J. Harvie Wilkinson III, who sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, is a conservative judge who has been on conservatives' short list for the U.S. Supreme Court. So it's worth noting his op-ed in the Washington Post that's critical not only of the proposed federal anti-gay marriage amendment, but also of state constitutional bans on gay marriage. In Hands Off Constitutions: This Isn't the Way to Ban Same-Sex Marriage, Judge Wilkinson writes:
The Framers meant our Constitution to establish a structure of government and to provide individuals certain inalienable rights against the state. They certainly did not envision our Constitution as a place to restrict rights or enact public policies, as the Federal Marriage Amendment does. ...
I do not argue that same-sex marriage is a good or desirable phenomenon, only that constitutional bans on same-sex unions carry terrible costs. ...
It is sad that the state of James Madison and John Marshall [Virginia] will in all likelihood forsake their example of limited constitutionalism this fall. Their message is as clear today as it was at the founding: Leave constitutions alone.
Behold, a principled conservative!
More. Something must be in the water down in old Virginny. Here's another anti-amendment column by another Republican judge, Raymond A. Warren. He writes:
More troubling is the effect the amendment might have on private arrangements such as domestic partnership health benefits now widely offered by major employers in Virginia. ... It would be a rational legal conclusion that such programs create either a "partnership" or a "legal status" that Virginia's courts could not recognize. ... Even private contracts cannot violate the Commonwealth's public policy and it is not inconceivable that the courts could read the new amendment broadly enough to create a public policy against such contracts. . . .
Worse, the everyday documents many unmarried couples (including non-gay couples) use to protect their legal and financial interests would be called into question by the proposal's broad language. ...
All this would leave Virginia at a distinct disadvantage in the global economy.
And he's right. Some conservatives care about liberty, legal equality, and prosperity (and yes, they are linked). Others, especially social conservatives, are not only bigoted but are as economically illerate as their leftwing counterparts.
28 Comments for “Conservatives Who Understand that Constitutions Protect Liberty.”
posted by John on
It was a great op-ed. Those principled conservatives seem to be an endagered species anymore.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, he hit on the big problem here:
Judges began the rush to constitutionalize. The Massachusetts Supreme Court concocted a state constitutional right to marry persons of the same sex. The court went on to say that opposing views lacked so much as a rational basis. In other words, centuries of common-law tradition, legislative sanction and human experience with marriage as a bond between one man and one woman were deemed by that court unworthy to the point of irrationality.
But then he goes on to this:
It would be altogether understandable for Congress and state legislatures to counter this constitutional excess with constitutional responses of their own. Yet it would be the wrong thing to do.
Wrong, quite possibly — but, according to the Constitution, the only check that the populace has in all cases on the judiciary, be it state or Federal, IS the alteration of fundamental law. In short, if judges choose to disregard the will of the masses, the masses may, with perfect right, block judges from making such rulings — because they are the ultimate voice and power in our system.
I have zero sympathy for the “blame the voters” attitude that he evinces in this. The United States did just fine without constitutional bans on gay marriage for years — until judges made it clear that they would disregard the clear will of the voters and concoct rights from nowhere. The judiciary — and the liberal gay activists whose sole motivation for going to the courts is revenge and hatred against voters who rebuff them — are solely to blame for this problem. The American electorate spoke on the issue, they were disregarded, and they reacted accordingly.
No, it’s not pretty. But it is understandable, and “gay activists” who traffick in bigotry, hatred of conservatives and Republicans, denunciation of religion, and support of unpopular causes like unlimited abortion, would do well to take note of it — and modify their behaviors accordingly.
posted by Northeast Libertarians on
Judges began the rush to constitutionalize. The Supreme Court concocted a federal constitutional right to citizenship and “freedman” status for black slaves. The court went on to say that opposing views lacked so much as a rational basis. Centuries of common-law tradition, legislative sanction and human experience with slavery as a bond between one master and his slaves were deemed by that court unworthy to the point of irrationality.
It would be altogether understandable for Congress and state legislatures to counter this constitutional excess with constitutional responses of their own. Yet it would be the wrong thing to do.
Wrong, quite possibly — but, according to the Constitution, the only check that the populace has in all cases on the judiciary, be it state or Federal, IS the alteration of fundamental law. In short, if judges choose to disregard the will of the masses, the masses may, with perfect right, block judges from making such rulings — because they are the ultimate voice and power in our system.
I have zero sympathy for the “blame the voters” attitude that he evinces in this. The United States did just fine with legal slavery and non-citizenship status for blacks for years — until judges made it clear that they would disregard the clear will of the voters and concoct rights from nowhere. The judiciary — and the liberal anti-slavery activists whose sole motivation for going to the courts is revenge and hatred against voters who rebuff them — are solely to blame for this problem. The American electorate spoke on the issue, they were disregarded, and they reacted accordingly.
No, it’s not pretty. But it is understandable, and “black activists” who traffick in bigotry, hatred of plantation owners and Southern Democrats, denunciation of religion, and support of unpopular causes like womens’ suffrage, would do well to take note of it — and modify their behaviors accordingly.
—
Goodness, interesting how the centuries tick by and the hated groups change, but the arguments rarely deviate, eh? 🙂
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually, NL, the Supreme Court’s most pertinent decision relative to slavery was the Dred Scott decision, which held (correctly) that nothing in the Constitution prevented slavery or gave slaves rights as citizens. The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments are all ones proposed by Congress and ratified by the requisite number of states in response to and reversal of the Dred Scott decision.
Therefore, your claim that the Supreme Court created the right of citizenship and freedom for black citizens is historically incorrect and completely spurious. The right was created and empowered by the ONLY people in our system who have the power to do so — the voters and their representatives.
You do, however, provide an excellent example of why it’s an uphill climb for gays to do the same — especially if your first response to criticism is to accuse the other person of “racism” based on a spurious historical critique.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
The Supreme Court also ruled on the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation — specifically that it was constitutional.
_your first response to criticism is to accuse the other person of “racism” based on a spurious historical critique_
Nope, I’m simply illustrating how your over-the-top arguments about “tradition” and claims that people who support the application of the equal protection clause for gays “hate religion and the majority,” etc. are nothing new.
The same arguments you’re dragging out now and related fallacies — begging the question, the majoritarian fallacy, ad-hominem attacks, etc. — were commonly deployed by pro-slavery advocates as well. The arguments about “tradition” and “anti-religious sentiment” were also dragged out as Bible passages validating slavery were presented.
In short, there’s nothing fundamentally different between an argument stating that the judiciary has no right to remove second-class citizenship status for gays imposed by a majority, and the argument from 140 years ago that the judiciary has no right to remove second-class citizenship status for slaves imposed by the majority.
I know your Republicrat masters are most displeased by this, but it’s simple fact. Even now, the leading luminaries in your party’s anti-gay wing, such as Jerry Falwell, sharpened their teeth defending the remnants of such pro-slavery arguments — including justifications for “majority-desired traditional segregation” in various government institutions in the deep south.
There’s nothing particularly new, innovative, creative, or — quite simply — morally justified in your argument and those of your cohorts.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, sometimes NL is right. I get the feeling that if I have anything but contempt for the judiciary, that somehow makes me (according to you) a scare-quoted “gay activist” (I am getting tired of the overuse of scare quotes these days) who hates conservatives and Republicans, etc. Oh bosh. I myself have criticized the over-reliance on the courts as a strategy, and you should have noticed by now that the over-reliance in question is a bottom-up phenomenon caused by gay and lesbian couples, not decided upon at some big secret meeting of gay activist groups. But one can make that criticism without going overboard as you do. You throw out the baby of judicial review with the bathwater of bad strategy. How on earth is it fair and just to make the basic rights of a minority group subject to the whim of the majority? What role, more than none, do you allow for the Bill of Rights? Simple majoritarianism, which is what you seem to favor, is a far cry from the kind of government that America in fact has. Yes, yes, yes, we have a LOT of persuading and educating to do with the public at large, but that does not mean that any court ruling that goes against public opinion is knavish. Good grief, let’s have some less cartoonish opinions on here.
posted by kittynboi on
Oh boo hoo. The poor masses don’t get everything they want handed to them and can’t determine what strangers do in their lives that have no effect on them.
Cry me a river, hilly mcredneck.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
How on earth is it fair and just to make the basic rights of a minority group subject to the whim of the majority?
Talk to those folks who made the Constitution able to be amended by a majority of voters, Richard, because that’s exactly what it does.
You can either whine about how unfair it is that voters can do that or you can work with the voters to make sure that they don’t do that.
You choose the former, I choose the latter.
I myself have criticized the over-reliance on the courts as a strategy, and you should have noticed by now that the over-reliance in question is a bottom-up phenomenon caused by gay and lesbian couples, not decided upon at some big secret meeting of gay activist groups.
Mhm. And that’s why HRC, NGLTF, Lambda, SLDN, and other groups never show up in the courtrooms, never file their own cases, never enter briefs, and never fund legal actions.
You throw out the baby of judicial review with the bathwater of bad strategy.
Two problems there, Richard:
— “Judicial review” involves review of the law that is already there, not concocting rights out of nowhere — as this article ADMITS judges are doing.
— Judicial review is easily overturned by the voters, who may with perfect right amend fundamental law to make legal legislation that wasn’t.
To summarize, given that our Constitution gives voters the right to shape fundamental law and subordinates the judiciary to that fact, “judicial review” is the last thing on which we should be counting. And I frankly have nothing but contempt for a judiciary that wants to play legislature, as so many seem to wish to do.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now, to NL:
In short, there’s nothing fundamentally different between an argument stating that the judiciary has no right to remove second-class citizenship status for gays imposed by a majority, and the argument from 140 years ago that the judiciary has no right to remove second-class citizenship status for slaves imposed by the majority.
Oh, the judiciary has every right to try. However, what they’ll soon find out is, given that a majority of voters can amend the Constitution to prevent them from doing so, the permanence of their decisions is wholly and completely dependent on public opinion.
The Supreme Court also ruled on the constitutionality of the Emancipation Proclamation — specifically that it was constitutional.
I quote:
The Emancipation Proclamation was never tested in court one way or the other, but no court or legal scholar has questioned its validity.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30, please argue more honestly. You can hardly believe it possible that I was not aware that the Constitution could be amended. You also are surely aware that the Founders made amending the Constitution hard to do. I specifically asked you, “What role, more than none, do you allow for the Bill of Rights?” Would you mind answering that? Or does the Bill of Rights as it stands not matter because theoretically it could be repealed?
As to the court strategy, surely you do not seriously imagine that I was unaware of the involvement of those gay groups you cited in the marriage fight. You seem to enjoy trivializing the views of people you are arguing with. Yes, the established organizations came along eventually, but it is well established that the marriage fight was begun by couples. And many court cases are brought by same-sex couples who either disregard or show outright hostility toward the strategic concerns of groups like Lambda Legal. The history of the SSM fight shows that it is fundamentally a bottom-up phenomenon, as I said. I did not state that no organizations have been involved in it.
I wonder whether you would stop your cheap attempts at point-scoring and participate in a more serious discussion if you signed your name to your work instead of hiding behind a pseudonym.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“Judicial review” involves review of the law that is already there, not concocting rights out of nowhere — as this article ADMITS judges are doing.
What about the equal protection clause of the constitution is “concocted out of nowhere?” And as for the “article ADMITTING judges are making up laws,” the article is written by an anti-gay judge who simply doesn’t want the constitution amended to secure that anti-gay perspective.
I quote:
Wikipedia — the same source of “information” which claims that NAFTA is a conspiracy which is opposed by “most workers.” Hmmm.
It is interesting to watch you twist, weave and bob about to avoid the simple reality that your rationale — simple majoritarianism which violates the Constitution should still be permitted — is the same rationale which justified slavery and segregationism alike.
This is, as your far-right-wing cohorts like to argue, not a democracy but a republic governed by the Constitution. Laws which deny equal protection under the law to any group of people — gays, straights, blacks, women, etc. — are unconstitutional, regardless of what the “supermajority” thinks of it.
I wouldn’t be quite so disgusted with the “supermajority” position if it wasn’t so hypocritical on the part of Republican conservatives. These are the same people who oppose supermajoritarianism in income and asset redistribution, collectivist policies, and presidential elections — citing the constitutional order — yet when things don’t go their way, they’re more than willing to rip up the Constitution and demand immediate direct supermajoritarian democracy to override the constitutional rights of everyday citizens.
Ho hum.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
participate in a more serious discussion if you signed your name to your work instead of hiding behind a pseudonym
I have to take issue with this contention. Some of us are not professional politicians, and most of us (including myself) have been subject to the politics of personal destruction at home and at work by leftists like Mike Rogers and rightists alike. Rarely does disclosing one’s “real name” add any “credibility” whatsoever, but rather provides fodder for future political attacks on the individual’s background, and even livelihood, for having the “wrong” political views.
If the debate is over ideas, you should address the ideas themselves (or dismiss them if they’re, as you say, “cheap point scoring”). Attacking those of us who haven’t made a career out of political activities as you have, rather than addressing our actual points, is just self-inflating poppycock which is best avoided on your part.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL, if you are both literate and conscious, you know that I HAVE addressed the ideas. You can disagree with my criticism of anonymous posting without knocking down a false-alternative straw man. As a matter of fact, “professional politician” can hardly apply to a volunteer activist like me. I have never made a dime from my activism, and I only make a pittance from my professional freelance writing. I know it is fashionable to treat “professional activist” as an insult, which I think is foolish, but in any case I am not one. If it matters, I make my living as an information technology specialist. But I’d love to know how it’s “self-inflating” to criticize people who hurl insults and non-sequiturs while they hide behind pseudonyms. The fact that there are risks in “coming out” in this context may provide a justification for secrecy, but does not refute my point.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You can hardly believe it possible that I was not aware that the Constitution could be amended.
Oh, I hardly do. But that doesn’t mean I won’t point out the irony of your statement that a majority amending the Constitution is “unfair” and “unjust” when, indeed, the Constitution specifically gives them that right.
Instead of whining about how it’s unfair and unjust for voters to exercise their rights, why not figure out exactly WHY they feel the need to do it?
And that leads us to this statement here:
As to the court strategy, surely you do not seriously imagine that I was unaware of the involvement of those gay groups you cited in the marriage fight.
Oh, I think you were aware. You simply were minimizing it in an attempt to blame gay couples, and not the groups that have systematically bilked the gay community out of millions of dollars that were wasted on fruitless court cases that did nothing but inflame public opinion against gays and supporting campaigns of antigay politicians.
I wonder whether you would stop your cheap attempts at point-scoring and participate in a more serious discussion if you signed your name to your work instead of hiding behind a pseudonym.
To echo NL above, why? So that you and your fellow “gay activists” can sicc your goons on me?
And, given that Aravosis and Rogers, for two, openly boasted about having paid staff members at HRC and Log Cabin helping them out, not to mention funding from the Democratic Party, I’m not one to trust anyone affiliated with any gay organization, especially not in DC, with that sort of information.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
What about the equal protection clause of the constitution is “concocted out of nowhere?”
If the equal protection clause grants everyone the right to marry whomever or whatever they want, then why have the courts regularly upheld bans that limit that, such as ones on polygamous, incestuous, underage, and others?
It is interesting to watch you twist, weave and bob about to avoid the simple reality that your rationale — simple majoritarianism which violates the Constitution should still be permitted — is the same rationale which justified slavery and segregationism alike.
That is because, in a democracy, the will of the majority IS the final say on what is and isn’t right. The whole point of the Constitution is that its power rests, not in some arbitrary divine right or charter, but in the will of the people.
And people sometimes make things, which are in retrospective, mistakes.
When the Constitution was written, slavery was a fact of life in the United States, and banning it would have made the Constitution politically impossible to ratify. The genius of the document, though, is that, when the temper of the country was such that it would be supported, it could be amended to accomodate that fact.
In short, NL, you use the fact that the right of the majority has been on occasion used to enforce what we now consider to be unjust as grounds for disenfranchising the majority of that right. You would have us remove the right of the majority to amend the Constitution and make it an inflexible document that allows you to bypass the voters and impose your will and viewpoint upon them.
That’s not a step I am willing to take, because I put my support of the principles of the Constitution ahead of any gay desire to get married or to revenge myself on the religious — unlike you. Instead, I work to build trust and respect with the voters so that their decisions will be swayed in my favor — as is the point of a democracy.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 says “especially not in DC.”
Pardon me, but this demonization of DC is one of the most dishonest bits of commonplace rhetorric in the country. People from all over America elect various scoundrels and panderers and send them here, then we who live here get blamed for it! I don’t think so!
It is amazing that asking people to sign their names to their work is portrayed as being so vicious and unscrupulous. You raise the question of who can be trusted with what, yet it is you who engage in anonymous sniping, while I am the one exposing myself to whatever personal recriminations may result from signing my real name to what I write here. The worst thing about this is not the dishonesty of it, but that you then engage in such incredibly smug posturing about it. And once again, we see the facile lumping together of gay groups, whether professional or volunteer, rich or poor, national or local, as if they are all part of some monolithic single entity.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You raise the question of who can be trusted with what, yet it is you who engage in anonymous sniping, while I am the one exposing myself to whatever personal recriminations may result from signing my real name to what I write here.
Recrimination from whom Richard?
If you have read any of my work, including my blog, it becomes immediately obvious that I oppose outing and harassment, regardless of the person, and would not deign to practice it myself. I’ve even gone to bat for Rogers himself if I thought that was the case.
And if it’s not me, who’s going to do it? Rogers, Aravosis, HRC, NGLTF, and others have suppressed any such actions against gay Democrats regardless of how antigay their actions are, so I don’t think you would have any threat from them.
People from all over America elect various scoundrels and panderers and send them here, then we who live here get blamed for it! I don’t think so!
Pardon, Richard; what constituency elected Rogers, Aravosis, Hillary Rosen, Elizabeth Birch, Joe Solmonese, Matt Foreman, and the like?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
You love changing the subject, don’t you? Why in the world would advocacy organizations be expected to function like a legislature? Superficial cleverness does not impress me.
I have received blistering attacks from both ends of the political spectrum. Ah, but to you, apparently, if someone is a Democrat, he is THE stereotypical Democrat, extensive evidence to the contrary be damned. This monolithic approach to discussion is not enlightening.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
You love changing the subject, don’t you?
If I may refresh your memory, Richard, you were the one who insisted on making an issue out of the fact that NL and I post under pseudonyms — and were answered with excellent examples of what happens to gays who dissent from the norm as a reason why.
Furthermore, you were also the one who complained about “demonizing DC” based on elected “scoundrels” — and again was answered by examples of the unelected scoundrels that justify a considerable amount of the demonization of DC by people like myself.
Of course, this all took place after I directly answered your question concerning the Bill of Rights — and then posed back to you questions concerning your attitudes on the amendment process and the millions of dollars wasted on useless legal battles by gay leftist groups.
In short, if you want to stay on topic, quit bringing up additional ones yourself — and especially under circumstances where it looks like you’re using them to avoid the main point of another person’s argument.
posted by DrSimonaLevi on
ZYRTEC has treated indoor and outdoor allergies in children as young as 2 years since 1998. It’s also the first allergy medicine approved to treat indoor allergies in infants as young as 6 months old.
ZYRTEC treats:
Indoor allergies like dust, mold, and pet dander (year-long allergies)
Outdoor allergies from the pollen of trees, weeds, grasses, and flowers (seasonal allergies)
No other prescription allergy medicine is approved to treat more allergies than ZYRTEC. And many people who have allergies suffer indoors, outdoors, and around pets. But, many medicines are only approved to treat outdoor allergies.
One 10 mg ZYRTEC tablet lasts for 24 hours.
singulair asthma
posted by DrSimonaLevi on
ZYRTEC has treated indoor and outdoor allergies in children as young as 2 years since 1998. It’s also the first allergy medicine approved to treat indoor allergies in infants as young as 6 months old.
ZYRTEC treats:
Indoor allergies like dust, mold, and pet dander (year-long allergies)
Outdoor allergies from the pollen of trees, weeds, grasses, and flowers (seasonal allergies)
No other prescription allergy medicine is approved to treat more allergies than ZYRTEC. And many people who have allergies suffer indoors, outdoors, and around pets. But, many medicines are only approved to treat outdoor allergies.
One 10 mg ZYRTEC tablet lasts for 24 hours.
[url=http://home-loan.podomatic.com]zyrtec drug[/url]
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
asking people to sign their names to their work is portrayed as being so vicious and unscrupulous
For you, this might be work. For me as a private citizen, it’s expressing my political viewpoints openly and frankly, while taking reasonable precautions to avoid being targeted by the various entrenched political interests. Asserting that you have superior moral virtue by dint of your choice to make politics, rather than private sector activity, your “work,” isn’t all that compelling.
If there’s a legitimate need for me to reveal my identity, beyond “I want to learn more about this guy so I can slam his good name,” I’ll choose to reveal it at that point. I’m sure ND30 and other posters on this forum agree.
Rogers, Aravosis, HRC, NGLTF, and others have suppressed any such actions against gay Democrats regardless of how antigay their actions are
This is true. Anti-gay closeted gay Democrats can sleep easy knowing that they’re not going to be outed by any of those various organizations.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
in a democracy, the will of the majority IS the final say on what is and isn’t right. The whole point of the Constitution is that its power rests, not in some arbitrary divine right or charter, but in the will of the people.
First, we’re not a “democracy,” we’re a democratic republic.
Secondly, the point of the Constitution has never been to promote simply majoritarian democracy, but rather to promote individual rights. Thus, it imposes strict limits on the power of the majority to violate the rights of any minority — gay, black, or what have you.
Violations of the Constitution simply cannot be explained away or made any more legal by a “majority vote.” They require a super-majority and extensive process to amend the document to ensure that said law is truly desired by a supermajority who are willing to make a sustained effort to pass it. Anti-gay marriage initiatives don’t pass that test — the anti-gay amendment has gone down to defeat twice now.
In short, the *only* way an anti-gay-marriage law can be made Constitutional is to amend the Constitution itself. Otherwise, any anti-gay marriage law is prima facie unconstitutional.
And no, the Constitution doesn’t provide support for its provisions being ignored or violated if a majority “democratically” demands it.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
You would have us remove the right of the majority to amend the Constitution
Nonsense.
The alleged “majority” has tried, and failed, to amend the Constitution twice now. It is asserting a special right to violate the Constitution, which it has failed to amend, by dint of being a simple majority.
In our Constitutional system, a simple majority cannot override the rights guaranteed to all in the Constitution without going through the process to amend the Constitution and strip gays of those rights. And most Americans don’t support such an amendment, which is why it failed.
It’s not me or other gay people who have “denied the majority its will.” It’s the majority of Americans who have decided that anti-gay discrimination which violates the Constitution is not something they’re willing to support with an anti-gay federal amendment which strips gays of the right to equal protection under the law.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
NL writes, “For you, this might be work.”
More cheap cleverness. You know the point that was being made. If that point was so wrong, you should not need to trivialize it by playing semantic games. The phrase “sign your work” is a common enough expression that it is highly unlikely that you honestly thought I meant by it what you suggest. I already specified what I do for a living. The fact remains that you argue quite forcefully and aggressively as long as you can hide behind a pseudonym with the excuse that various awful people will exact retribution against you if you sign your real name. Indeed, there is a tradition of anonymous pamphleteering that goes back to the earliest days of the republic, so I suppose you can claim a distinguished pedigree. That makes hash of the word “pedigree,” come to think of it, but no matter.
posted by randy R. on
The bottomline is that no judge in Virginia has in fact ever ruled in favor of gay marriage. Therefore, any amendment to address this issue is at best premature and unnecessary. We simply have no idea how a judge will rule until he or she does, and to presume that judges will give rule in favor of gay marriage is not only presumptuous, but also out of line with the actual majority of opinions on this topic.
Fine, if the Virginia Supreme Court rules that the state must acknowledge gay marriage, THEN it would be appropriate to spend the time and money to amend the state constitution. Until then, it is sending a dangerous and yet silly precedent that we must deal with potential problems before they arise through the constitutional amendment process. This was never the intention of any founding fathers.
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | September 6, 2006, 7:08pm |
Actually, NL, the Supreme Court’s most pertinent decision relative to slavery was the Dred Scott decision, which held (correctly) that nothing in the Constitution prevented slavery or gave slaves rights as citizens.
Against my better judgement regarding responding to the blogviator NDXXX…
Oh, my, more silliness. You really do not understand the import of the Dred Scott decision, do you? What the Dred Scott decision held was that a slave, as a chattel, did not lose his or her chattel status when he was moved, or when he removed himself, from a slave state to a free state (i.e., a state that forbad slavery). And so, the decision gave the right to the owner of the chattel (i.e., the slave) to have his chattel returned, even if the chattel was currently located in a free state.
In essence, what the Dred Scott decision effectivly did was to affirm the federal Fugitive Slave Acts, which were used by the Southerners to force the Northerners to return slaves who had made it to the North, which was then mostly if not entirely non-slave. (That decision, along with the Fugitive Slave Acts, led to the civil war, but that’s an issue for another time and place) To use an analogy, regarding same-sex marriage, what the Dred Scott decision might have done was to say that, if you are a slave in a slave state, and if you go to a non-slave state, you are still a slave. That, of course, was what led to the War of Northern Aggression.
Regarding same-sex marriage, if you (a same-sex couple) are married in one state, and move to another state, do you lose your marriage status? As far as I’m concerned, no, based on equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Which was ratified after the War of Northern Aggression, and which, you most dutifully have cited.
Therefore, your claim that the Supreme Court created the right of citizenship and freedom for black citizens is historically incorrect and completely spurious. (emphasis added)
And, again, NDXXX ignores the US Supreme Court’s decisions in Brown vs. Board of Education and Loving vs. Virginia, among others. Why am I not surprised?
posted by raj on
Richard J. Rosendall | September 7, 2006, 9:33am |
ND30, please argue more honestly…
Please, Richard, understand. The poster who identifies itself as NDXXX on this and other websites is incapable of arguing honestly. I discovered that over at the gaypatriot.net blog and other websites. NDXXX
(a) blogviates extensively, with posts so long-winded that it is difficult and boring to try to figure out the point(s) he/she/or_it is supposedly trying to make (\\”blogviate\\” is my contraction of \\”blog\\” and \\”bloviate\\”); I suspect that that is intentional, so as to discourage people from posting in disagreement;
(b) takes things out of context from other peoples comments, so badly as to not only distort, but also to completely reverse what the original meant;
(c) deceptively rephrases positions or questions put to him in such a manner as to present a position or question that he wants to answer (a/k/a, setting up a straw man);
(d) usually fails to cites to sources, or, when he does cite to a source, misrepresents the content of the source (NB: when he did cite to a source here regarding a claim that he indicated had been made in the WSJ, which source did not substantiate the claim, he was unable to reconcile the two), and, when all else fails;
(e) demands that the person to whom he is responding provide identifying information. (For what reason? Who, other than his ISP, might know who he is?).
People on other web sites have noticed these issues, as well. It frankly isn\\’t worth much bothering to deal with NDXXX. If NDXXX really is one person, it has a tremendous capability of putting fingers to keyboard. But, to paraphrase a couple of things from my childhood, that merely exhibits
diarrhea of the mouth (update: in this case fingers) and constipation of the brain and
the rather remarkable ability to engage mouth (update: in this case fingers) while contemporaneously disengaging brain.