The excerpt is from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

–Article 2,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

This passage from the declaration is designed to

affirmative action refers to the policies that take gender, race, or ethnicity into account in order to promote equal opportunity.

employers subject to title vii are prohibited from taking race or sex into account in any employment decisions. aa is a penalty for having any job group substantially statistically "underutilized" in any race or either sex. the employer must take steps to eliminate the underutilization, then stop, ending its aa efforts

thurgood marshall

explanation: in 1954, thurgood marshall and a team of naacp attorneys won brown v. board of education of topeka, kansas. in this landmark decision, the supreme court held that segregation in public education violated the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment.

someone or something lol

in the united states, the president is controlled by the

constitution, and in all respects subordinate to it. insofar

as it deals with presidential power, however, the american

constitution has proved to be a highly malleable document.

with very few exceptions,' the constitutional provisions relating to the president have not been changed at all since

they were ratified in 1787. but in the late twentieth century, those provisions do not mean what they meant in

1787. the constitution is a legal document, and it is enforced judicially; but its meaning was hardly fixed when it

was ratified. in particular, the contemporary president has

far broader powers than the original constitution contemplated. it is remarkable but true that large-scale changes in

the authority of the president have been brought about

without changes in the constitutional text, but nevertheless

without significant illegality.

this is a paradox. is it not clear that constitutional

changes, if not textual, are illegal? the paradox has considerable relevance to our current thinking about the presidency in particular and about constitutionalism in general.

perhaps the framers of the american constitution feared

legislative power most of all; 2 but from well-known events

in the twentieth century, it is possible to conclude that it is

presidential power that holds out the greatest risks to both

liberty and democracy. the president is by far the most visible leader in the nation; he is often the only person in government with a national constituency. moreover, he is