OVERTURN BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION!

Notice to the mods and liberals:

Mods: I put a copy of the song below purely for historical "context," I suppose. Personally, I love the song. That said, it strikes me as a particularly revealing piece of 60s, 70's conservative political propoganda. It's directly relevant to the arguments at issue here. I am offering the link to provide a context for my arguments/discussion, not specifically and explicitly to provide explicit support or propaganda in favor of racism.

Liberals: If you don't like these kinds of songs, nobody is forcing you to listen to them.

Argumentum:

I was listening to the song linked below, "Segregation Wagon." I don't know who the author is. It was alleged to be a Johnny Rebel song, but I don't actually know who the author and singer are.

What struck me is the insistence on the notion of State's rights as an ideological/legal defense of segregationist policies.

"Wait for the wagon, the segregation wagon. States' rights is the wagon, so let's all take a ride!"

In this respect, the conservative rhetoric really hasn't changed over the past 150 years or so.

That upstart Lincoln's meddlesome policy of waging an imperialistic war against the Confederate
States of America rather than recognizing their inherent right of secession was, it seems to me, a most unforgivable trespass, a sheer trampling against on the notion of states rights, i.e., of the legislative and sovereign authority of the individual states to decide in favor of their own interests.

Likewise those meddlesome upstarts Lyndon B. Johnson and John F. Kennedy as well as the utterly despicable court which penned Brown vs. Board of Education.

What the policies of Johnson and Kennedy effectively said is that the federal government has the authority, right and duty to overturn the customs and policies of local jurisdictions (i.e., at the State level). And who could bring up a greater instance of sheer judicial activism, of legislation from the bench, of liberal court usurpation of legislative authority, than Brown vs. Board of Education, which overturned the popular legislative authority at the State and federal levels.

The sole reason that conservatives nowadays do not decry these despicable men and this loathsome piece of supreme court liberal nonsense is because today's conservatives are yesterday's liberals! The sole reason why today's conservatives take no issue with Brown v. Board of Education is because they just so happen to agree with its contents.

Ultimately, there is no difference, in principle, between Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, that most recent court decision legalizing homosexual "marriage" in all states, and all of those other court decisions and federal pieces of legislation (e.g., in favor of homosexuals and transgendered persons) which violate State authority and individual conscience.

Yet conservatives today will continue to use this same exact argument in every single instance: "It violates individual conscience!" "It violates the authority of the State to decide what is best for itself!"

Fact is, however, at this point in history, it is a losing argument. And it has to lose: because we already lost at Brown v. Board of Education. We already lost at the civil war.

So long as Brown v. Board of Education stands, "State's rights" has no argumentative or legal force.

Therefore, I raise this exhortation to conservatives:

BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION MUST BE OVERTURNED!

So long as Brown v. Board of Education stands, conservatives have no compelling argument against judicial and federal overreach. The precedent's already been set.

If the courts have the right to tell a man that his children have to go to school with the children of non-white persons, then there is no legal reason why the courts shouldn't think of themselves as having the right to tell a bakery owner that he must sell cakes to homos.

Segregation Wagon

Traditio said:

In this respect, the conservative rhetoric really hasn't changed over the past 150 years or so.

Click to expand...

That isn't conservatism nor right wing. To force integration or to force segregation is both wrong. Let them live where they want is right wing/conservatism.

A sorry looking bunch of trash came marching through the South
The only thing theyll understand is when we drive em out!
Our way of life we must protect, its up to me and you.
So rally round the stars and bars, well see this battle through.

Traditio said:

Therefore, I raise this exhortation to conservatives:

Click to expand...

Were you wearing your white hood at the time?

And did anyone raise their middle finger to you in response?

Since when does "states rights" = "states can pass whatever unconstitutional laws they want"?

I mean, the Constitution clearly says it is the supreme law of the land, thus any state laws that violate it are illegal. This isn't that difficult. :duh:

Traditio said:

If the courts have the right to tell a man that his children have to go to school with the children of non-white persons, then there is no legal reason why the courts shouldn't think of themselves as having the right to tell a bakery owner that he must sell cakes to homos.

Click to expand...

It's funny too how conservative Christians oftentimes have double standards when it comes to discrimination. When they're on the side of the equation that's doing the discriminating, they're all for "freedom to do as we please". But as soon as they're on the other side of the equation (the ones being discriminated against), suddenly they cry "persecution", "oppression", and "tyranny".

IOW, it's "discrimination is a fundamental right....as long as I'm the one doing the discriminating".

The problem here is, there are still lots of people who dislike black people. Is it any wonder why many black people have trouble?

Real southerners are more accepting of black people than other regions of the country. Real southerners are black people, along with white people. We are the South.

If you don't like it, then move to one of those nearly all white states where they love Bernie Sanders.

Nick M said:

That isn't conservatism nor right wing. To force integration or to force segregation is both wrong. Let them live where they want is right wing/conservatism.

Click to expand...

Brown v. Board of Education was a clear case of judicial activism. It overturned federal and local legislation and custom, as well as previous court precedent, for purely ideological purposes.

There's not a single thing in the constitution or its amendments about blacks having to go to the same schools as whites if whites don't want that to happen.

Simply because of the precedent that Brown v. Board of Education set (judicial activism, legislation from the bench, federal/judicial overreach), conservatives should still be up in arms about it and demanding its revocation.

Traditio said:

Brown v. Board of Education was a clear case of judicial activism. It overturned federal and local legislation and custom, as well as previous court precedent, for purely ideological purposes.

There's not a single thing in the constitution or its amendments about blacks having to go to the same schools as whites if whites don't want that to happen.

Simply because of the precedent that Brown v. Board of Education set (judicial activism, legislation from the bench, federal/judicial overreach), conservatives should still be up in arms about it and demanding its revocation.

Click to expand...

What benefit do you think comes from educational segregation?

Greg Jennings said:

What benefit do you think comes from educational segregation?

Click to expand...

That's a completely different issue (though, of course, I did go to public school with lots of black people, and I could tell you all about the great and many benefits I would have derived from segregation).

My only point here is that it was a clear case of judicial activism. It's not for the courts to decide whether or not whites and blacks should go to the same schools. The constitution was silent about the matter, and not only that, but a previous court ruled in favor of segregation. Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism AND flew in the face of previous court precedent.

We can argue about segregation all day long, I suppose, but this point is clear:

Brown v. Board of Education paved the way for the homosexual "marriage" ruling and for Roe v. Wade.

No question about it.

Traditio said:

That's a completely different issue.

My only point here is that it was a clear case of judicial activism. It's not for the courts to decide whether or not whites and blacks should go to the same schools. The constitution was silent about the matter, and not only that, but a previous court ruled in favor of segregation. Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism AND flew in the face of previous court precedent.

We can argue about segregation all day long, I suppose, but this point is clear:

Brown v. Board of Education paved the way for the homosexual "marriage" ruling and for Roe v. Wade.

No question about it.

Click to expand...

I agree with you that Roe v. Wade was a case that looks very questionable in review. I haven't reviewed the Brown v. Board of Education case nearly as in-depth, but I admit that you make a decent point if you are correct

Jose Fly said:

Since when does "states rights" = "states can pass whatever unconstitutional laws they want"?

I mean, the Constitution clearly says it is the supreme law of the land, thus any state laws that violate it are illegal. This isn't that difficult. :duh:

Click to expand...

There's not a thing about homosexual "marriage," segregation or abortion in the constitution.

And if it's not explicitly there in black and white, no court should try to invent it.

That should be a legislative, not a judicial matter.

And if only for the sake of propriety, it should be left at the State, not the federal level.

Looks to me like someone needs an education on how US law works. As I said before, this isn't that difficult...


Given the above three facts, it was entirely within the purview of the Supreme Court to rule on the question of whether states' segregation laws were unconstitutional. That much is painfully obvious.

The question of whether the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was correct is a different issue. According to the system outlined in the US Constitution, those who believe the ruling was incorrect must make that case via the federal courts.

So Tradito, if you truly believe it was an incorrect ruling, you'd better get to work.

Jose Fly said:

Looks to me like someone needs an education on how US law works. As I said before, this isn't that difficult...

Fact: The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Fact: Any laws passed by the federal government, states, counties, or other local governments cannot violate the US Constitution.

Fact: The US Constitution gives the authority to decide what is and isn't constitutional to the US Supreme Court.​

Given the above three facts, it was entirely within the purview of the Supreme Court to rule on the question of whether states' segregation laws were unconstitutional. That much is painfully obvious.

The question of whether the Brown v. Board of Education ruling was correct is a different issue. According to the system outlined in the US Constitution, those who believe the ruling was incorrect must make that case via the federal courts.

So Tradito, if you truly believe it was an incorrect ruling, you'd better get to work.

Click to expand...

Jose Fly:

I have no illusion that I'll be able to convince you that Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and the gay "marriage" ruling were illegitimate.

I only ask you whether Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent for the others, whether the same judicial mentality which underlies it also underlies the others.

The answer is clearly "yes."

Traditio said:

There's not a thing about homosexual "marriage," segregation or abortion in the constitution.

Click to expand...

So? There's nothing in there about cars, smartphones, or the internet either. That doesn't mean the legal concepts that are in the Constitution (e.g., equal protection under the law) don't apply.

And if it's not explicitly there in black and white, no court should try to invent it.

Click to expand...

That may be your opinion, but that only matters to you.

That should be a legislative, not a judicial matter.

Click to expand...

So you truly believe it's not the Supreme Court's constitutional role to ensure laws don't violate the Constitution? If so, you need to educate yourself.

Jose Fly said:

So you truly believe it's not the Supreme Court's constitutional role to ensure laws don't violate the Constitution? If so, you need to educate yourself.

Click to expand...

I broadly agree with Antonin Scalia on this point. The constitution is not a living document. It is a legal document. It says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. The role of the Supreme Court is simply to apply the law as it was publicly understood at the time of its promulgation, not to invent or fabricate new laws under the guise of "interpreting" the constitution in an original way.

But again, I have no illusion that I'll convince you of this.

Again, my sole question is whether Scalia's doctrine, as stated, leads to rejecting Brown v. Board of Education, and whether rejecting Scalia's doctrine, as stated, opens the way to Roe v. Wade and the gay "marriage" ruling.

Traditio said:

I have no illusion that I'll be able to convince you that Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Education and the gay "marriage" ruling were illegitimate.

Click to expand...

You don't have to convince me. If you want to actually accomplish anything, you need to convince the courts.

I only ask you whether Brown v. Board of Education set the precedent for the others, whether the same judicial mentality which underlies it also underlies the others.

Click to expand...

Yes, that it is the constitutional role of the Supreme Court to ensure that laws don't violate the Constitution.

Jose Fly said:

Yes, that it is the constitutional role of the Supreme Court to ensure that laws don't violate the Constitution.

Click to expand...

And by "the constitution," you mean "whatever it is that these 9 lawyers feel like reading into the constitution on the given day, depending upon their mood."

Traditio said:

I broadly agree with Antonin Scalia on this point. The constitution is not a living document. It is a legal document. It says what it says, and it doesn't say what it doesn't say. The role of the Supreme Court is simply to apply the law as it was publicly understood at the time of its promulgation, not to invent or fabricate new laws under the guise of "interpreting" the constitution in an original way.

Click to expand...

All irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., whether it is the US Supreme Court's role to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution.

Again, my sole question is whether Scalia's doctrine, as stated, leads to rejecting Brown v. Board of Education, and whether rejecting Scalia's doctrine, as stated, opens the way to Roe v. Wade and the gay "marriage" ruling.

Click to expand...

Well, have fun going around trying to convince people that Brown v. Board of Education needs to be overturned.

Traditio said:

And by "the constitution," you mean "whatever it is that these 9 lawyers feel like reading into the constitution on the given day, depending upon their mood."

Click to expand...

No, it's what the US Constitution says is the role of the US Supreme Court, i.e., to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution. Again, educate yourself.

Jose Fly said:

All irrelevant to the question at hand, i.e., whether it is the US Supreme Court's role to ensure that laws do not violate the Constitution.

Click to expand...

Except, I fully agree with this.

Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade and the homosexual "marriage" ruling were not instantiations of this faculty. They were something else entirely.

You disagree with me?

Then please, cite the constitutional amendment which specifically mentions segregation.