wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Apparently Wade opposed President Kennedy enforcing integration in Little Rock. Abuse of Executive power and all that. Absolute tyranny in the name of equality. Not quite. I supported the government action in Little Rock on several levels and to some extent, though not for the supposed "equality" reasons behind it (actually, integration was enforced in objection to "separate" and in spite of being "equal"). . My justification for the government action in Little Rock, and to opening the doors to free-will integration, was civility and rational interest. Had the federal and state governments acted on my justification, we could have avoided the harm and dismal failure of mandated school busing. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 12, 2014 by wenglund
wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 The Founder's deliberately left many things vague. Obviously there has to be some limits to freedom of speech. You are prohibited from endangering other by using your freedom of speech. IE; Don't yell FIRE in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire. You are prohibited from endangering others in the use of your freedom to practice your religion. IE; Holding meetings in a fire trap. What is excessive bail in absolute dollars and cents? Do we go by what the Founders thought wasn't cruel and unusual http://score.rims.k12.ca.us/score_lessons/colonial_court/html/colonial.html or do we go by our thoughts. Jail time. Okay, but for the umpteenth time, this is somewhat beside the point of the OP. Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Not quite. I supported the government action in Little Rock on several levels and to some extent, though not for the supposed "equality" reasons behind it (actually, integration was enforced in objection to "separate" and in spite of being "equal"). . My justification for the government action in Little Rock, and to opening the doors to free-will integration, was civility and rational interest. Had the federal and state governments acted on my justification, we could have avoided the harm and dismal failure of mandated school busing. Thanks, -Wade Englund- Separate but equal is not found in the Constitution that was another USSC decision.SEE The Plessy v Ferguson Decisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson Edited June 12, 2014 by thesometimesaint
wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 (edited) Separate but equal is not found in the Constitution that was another USSC decision.SEE The Plessy v Ferguson Decisionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plessy_v._Ferguson Who here is claiming that "separate but equal" was found in the Constitution? And, why are you telling me this? Thanks, -Wade Englund- Edited June 12, 2014 by wenglund
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Who here is claiming that "separate but equal" was found in the Constitution? And, why are you telling me this? Thanks, -Wade Englund- Did you not say? Not quite. I supported the government action in Little Rock on several levels and to some extent, though not for the supposed "equality" reasons behind it (actually, integration was enforced in objection to "separate" and in spite of being "equal"). .
USU78 Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 Seeing that Germans are more equal, have more economic security, and a better economy than the US. That is just a rant from a fool. You have no idea how funny that was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass
thesometimesaint Posted June 12, 2014 Posted June 12, 2014 You have no idea how funny that was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BCnter_Grass Is there any thing precluding highly praised individuals from saying something foolish?
wenglund Posted June 12, 2014 Author Posted June 12, 2014 Did you not say? Not quite. I supported the government action in Little Rock on several levels and to some extent, though not for the supposed "equality" reasons behind it (actually, integration was enforced in objection to "separate" and in spite of being "equal"). . Yes. I did say that. I also note that nowhere in that statement does it say "separate but equal was found in the constitution." Hence, my questions to you above--which, for convenience sake, I will repeat again: Who here is claiming that "separate but equal" was found in the Constitution? And, why are you telling me this? Thanks, -Wade Englund-
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Yes. I did say that. I also note that nowhere in that statement does it say "separate but equal was found in the constitution." Hence, my questions to you above--which, for convenience sake, I will repeat again: Who here is claiming that "separate but equal" was found in the Constitution? And, why are you telling me this? Thanks, -Wade Englund- So you supported the governments actions but not based on law but on the opinions of the USSC in Plessy v Ferguson but not the 14th Amendment to the Constitution and not the Brown v Board of Education decision. Have I got that right?
langbert Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Only somewhat. The First Amendment precludes the state from establishing any specific morality.I always think this specific notion is suspect. How is law not an extension of morality? The Constitution & Amendments are laws based on civic morals society (or certain members of society) have chosen to embrace. For example, the First Amendment moralizes about free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. These are civic morals we hold to (sometimes to the detriment of religion or speech, ironically; another topic).
thesometimesaint Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 I always think this specific notion is suspect. How is law not an extension of morality? The Constitution & Amendments are laws based on civic morals society (or certain members of society) have chosen to embrace. For example, the First Amendment moralizes about free exercise of religion and freedom of speech. These are civic morals we hold to (sometimes to the detriment of religion or speech, ironically; another topic). To a certain extent all laws are a reflection of morality. However in the egg salad that is the US, morality is the mayonnaise that holds it all together. Sadly we can see what is happening in Iraq right now when the mayonnaise is removed.
langbert Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Except that is not what happens now, not what has happened during the history of constitutional us governance, and simply your "interpretation" of the constitution.Thus you are wrong.But does that make an ideal wrong? I don't particularly like court legislation—“good” or “bad.” The argument over Constitutional majoritarianism is well established and old so it's a little rambunctious to just call somebody “wrong” over an understood doctrine. This particular doctrine is monumental (for those who agree with it) as a specific premise for arguments regarding constitutional approaches to equality. Ignoring the ideal ignores arguments put forth by a substantial segment of the population.
langbert Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 Thought you might like the tongue and cheek of it :-)Oh NOW I see.
langbert Posted June 13, 2014 Posted June 13, 2014 To a certain extent all laws are a reflection of morality. However in the egg salad that is the US, morality is the mayonnaise that holds it all together. Sadly we can see what is happening in Iraq right now when the mayonnaise is removed.I appreciate your egg salad analogy, but it is making me hungry. 1
Recommended Posts