A lesson in Constitutional Law...

Discussion in 'The Constitutional & RKBA Forum' started by Shizamus, Jun 30, 2003.

  1. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001
    To view this item online, visit http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33323

    Monday, June 30, 2003


    A lesson in constitutional law

    Posted: June 30, 2003
    1:00 a.m. Eastern

    By Joseph Farah

    © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

    – U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV

    What is so difficult to understand about the 14th Amendment?

    To believe the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, you need more than a basic comprehension of the English language to understand what is meant by "equal protection under the law."

    It seems simple and straightforward to me. Of course, I don't have a law degree. I am not a self-proclaimed "constitutional scholar." I only wear a black robe right after a shower.

    Yet, in a 5-4 ruling last week, the justices found the 14th Amendment really doesn't mean what it says. They found there is a compelling state interest to discriminate on the basis of race to promote a more diverse society.

    For the life of me, I haven't been able to find any justification for this goal in the Constitution. And, I was taught in civics class that the Supreme Court is supposed to follow the law of the land.

    As usual, Clarence Thomas got it exactly right. He quoted Frederick Douglass, the famous abolitionist, to deliver what he called "a message lost on today's majority."

    In his 1865 speech to a group of abolitionists, Douglass said Americans had always been anxious about what to do with black people.

    "I have had but one answer from the beginning. Do nothing with us!" he said. "Your doing with us has already played the mischief with us. Do nothing with us!"

    "If the apples will not remain on the tree of their own strength, if they are worm-eaten at the core, if they are early ripe and disposed to fall, let them fall!" Douglass said.

    Thomas wrote that he, like Douglass, believes blacks can achieve in "every avenue of American life without the meddling of university administrators."

    "Because I wish to see all students succeed whatever their color, I share, in some respect, the sympathies of those who sponsor the type of discrimination advanced by the University of Michigan Law School," he said.

    "The Constitution does not, however, tolerate institutional devotion to the status quo in admissions policies when such devotion ripens into racial discrimination," Thomas said.

    Antonin Scalia added, the "Constitution proscribes government discrimination on the basis of race, and state-provided education is no exception."

    The Constitution must remain the basis for judicial decisions. Rulings are not supposed to reflect the wishful thinking of the court. They are not supposed to reflect their political views. They are not supposed to reflect their own ideas about what will make us a better society. They are supposed to be arbiters of the law.

    Besides the clear constitutional arguments against racial preferences, such policies are fraught with danger for other practical reasons.

    If we begin defining people by race, who will verify those classifications? In this increasingly diverse and multicultural society we live in, how do we determine who is black and who is white? Is there some genetic test? What percentage of black blood entitles a person to racial preferences? What percentage of white or Asian blood disqualifies a person from those preferences?

    These are just some of the problems with the diversity craze. Once we go down this slippery slope, forget about equal protection under the law, forget about the concept of individual rights, forget about an achievement-based or merit-based society. And forget about the Constitution.
  2. 1952Sniper

    1952Sniper New Member

    Aug 22, 2002
    They won't rest until we're all the same color. Sort of a well-tanned look.

    Rush Limbaugh has been saying this for some time: they keep preaching diversity, when it's not diversity they're interested in. It's uniformity. Think about it. All the efforts to make people equal, even violating the Constitution to give certain races an advantage. That is not diversity! That is an attempt at uniformity. It reeks of communism.

    Our nation was not founded on the idea that all men shall be equal. It was based on the idea that we are all CREATED equal, and are free to pursue success based on our talents. When government attempts to make us equal by force, that is communism.

  3. Shizamus

    Shizamus New Member

    Jun 27, 2001
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum Excellent civics lesson and why we are in a ‘Rearguard’ posture Jan 16, 2015
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A Short History Lesson! Jul 4, 2012
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum A Valuable History Lesson Feb 14, 2011
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum I'd like to see the lesson plan Jul 20, 2005
The Constitutional & RKBA Forum [Fwd: Youths Get Hands-On Gun Rights Lesson] Jun 29, 2003