|
|
|
|
| |
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.
Above is the 14th Amendment 'as written.' Now, review the New York Statutes which have been passed and measure them against the Constitution....if New York and it's legislature is as 'negligent' as Arizona has been, I would bet that 3/4 of the statutes within that state are unconstitutional on their face, due to the fact that 'corporate interests' and 'corporate personhood' have been granted to the various commercial and special interest lobbying groups - and I'm not speaking of 'assemblies of citizens' involved in 'grass roots' organizations that at least have a Constitutional basis or intent to address the abridgements which have occurred at both the federal and state levels in some of the flat out illegal laws which have been passed, or are directly contrary to the founding fathers intent, but limited special focus groups whose sole focus is either seeking 'privileges or immunities' for their select group, or viewing the 'due process' and 'equal protection' clauses as 'rights' of even non-citizens or not in accordance with the founding father's 'intent,' while drafting the Constitution itself. And I would disagree that the blanket statement that 'Jim Crow' laws existed prior to 1964 - that was not the case at all in the Northern industrialized states by and large, but evolved in the poorer Southern states, again, with the continued granting of 'corporate personhood' and Constitutional protections to 'property' rather than as intended, 'persons.'
And as a 'legal document' and original negligence of the only actual law making branch of our government, the House and Senate, leaving the Constitutional validity of legislation to judicial interpretation, who are now even using 'foreign' jurisdictions as 'precedent' for their rulings, and even 'redefining' the English language for political purposes, 'due process' and 'equal protection' were never legislatively legally defined.
And with 70% of the U.S. population no longer able to afford the price of 'justice' in either civil or criminal matters, due to the court systems complexity and 'lawyer' created self-serving 'rules' most of all, and the campaign laws such as they are, and also with the election of the Senators who were to 'represent' the states and electorate, not the "people", (as the members of the House of Representatives were), and with 'politicians' rather than 'statesmen' who actually valued and acknowledged their 'oaths of office,' until there is campaign, election,and judicial reform and our foreign trade deficit and debts to the global bankers are satisfied, it will be 'bucks' and the U.N. and not the Constitution which is actually 'governing' this country. This particular Administration and the majority of the Congressional members it is clear, are 'globalists' first and not 'Americans' with even a passing familiarity with the Constitution nor its intent.
Posted Jul 11 2007 11:54PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
I must ask you to consider this: we have never attempted to enforce the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment AS WRITTEN.
Prior to 1964, the U.S. practiced Jim Crow discrimination and subsequent to 1964, racial minority and female gender preference discrimination became law.
Can't we at least try "EQUAL protection of the laws" for once??
Marc Bernstein, M.S.
Posted Jul 11 2007 5:45PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Marc Bernstein
, New York |
| |
|
|
| |
Actually, it seems both positions are polarizations, and if not apparent at this point, really not what the founding fathers had in mind (although their mindset with respect to 'slaves' initially determined as 'property' a little different than what precipitated the Civil War......those minority property owners that truly had moral issues in their 'treatment' of those individuals for whom they were, actually, paying by providing housing and meals. Unfortunately, it was again sin and greed for profit of SOME of those landholders and agriculturists and disparities between the 'industrialized' North somewhat taking advantage of the 'agricultural' South that also factored in the War Between the States, and those cruel individuals who bought and sold people like property. History has shown that even when a great many of those 'slaves' were freed, some well treated and respected individuals preferred staying, and valued their new life in America as better than the poverty in Africa from whence they came.
Anyway, Mr. Amhearst position in 'equalizing' the opportunities and wealth, is no more than what the communists were attempting to do, and unfortunately America was not intended to be communistic. Everything sort of fell apart when corporations were given 'personhood' under the Bill of Rights, rather than those natural born or 'naturalized' citizens as intended. And while we did very much treat the actual 'natives,' the Indians very poorly who were here first, that was acknowledged and corrected and the tribal governments of these communities are really not suffering since some rather pricey real estate is now under tribal control in many of the states throughout the nation, and of course now, the gaming industry in 'privileges and immunities' in 'industry' not extended to us citizens of European descent.
And it took women in this country far longer than any other citizens to obtain even the right to vote in this country...who have been working and raising the next generations of Americans since World War I, and afforded the least protection of any 'protected group' in this country, both legally and morally (and the Teri Schiavo decision is testament to how 'valued' women are in this country, a murder sanctioned by a federal judge no less).
The courts also erred in the 'separate but equal' doctrines, since this country was founded on 'majority rules, minority rights.' Our education system would be far better off if the government stayed completely out of it as a parental pre-rogative, with our 'public' institutions and educational systems a mess at the present time. And I am sorry, but the Mexicans lost the war, and their land, and at the present time due to the 'class system' under the Mexican form of 'democracy' would fair no better and much worse if they had retained the Southwestern territories, and were enemies of the original inhabitants, the Indians, many, many years before the 'white man' pushed west, and have faired much better in America than they would have under Mexican 'government.'
If pointing out these truths make individuals 'racists' that just goes to show what 'political correctness' has done to our country, and not for the better.
For awhile, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was needed and necessary to correct a generation of wrongs, many of which were the results of long lasting resentments from the Civil War itself and how it came to be, and 'forced' integration and hiring policies that were not 'equal' at all.
And as a former resident of a State now under 'invasion' from Mexico, please let me correct your misconceptions. Many of those 'jobs' supposedly Americans don't want, is a fallacy and societally created. Many of those jobs were jobs American youth had to work their way through colleges, and it is many of the alumnists from those prestigious universities generously providing those scholarships for lower income individuals, and not the federal government at all.
Posted Jul 11 2007 2:52AM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Linda Gehring
Phoenix, Arizona |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr.Bernstein's comments on the article on Tim Wise lead one to wonder what his actual intent is. Is it to do away with all affirmative action? If so, how does this help lower income white males?
The crux of the problem - and the solution - go far deeper. It is because our society, in significant part, does not place the dignity and worth of each individual above the imperatives of money, power and greed, that we have produced a dangerously dysfunctional society. Until that imbalance is addressed, the cancers of racism, sexism, ageism etc. will only grow.
To attack these cancers, we need a variety of inter-related radiation therapies.
First,economic radiation. The obscene disparities between rich and poor need to be obliterated. When all have decent homes, schools, health care, a vast number of these cancers will automatically disappear. Harvard University, for example, is now guaranteeing free tuition to all students whose family income is less than $40,000 a year. A small step? Yes, but a significant one.
Second, this country has to come to grips with a fundamental mind-set that has infected it since its inception. Without elaborating in great detail, it was founded on the theft of property and the eradication of the existing property owners. For example, Jefferson, lauded by so many as a founding father, wrote in a private letter that he wished that he could kill all Indians. Such a killing mindset is chilling to the bone. Whites were encouraged to lend to Indians, so that they could take Indian land when the latter defaulted.
That mindset still courses through the minds and hearts of the greedy and violent. This website, dedicated to the homeowner, is witness to the ruthless and rapacious hands of those who seek to use citizens' homes as an endless revenue stream for their greedy desires.
Unless America comes to grip with this mindset, it will continue to be its own worst enemy. The harm and damage which America is doing to itself on a daily basis far exceeds what any external enemy could ever do.
Mr. Wise in his articles is doing a great public service by pointing out the hidden blinders which prevent so many white Americans from seeing the way things really are. A white American does not have to worry or think about meeting with racist attitudes as he or she walks down a street, shops, or cashes a check at a bank. Until all Americans feel the same way, America will not be truly free - or a happy and successful society.
Peter Amherst
Los Angeles, California
Related link: AMERICA'S CANCER
Posted Jul 8 2007 5:03PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Username withheld
, California |
| |
|
|
| |
Mr. Wise is a master of mixing apples with oranges. He muddies the water regarding affirmative action by strictly discussing African Americans in this piece.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that we agree with Mr. Wise's position that blacks should be granted "preferences" due to past discrimination against them. This would not appreciably impact white males' odds of getting hired or their admission to the college of their choice.
The "elephant in the room" that impacts the opportunities of today's unconnected white male is the fact that affirmative action has been expanded to include women (white and otherwise) and 'minorities' of all kinds. In fact, the EEOC has defined fully 73% of the population as a "protected group". This includes wealthy white women such as Alice Walton, Wal-Mart heiress as well as Colin Powell's son (as if these folks need "a leg up"!).
While Wise's argument held validity for blacks in 1964, the expansion of these preferences to include every group but one has turned it into a perversion of the original Civil Rights movement. It is also an attack on working and lower middle class white males who had few of the advantages that Wise heavily bases his premise upon.
Posted Jul 8 2007 1:38PM CEST
|
| |
|
| |
Marc Bernstein
, New York |
| |
|
|
Return to 'Whites Swim in Racial Preference' |
Submit a comment
|
|
