Missing the boat by so much, it's not even funny

I've seen some blatantly absurd statements in my time, but La Shawn Barber's editorial on a conservative website has to rank pretty high on that list. Apparently, the main invective impulse of the editorial is that an African-American woman is decrying the Brown decision, declaring:

Although its outcome may have been just, Brown was decided unconstitutional.

Now, let's begin by noting that her claim is incorrect: Brown was perhaps decided unconstitutionally, but it certainly was not decided unconstitutional. Grammatical flaws aside, her argument is clearly based on the most cursory of readings of the original decision. Again, she claims that:

By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment, however, the Court in both Plessy and Brown could have arrived at legally sound decisions.

However, if one reads even the summary of the original Brown decision, one can find that the justices made the following point:

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.

Ms. Barber's reasons for claiming that this is an incorrect interpretation of the Fourteenth amendment is that apparently

For reasons difficult to determine, the Court chose not to base their ruling on these grounds, but on an analysis of "public education in light of the full development and its present place in American life..."

which is patently absurd, and a misquotation to boot. The actual statement, contained in the syllabus at the start of the decision, reads as follows:

(b) 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.

They continue on to state that trying to determine the intent of the writers of the amendment--a popular conservative tactic for railing against so-called "liberal activism"--is impossible in the case of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that therefore they need to study the case more closely.

Where they decided the case "unconstitutionally" is an enigma to me. However, it should not be too surprising that Ms. Barber is a proud member of the Ward Connerly school of political thought. Its basic credo: I'm doing just fine, so all you need to do to succeed is work a little harder. Forget affirmative action--all you need is more spit and polish!