Posted on 03/14/2015 1:41:25 PM PDT by EveningStar
Yet again, conservatives on the Supreme Court are poised to do significant damage to minority communities
When discussing race, the conservative argument is best expressed by the famous words of Chief Justice John Roberts: “The best way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” Translation: America has done bad things in its history, but those bad things are gone now, so we should move past those horrors and look forward.
Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos simply work hard, get a good education and earn a good income, historical racial wealth gaps will disappear. The problem is that this sentiment ignores the ways that race continues to affect Americans today. A new report from Demos and Brandeis University, “The Racial Wealth Gap: Why Policy Matters,” makes this point strongly. The report shows that focusing on education alone will do little to reduce racial wealth gaps for households at the median, and that the Supreme Court, through upcoming decisions, could soon make the wealth gap explode.
(Excerpt) Read more at salon.com ...
Those are good alternatives, better than single-state nullification if they come to fruition. But, IMO, you don’t need a constitutional amendment to allow states to reject unconstitutional federal acts. It is supported by the Supremacy Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and nowhere is it expressly prohibited. Arizona already has such a law on the books, that it reserves the right to reject any federal law Arizona deems unconstitutional.
In the meantime, single-state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts is better than nothing and can restrain illegal federal encroachment immediately.
The framers did not consider state nullification out of the question. I love Madison, but he went back and forth on certain issues. Don’t know why he would be against it and if he was I don’t know if he wavered. I’d be interested to see he relevant comments. And don’t know why you’re against it.
How does Salon account for poor white people?
Would you clarify that statement PapaNew? I don’t condone racism. But to my knowledge, the only race-based right that the states have amended the Constitution to expressly protect is voting rights, evidenced by the 15th Amendment.
Regarding 10th Amendment-protected state power to segregate, please consider this. While I don’t condone segragation any more than I condone racism, not only did the federal lawmakers who drafted the 14th Amendment arguably overlook segregation issues, but corrupt, post FDR era activist justices wrongly established the PC right not to be segregated outside the framework of the Constitution in Brown v. Board of Education imo. And two wrongs don’t make a right.
FYI, Jacquerie included you in her response and I forgot to include you in my answer...
Those are good alternatives, better than single-state nullification if they come to fruition. But, IMO, you don’t need a constitutional amendment to allow states to reject unconstitutional federal acts. It is supported by the Supremacy Clause and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and nowhere is it expressly prohibited. Arizona already has such a law on the books, that it reserves the right to reject any federal law Arizona deems unconstitutional.
In the meantime, single-state nullification of unconstitutional federal acts is better than nothing and can restrain illegal federal encroachment immediately.
The framers did not consider state nullification out of the question. I love Madison, but he went back and forth on certain issues. Don’t know why he would be against it and if he was I don’t know if he wavered. I’d be interested to see he relevant comments. And don’t know why you’re against it.
The Salon writers are not the originators of this study. They are referencing a study by Demos (a liberal think tank) and Brandeis University (not exactly known as a Right-leaning institution). Of course the Salon writers heartily endorse the findings of this study and probably even add some of their own.
When you think about it, that's probably where the next ruling class of this country is going to come from. If you need any evidence of that, just look at the children of Jeb Bush and see a perfect example of wealthy, privileged Americans who are "Hispanic minorities."
If single states can nullify, there is little point to congress.
The de jure remedy is an amendment to empower the parties to the constitution, say 3/5 of the states, to repeal congressional, executive, judicial acts.
I acknowledge that Obama and his rats illegally nullify/amend the constitution on a regular basis, and we being pushed to our limits. My hope is for peaceful resolution via Article V.
As originally intended by the ratifiers during the post Civil-War reconstruction era, the 14th Amendment made state segregation unconstitutional as confirmed and explained in the Slaughterhouse cases a few years after the amendment was ratified.
The feds have used the heinous "Incorporation Doctrine" to give themselves power over all of the rights mentioned in the first ten amendments. The first ten amendments are strictly pointed at restricting the federal government and no one else. The 14th Amendment was never intended to change that other than this one narrow area.
The feds have no legitimate constitutional authority to force integration on the state level or to interfere with private parties at all regarding their freedom to choose or "discriminate". In this respect, Brown v. Board of Education was invalid because it overturned the long-held precedent of Slaughterhouse with no constitutional-based explanation.
Why does everything have to be based on race?
Isn’t anyone in the government concerned about poor Americans of all skin colors?
Many poor whites struggle on their own because there is still some reluctance to take unearned government assistance and to not stand on your own.
But all we hear is whining about all those poor blacks.
We have had so much whining about race over the last 50 years that it has become nothing more than background noise.
It is like the endless humming noise off in the distance from cars and trucks on the interstates.
Who is the most powerful man in the world...
(Hint, he ain’t white)
Perhaps they will be nonwhite. In the sense that Heather Locklear is ‘nonwhite’, Sarah Palin’s children are ‘nonwhite’, Jeb Bush’s children are ‘nonwhite’, Phil Gramm’s sons are ‘nonwhite’, Raquel Welch is ‘nonwhite’, Elizabeth Warren’s kids are ‘nonwhite’, etc. What nonsense.
f’ em
Especially when blacks who can't write legibly, do basic arithmetic, or speak intelligibly are graduated with feel-good college degrees and no marketable job skills.
I hope to close the wealth gap with Oprah and Bill Cosby. Damn racists keeping me down!
Latinos in the San Fran area have a great work ethic. You never see them out begging. The streets always have workers looking to pick up a few bucks at odd jobs. You NEVER see blacks looking for work and the street corner bums are almost always white and black.
YET!!!
John Kerry’s mommy is pretty rich. Well, not pretty, but rich.
That does NOT describe many of the blacks and hispanics I know. It might describe the inner city, but not the folks I work with or who live in my neighborhood.
David Axlerod isn’t white?
Oh, it’s fantasy op-ed day at Salon again?
The line: “Conservatives believe that if blacks and Latinos ...” is revealing in that every single hispanic professional I’ve worked with hold blacks with nothing but disdain and contempt.
Latino’s do not suffer discrimination from whites one fraction of what they experience from blacks.
That’s why it’s so easy to refer to them as ‘White Hispanics’. Because that’s what they think of hispanics, just another white man.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.