Our concern is that we do not want Federal law to necessarily override State law with respect to the day-to-day administration of bilingual education programs. I think the gentleman from California (Mr. Martinez) would acknowledge that bilingual education is first and foremost a responsibility of State and local government, and that is the concern that we have on this side. I am very open to the suggestion that we make sure that a Federal court order would have the highest priority and would override State and local law.
Frank Riggs: “Our concern is that we do not want Federal law to necessarily override State law with respect to the day-to-day…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing concerns about federal versus state authority in bilingual education during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Frank Riggs
the headline says ``The Salvation Army has decided to end its contracts with San Francisco and shrink programs serving the homeless, drug addicts and the elderly because of a dispute over the city's domestic partners law. Some, if not…
I do not see how we can support a policy that... facilitates, furthers illegal drug use and actually... puts us as lawmakers... in the position of... engaging in enabling behavior. And, furthermore, it sends the worst possible message that…
Mr. Chairman I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes to respond to the last speaker. The gentleman should not be throwing stones in his glass house. If we are going to examine our own internal practices in the United States House of Representatives…
Now, what did the United States 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decide in the Hopwood case? Hopwood v. The University of Texas, I quote: ``The 5th circuit ruled that diversity does not justify preferential admissions based on race.''





