|
The following is a quote from the "Federalist Papers", the
series of letters authored by the founding fathers arguing
for the adoption of the US Constitution.
In this quote from the same, the author(s) clearly argue
that the Federal judiciary should disallow any law which
gives preferential treatment to any sector of the populace
as being clearly un Constitutional. However, it is clearly
the case that the Federal and State courts have ignored this
injunction by the framers of the U.S. Constitution and
illegally promulgated "reverse discrimination".
The quote is as follows:
LIBRARY OF THE FUTURE (R) 4th Edition Ver. 5.0
Federalist Papers (US) Historical
Document
Scr 760: 860
---------------------------------------------------------
This independence of the judges is equally requisite to
guard the
Constitution and the rights of individuals from the effects
of those
ill humors, which the arts of designing men, or the
influence of
particular conjunctures, sometimes disseminate among the
people
themselves, and which, though they speedily give place to
better
information, and more deliberate reflection, have a
tendency, in the
meantime, to occasion dangerous innovations in the
government, and
serious oppressions of the minor party in the community.
Though I
trust the friends of the proposed Constitution will never
concur
with its enemies, in questioning that fundamental principle
of
republican government, which admits the right of the people
to alter
or abolish the established Constitution, whenever they find
it
inconsistent with their happiness, yet it is not to be
inferred from
this principle, that the representatives of the people,
whenever a
momentary inclination happens to lay hold of a majority of
their
constituents, incompatible with the provisions in the
existing
Constitution, would, on that account, be justifiable in a
violation of
those provisions; or that the courts would be under a
greater
obligation to connive at infractions in this shape, than
when they had
proceeded wholly from the cabals of the representative body.
Until the
people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled
or changed
the established form, it is binding upon themselves
collectively, as
well as individually; and no presumption, or even knowledge,
of
their sentiments, can warrant their representatives in a
departure
from it, prior to such an act. But it is easy to see, that
it would
require an uncommon portion of fortitude in the judges to do
their
duty as faithful guardians of the Constitution, where
legislative
invasions of it had been instigated by the major voice of
the
community.
But it is not with a view to infractions of the
Constitution only,
that the independence of the judges may be an essential
safeguard
against the effects of occasional ill humors in the society.
These
sometimes extend no farther than to the injury of the
private rights
of particular classes of citizens, by unjust and partial
laws. Here
also the firmness of the judicial magistracy is of vast
importance
in mitigating the severity and confining the operation of
such laws.
It not only serves to moderate the immediate mischiefs of
those
which may have been passed, but it operates as a check upon
the
legislative body in passing them; who, perceiving that
obstacles to
the success of iniquitous intention are to be expected from
the
scruples of the courts, are in a manner compelled, by the
very motives
of the injustice they meditate, to qualify their attempts.
This is a
circumstance calculated to have more influence upon the
character of
our governments, than but few may be aware of. The benefits
of the
integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been
felt in
more States than one; and though they may have displeased
those
whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they
must have
commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous
and
disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought
to prize
whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the
courts; as
no man can be sure that he may not be tomorrow the victim of
a
spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer today. And
every
man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a
spirit is to
sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to
introduce
in its stead universal distrust and
distress.
|
| |
| |
The people who wrote the Federalist Papers were all men and all of Western
European ancestry. Many of them were slaveholders. Also, the Federalist
Papers were written before the Constitution existed in its present form.
In any case, affirmative action is consistent with the 14th Amendment, which IS
part of the Constitution. And the programs are specificaly authorized by
federal statutes, which do have the force of law just like the Constitution
does :-)
*****
Tim Horrigan <horrigan@aol.com>
*****
|
| |
| |
"Isaac" <isaac@latveria.castledoom.org> wrote
Sure- the result of their integrity is that we no longer hold hereditary
slaves. It's the natural extension of the rights that they demanded on
their
own behalf.
That's complete revisionist crap. It took a civil war and three
amendments
to the constitution shoved down the throats of half of the states.
Yeah; over a fairly short time as national movements go in opposition to a
milennia of practice. We freed ourselves by 1790, stopped the international
slave trade in 1806, stopped it in the Northern States by 1840 or so, and
completely by the end of the WbtStates.
The
original constitution fully supported the institution of slavery and was
not
intended to respect the rights of blacks. If you want to know what people
of that era really thought about equal rights read the Dred Scott opinion
for an excellent summary.
People thought all sorts of odd things at the time. The Barbary Coast
muslims were taking whites as slaves- that's what the war was about, and the
Treaty of Tripoli. As we understood the implications of the claims in the
DoIndependence, we extended the franchise further and further; from
land-owning males only, to the present situation- in a fairly short time,
considering the state of communication and large social movements of the
times.
And even the end of slavery did not result in anything like equal rights
for ex slaves.
By the end of Reconstruction, the title 42 provisions were in place (1875 or
so?) (1986, 1985, 1983).
Yes rights for people of all races was a natural extension of the rights
they
demanded on their own behalf. So what explains the fact that they didn't
see it that way.
People still thought that maybe negroes weren't fully evolved humans- that
view wasn't challenged much until the publications of Origin of Species in
the mid-1830's or so. It was widely held well into the late nineteenth
century.
Slavery is evil, period. Even as punishment for crimes it turned out to
be
an abusive institution which denied basic human rights.
Why don't you go tell the active slavers about that? East Africa is full of
them, as are the Arab Emirates, down into SEAsia and up to the Filipines.
Chas
|
| |
| |
LIBRARY OF THE FUTURE (R) 4th Edition Ver. 5.0
Sophistical Refutations
Aristotle
Scr 6: 101
---------------------------------------------------------
First we must grasp the number of aims entertained by
those who
argue as competitors and rivals to the death. These are five
in
number, refutation, fallacy, paradox, solecism, and fifthly
to reduce
the opponent in the discussion to babbling- i.e. to
constrain him to
repeat himself a number of times: or it is to produce the
appearance
of each of these things without the reality. For they choose
if
possible plainly to refute the other party, or as the second
best to
show that he is committing some fallacy, or as a third best
to lead
him into paradox, or fourthly to reduce him to solecism,
i.e. to make
the answerer, in consequence of the argument, to use an
ungrammatical
expression; or, as a last resort, to make him repeat
himself.
4
-
There are two styles of refutation: for some depend on the
language
used, while some are independent of language. Those ways of
producing
the false appearance of an argument which depend on language
are six
in number: they are ambiguity, amphiboly, combination,
division of
words, accent, form of expression. Of this we may assure
ourselves
both by induction, and by syllogistic proof based on this-
and it may
be on other assumptions as well- that this is the number of
ways in
which we might fail to mean the same thing by the same names
or
expressions. Arguments such as the following depend upon
ambiguity.
|
| |
| |
|
