of this country who don't have the state, because they're in the same position in that regard, and they're in office, and the people back west figure in every way, of course, the Democratic primaries, and the Republican primaries remain approachable in some of those states.

I'm afraid to add to this one thing here that hasn't been mentioned, but, and accepted in a general way, but what we've really done, we're, these hordes are meddling with the age-old relationship between the parent and child, and conduct what goes on in the home for Merck, and they reach him and grab these children for the next, put them in these buses, and, uh,

To me, this is something that legalisms won't satisfy.

People are not going to be interested in our release because they're going to want to smash this company.

As far as I can tell, we have...

Let me just do this thing right here.

That's right there.

Let me just do this thing right here.

I will be back in two weeks.

I want to just say, for those who are welcome anyhow, you can get us, but we don't want to put you on the spot.

I appreciate that, and I'd like to say we're all trying to do the right thing here.

I think it's good to be here today.

Thank you.

I don't believe in the sadness of some of the northerners.

Raising hell about segregation in Mississippi.

Let's see.

All right, fine.

Maybe not in Mississippi.

Probably, yeah.

The point is, now we've got to think of some politics.

Poison is a racist thing more than anything else.

We're trying to keep that out of it.

That's why you're spying on us and me.

We've got to just check down Baker, Brock, John, Franklin, Bobby, Tom, Joe, and...

But I got to do something to protect you, so it's a nice, on that basis that we want to, we want to say goodbye to all our staff, and I'm sorry, and that's the council, the attorney general, and all the rest of you.

And bear in mind that I have pulled out of the bus for the purpose of creating a range of problems.

I also favor, of course, equality of opportunity and education across this country.

I recommend to him, of course, that at the time of his return, the Attorney General and Secretary of State George Soros are in cabinet committee through which that direct committee will come.

We have a sad group of president attorneys, but also many experts who are charged with the responsibility of moving along to this cabinet committee all of the attorneys

We're on a very short time stage in terms of development, final recommendations, and moving to the present.

We'd like to ask from any of you, any sort of constructive responses to the problems presented at this table, that we would be in touch with you, and we're certainly available to you on a continuing basis,

The kinds of problems that we're running into are embodied in the selectors who turn us out about giving and taking the law.

These are closely tied to that of selected law professors around the Department of Humanities and Medicine.

They all have a particular point of view on this.

It's not exactly harmonious news that's been presented here today, but they are significant.

is that they point up some of the technical objections to the draft amendments that have been proposed, and are very helpful to us in anticipating the kinds of changes that will be presented in the hearing.

So let's see what it is that is going to become immensely important in how the experience is developed and how it is going to be advanced.

Claire, any kind of proposal is going to be directly important as they go into individual action.

We are at the premise here of trying to announce a demonstration policy by a fairly well-developed paper.

Somebody referred to the president's paper on school desegregation.

It's hard to find, in fact.

That's pretty good.

If possible, we'd like to develop the subject in that way, so that all these various aspects can be presented, otherwise the Constitutional Amendment

Thank you very much.

I mentioned here that the factors that have been mentioned have been very, very helpful.

There's some new ideas that people and factors have changed.

Practically, we haven't had any power play, and the number of concepts that have been mentioned has been very helpful in permitting a way for people to be able to apply their ideas.

I'm not afraid of that.

Somebody has to say this, and might as well be me.

We've referred to the extended discussions they have, and since we have our own methods in the house of filibustering and manasaurus, and if the artist had it, and if anybody here thinks of anything that's coming out of that committee, it's because they're a greater optimist than I am.

He's had five years to move, and he didn't move until we started what we're doing.

I don't think it's okay for him, or his committee, or the group's committee, that there will be two or more Muslims.

We have some talking, and in Paris, there will be a Democratic candidate.

We don't know if he has something to say.

I don't know if he has something to say.

I don't know.

Thank you for watching.

We are now exploring with the members of Congress, the federal congressmen, even the same way as Democrats and Republicans, having offered amendments to deal with this problem.

The president has submitted those amendments to his legal advisers.

And the two judicial advisors are exactly the amendments, as well as other suggested procedures, including procedures against the senator, as well as the license, as well as the road of intervention by the current chancellor.

This is going to be a power of the deposition.

Anyway, our purpose is to find...

And in fact, he remedied the deal with this problem.

And the president, the president's advisor to the consulate, the congressman, and others, and the main director of the state, the president, I understand why he's been raised by the president over the years, but why is the president always talking to people who oppose us?

I think it might be of some interest to you if you want to be involved.

Every aspect of this project has been changed.

Somebody mentioned Professor Fick.

Well, the working group has talked to Professor Fick, and to Professor Coleman, and to Pat Moynihan.

There are all kinds of people in various professions who have been walking the glass.

So that there has not been an attempt to freeze anybody out of the process.

There will have been an effort, for example, to close this interview this morning.

It's very interesting, and it's a bit of a flip for such an effect.

He says, of course, this is fighting a legislative response.

And the meeting we had, and he said, well, if you move the House of Representatives out,

This is what kind of a response do you think you can get?

And this is where it's impressive, why I'm saying it.

What kind of a response it would be if we were all appointed, if they had an opportunity.

Why do you feel about that?

Well, maybe it isn't such a good idea after all.

And so this is the kind of exchange that we learned when we were headed.

We have heard from both sides of it.

Mr. President, I've already said at Tennessee, and I expect to say here, if you don't object, that I'd recommend to the President that he take three courses of action.

One, to intervene in representative cases to try to overturn bus decisions.

Two, that he support appropriate legislative relief to prevent massive bus operation violence.

And three, appropriate constitutional amendment.

Let me tell you, each of you should be given three

To tell the press what you recommend.

In other words, you recommend it as an exit idea, but it's actually an exit idea.

And that's what I'm going to do.

I'm going to make apologies.

That's what I'm going to do.

Well, that's the thing I'm going to do.

I'm going to take it to the head of the president.

He's taken all of these views into consideration, and he believes that we have to find the best remedy, and that everybody can agree that, I think all of you agree, we're not just here to hear this is the best remedy.

We're trying to find the best remedy we can to deal with this problem.

For the purposes of the other side of the issue, I don't want to consistently raise concerns about the remedies, but not about the basic policy.

And I think the fact that you mentioned it is a highly important point to make, because while it is true in one side, it is in the other side.

I think the overwhelming feeling for people is that they don't want to have massive busking.

On the other hand, if the issue comes past as an issue of the rollback of brown, then of course it's quite a good thing in terms of...

I agree with that, and I think that you agree with this conversation.

We raised these questions only to indicate that they exist, but I kind of have to say I should respond to that based on what I heard myself.

All of us as lawyers inevitably have quite a problem to do things.

It's the responsibility of the people who are sitting in this chair and trying to do these things.

I don't know if this is all right or if you can hear it all, but one thing we cannot do, and that we will not do, is that we're not going to leave the situation as it is.

And right out of that, that's why we're not going to leave the situation as it is.

Other than that, because if you leave it as it is, you're going to allow it to go right down the road to us.

So, we are looking for a remedy.

I know you've had this from the last time I've been here, I said that you had a very deep concern about this whole problem.

And that we were now in our position to tell you what we're doing and why we're doing it.

And that we would make every effort we could to invest your goodwill and health and, of course, your problems.

And that's what I hope.

But we appreciate your time, gentlemen, and as you know, it's 95,000.

Is that the state I had to set up today?

What's the time?

I think it's right here.

I didn't want to do it out of the second place.

Thank you.

Now, I'm going to give it to you guys for your wives.

I'm going to give it to your wives, and I'm going to take you out of here.

But I don't think it means that our marketers are going to be ready to take it back to China in the 20th, and I'll probably be too dangerous to even say, and that will be why it'll take some time after that.

I think that's very important.

We're talking about something after I had time to consider, but recommendations will be made to me, and recommendations will be made to me with respect to the recommendations by the Board of Supervisors.

Maybe not all, but maybe an impressive number will consider that and make up their own mind.