based solely upon his classification as being of a certain race, to a particular seat in a passenger train.

The “color-blind” aspect of that famous dissent to state action discriminating against a class has been rightfully acclaimed, but the dissent’s conclusion (also see Busing — Opposed, pp. 34-35) invoking the Guaranty Clause of the Constitution has not received the attention it deserves:

I am of the opinion that the statute of Louisiana is inconsistent with the personal liberty of citizens, white or black, in that state, and hostile to both the spirit and letter of the law of the constitution of the United States. If laws of like character should be enacted in the several states of the Union, the effect would be in the highest degree mischievous.... Such a system is inconsistent with the guaranty given by the constitution to each state of a republican form of government, and may be stricken down by congressional action, or by the courts in the discharge of their solemn duty to maintain the supreme law of the land, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding. 163 U.S. 537, at 563.

Groundswell citizens in that initial proposed amici brief to the San Bernardino Court attempted to counter the pro-busing amici constitutional interpretation presented to that Court by the counsel for the plaintiff-class in the Los Angeles Crawford case, who were also co-counsel for the Carlin Plaintiff-Class. Busing — Opposed, pp. 33-37.

To recapitulate, Groundswell’s application to appear and file that amici brief, with its last point invoking the Guaranty Clause (Appendix 5), was filed February 13, 1980. A delay by the San Bernardino Court in acting upon the application disturbed me. Shortly before I received word it was denied, I showed the Guaranty point with the reference to James Madison’s famous definition of “tyranny” to an esteemed retired appellate judge, who assured me that it did not offend him. On February 25, I received notice the application had been denied on February 20, 1980. See Busing — Opposed, at 35 and its Appendix IV. This prevented public exposure of our argument comparable to that of the Crawford amici, presented by Carlin co-counsel.