For the last time, I would appreciate you pointing to the facts you alleged I played “fast and loose with” IN THIS POST, or simply admit you made a mistake and move on.
The facts I posted are as follows:
Just for the record, Emma Lazarus, who wrote the words which appears on the Statue of Liberty’s pedestal was a well-known socialist, and the “poem” which she wrote, was suggested to be used to raise funds to build the statue’s pedestal.
Additionally, immigrants coming to America who passed the statue on their way to Elis Island were not granted entry into the United States for a number of reasons. One reason to be rejected was the likelihood of becoming a ward of the state and a public burden, and on this ground some were refused entry!
The law also required a medical inspection of all immigrants, and if an inspection officer detected an applicant with a disease, especially contagious diseases (TB, venereal disease, etc.) and even mental illness, they were rejected.
What I actually wrote is “My personal view is our free market system ought to be allowed to work with as little government interference as possible.”. Please do not misrepresent what I wrote.
I have also repeatedly stated the 14th Amendment was intentionally adopted to forbid a state from enacting laws which made distinctions based upon race or color…
JWK
The Democrat Party Leadership has been encouraging this ongoing invasion of our southern border since 1985 when amnesty was granted to 2.5 million illegal entrants in return for a guarantee to build a wall and secure our border. And here we are today, no wall, but 10-15 million new illegal entrants and the invasion continues
To be factually correct, I support and defend the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text, and especially so with regard to the 14th Amendment.
So, if I am guilty of something, perhaps that is being guilty of abiding by the rule of law, a characteristic not found in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s VMI written opinion, which happens to be the topic of the thread!.
JWK
"The Constitution is the act of the people, speaking in their original character, and defining the permanent conditions of the social alliance; and there can be no doubt on the point with us, that every act of the legislative power contrary to the true intent and meaning of the Constitution, is absolutely null and void. ___ Chancellor James Kent, in his Commentaries on American Law , 1858.
I believe you also said that the free market would have solved segregation on its own. I wonder how long that might have taken. Perhaps you might not be so patient if you were the one being discriminated against.
My personal view is our free market system ought to be allowed to work with as little government interference as possible. Keep in mind that people avoiding doing business with an owner who refuses to serve people because of their race, is the best check against such individuals. Allowing them to openly exhibit their racial animus allows the people in a community to actually identify who these scoundrels are, and likewise allows the community to shun them into isolation where a needed lesson is to be learned.
JWK
Politically speaking, a fully informed citizen today is one who gathers their news from MSNBC and Fox News.
John, so are you advocating limited govt interference in the market to address lunch counter discrimination? I’d be interested in what you think that would look like.
Thus far I have only seen you advocate for market forces to solve the problem on its own.
My personal view is our free market system ought to be allowed to work with as little government interference as possible. Keep in mind that people avoiding doing business with an owner who refuses to serve people because of their race, is the best check against such individuals. Allowing them to openly exhibit their racial animus allows the people in a community to actually identify who these scoundrels are, and likewise allows the community to shun them into isolation where a needed lesson is to be learned.
I also wrote: … if I am guilty of something, perhaps that is being guilty of abiding by the rule of law, a characteristic not found in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s VMI written opinion, which happens to be the topic of the thread!.
In solving perceived problems, are we not to work within the rule of law?
JWK
The unavoidable truth is, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s plan for “free” college tuition will be paid for by taxing millions of college graduates who worked for and paid their own way through college and are now trying to finance their own economic needs.
John, you have provided a general response outlining your philosophy.
I am asking what you would have advocated for the problem of segregation at the time. You have said that you would allow market forces to work it out. Is that it? Please be specific. I’m interested.
And for the last time I’m going to tell you it’s all there right in front of you.
You like to consider yourself a big legal brain. And much of law is in the definitions. It’s that simple. For a legal mega-mind like yourself I can’t understand why you haven’t grasp the heart of my post. Maybe you’re jut not as sharp as you think you are.
If you go back and alternatingly reread each line of my post and your post, you should understand.
I noticed you edited out my conclusion when quoting me above, and, you failed to answer the question.
I wrote: if I am guilty of something, perhaps that is being guilty of abiding by the rule of law, a characteristic not found in Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s VMI written opinion, which happens to be the topic of the thread!.
In solving perceived problems, are we not to work within the rule of law?
JWK
Karl Marx popularized the word “capitalism” __ a word unknown to our founders __ to attack the free market system our founders created. Why do so many talking heads refer to our system as “capitalism” rather than a free market system which our founders created?
John, you have provided a general response outlining your philosophy.
I am asking what you would have advocated for the problem of segregation at the time. You have said that you would allow market forces to work it out. Is that it? Please be specific. I’m interested.
As you noted above, I have already stated my feelings on the matter, especially that part which indicates I would follow the law, unlike Justice Ginsburg who has used her office of public trust to impose her personal sense of social justice as the rule of law.
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
And the law at the time said the protesters could be arrested and thrown in jail. That would be following the law.
Your position is when it comes to civil rights and businesses operating in the public is that you would have let it work itself out with no gift interference. If I am wrong, please advise with what you would do (other than let market forces do their magic).
Protesters doing what? Trespassing on someone’s property? People who trespass on other people’s property ought to be thrown in jail. Do you have a problem with rights associated with property ownership?
So public businesses should be able to exclude black people and charge them with trespassing? What about latinos? Asians? Should they be able exclude them? LGBT?
