This is interesting, because, in all reality, those little girls were not being denied any "rights," were they? They could still go to school and get an education-- the state just forced them to attend a segregated school. (And I will inject that there is no Constitutional "right" to an education). I don't see how the Federal Gov could have imposed like it did.

It is not popular to challenge such a thing as this-- I suppose I risk being called a "racist" when I am not. I am just challenging the pop-thought about this situation. Did Eisenhower really have the authority to do this? What rights of these girls were being denied? And it was acceptable to enforce the will of the Fed Gov by using our own military against a state of the Union? What about the Posse Comitatus Act?

I'm not saying the racist policies of the state and the governor are justified in any way whatsoever. And I never thought twice about this historical event until now. I think it's worth a second thought. It may be that something like this will occur again, and perhaps it won't be so innocuous as schoolgirls going to school.

Cato, I think Ike did what he had to do, given that the Supreme Court ruled segregation was unconstitutional in Brown. He couldn't have state authorities or the people of Arkansas willfully flouting the law of the land. And when efforts at peaceful persuasion failed, he did the right thing to maintain the rule of law.

The Eisenhower presidential library has some cool primary source documents relating to the Little Rock Nine: http://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/dl/LittleRock/littlerockdocuments.html.

It's a straightforward 14th Amendment issue, isn't it? If Arkansas didn't provide schools for any of its children, that would be one thing. But if it's going to provide it for some, it has to provide it equitably for all.

As for the Posse Comitatus Act, I believe that this is a classic case of the exemption from the Insurrection Act. But I'm mostly scraping up here what I still recall from my last American History class in school, so I'm far from 100% sure!

Thanks for the link. You offer a good argument. I have not yet read from the library, so I am stil going on memory of the events and from common sense.

Now, just because the Supreme Court says something, doesn't make it so, does it? Segregation is wrong, but what about state's rights? The Court overstepped its bounds, here, didn't it? This is all in a pure legal sense, not a moral sense. And the executive branch can "check and balance" the judicial branch, can it not? It seems that this case was one of the early cases (especially under the Warren Court) to increase the power of the Federal Government at the expense of the rights of the States.

I know this is not an easy topic, due to particulars about the case, and people's emotions. I am mostly playing devil's advocate, yet I do think we should rethink these kinds of cases that, at this point in time, have been conditioning us to accept a federally-run police state in this country.

I feel the same way about the "Defense of Marriage" Act, as much as I believe that marriage is a one man/one woman for life institution. We now have to regulate morality and societal issues? Where is the legal case for that? (And I will ask, where the hell is the Church and its influence?)

I still ask, what "rights" were these schoolgirls being denied? Yes, yes, I know it was all argued before the bar in 1954. Still, how is the 14th amendment twisted and construed to mean that black (or white) kids have the "right" to attend any school they desire even when they already get free education, and the Fed Gov to enforce it on a federal level against the established policies of a State? If the government-run schools are segregated, how can one government-run school be more or less equal than the other?

Was anti-segregation suddenly discovered in the Constitution, like slavery and then non-slavery, and abortion and sodomy?