GunnyFreedom
05-30-2011, 07:46 PM
Plessy V Ferguson
Is it our argument then that the US Supreme Court is somehow infallable? Incapable of error?
In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that State laws requiring racial segregation in the private market were Constituional, so long as the accomidations were 'equal,' from which came the terrible doctrine of "separate but equal" and thus driving the segregation movement infecting many parts of the South. Their argument derived not from the Constituion but from culture
Remember, the US Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government. By Republican, the Constitution does not mean any party, but an idea - that the purpose of Government is to protect the smallest minority - the individual. A Republic is characterised by personal sovereignty within the law. The US Constituion seeks to address that aspect of philosophical republicanism with the US Constitution and teaching her children that we are a nation of law. Federal Law can and does follow from the enumerated power of guaranteeing to every State a Republican form of government, and therefore the US Government can prevent (and indeed has a duty to) the States from requiring segregation by law.
Segregation inherently deals with groups, and not individuals, and therefore it is a collectivist form of government, which by philosophical definition is not a Republican form of Government which the US Constitution guarantees to the States.
The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was blatantly wrong, as legislatively mandated segregation is a clear and blatant violation of the "Republican form of government" clause. Congress is therefore empowered by it's Constitutionally enumerated powers to enforce the end of legislative segregation.
True racists were a minority at the time but they had seized power. They knew if left to the free market racist businesses would go out of business quickly as almost every human would recognize them as backward and ignorant. They enforced segregation by law, in order to hide their racist friends from view, in order to keep them from going out of business.
The States had no right to legislate segregation as that denies to the States the right to a Republican form of government, which is given as a power of Congress in the US Constitution. The free market, actually would have taken the racists out of power more quickly, as their funding would have dried up when the ignorant went out of business.
As that decision was rightly overturned in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), it was overturned for the wrong reason. SCOTUS overturned the rhetoric justifying the law, they did NOT overturn the philosophic origin of the law -- that the US Congress is empowered by the Constitution with a duty to guarantee a /Republican/ form of government, which is inherently individualistic and free, being centered on the philosophy of "personal sovereignty under law."
Brown v. Board focused on the idea of "group rights," discussing the inherent flaw in "separate but equal" logic, recognizing that any legal separation is inherently unequal. While it is true that separate is inherently unequal, the problem remains that the Complainant was being denied a Republican form of Government, a direct (not derived) power of the Constitution, which actually prevents the States from enacting segregation in the first place.
and while Plessy v. Ferguson desperately needed overturning, it ought to have been overturned for it's blatantly unconstitutional government enforcement of demographic collectivism in the several states, subverting the guarantee to the States a Republican form of Government.
In the same way, Wickard v. Filburn is as blatantly unconstitutional as was Plessy v. Ferguson -- but it is critical to put the right challenge to seek a ruling on the right principles.
The powers of the Federal Government are specific and enumerated, and had the Federal Government actually been obeying the Constitution in 1896, the Supreme Court would have denied the State's claim in Plessy v. Ferguson on the grounds that the Federal Government is required to provide for the States a Republican form of government.
Let's not make the same mistake in Wickard v. Filburn like Borwn v. Board, and let's get it rejected on the appropriate Constitutional grounds. The appropriate Constitutional grounds for State/Federal government reform today is the Tenth Amendment and the Enumerated Powers. Constitutional intent would have solved the disease of segregation 58 years earlier than we finally did.
The exponential growth we see in the Federal government today is also a disease, but more like a cancer than a plague. The lack of Constitutional checks and balances between State and Federal governments were unintentionally erased following the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, and the High Courts failure to follow the clear text and intent of the US Constitution in 1896 led to the disaster of segregation.
Likewise, the Court's lack of direction in Wickard v. Filburn has led to the cancerous overgrowth of Federal government that duplicates every service and has plummeted our quality of education amongst the nations of the world.
Is it our argument then that the US Supreme Court is somehow infallable? Incapable of error?
In Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that State laws requiring racial segregation in the private market were Constituional, so long as the accomidations were 'equal,' from which came the terrible doctrine of "separate but equal" and thus driving the segregation movement infecting many parts of the South. Their argument derived not from the Constituion but from culture
Remember, the US Constitution guarantees to every state a Republican form of government. By Republican, the Constitution does not mean any party, but an idea - that the purpose of Government is to protect the smallest minority - the individual. A Republic is characterised by personal sovereignty within the law. The US Constituion seeks to address that aspect of philosophical republicanism with the US Constitution and teaching her children that we are a nation of law. Federal Law can and does follow from the enumerated power of guaranteeing to every State a Republican form of government, and therefore the US Government can prevent (and indeed has a duty to) the States from requiring segregation by law.
Segregation inherently deals with groups, and not individuals, and therefore it is a collectivist form of government, which by philosophical definition is not a Republican form of Government which the US Constitution guarantees to the States.
The decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was blatantly wrong, as legislatively mandated segregation is a clear and blatant violation of the "Republican form of government" clause. Congress is therefore empowered by it's Constitutionally enumerated powers to enforce the end of legislative segregation.
True racists were a minority at the time but they had seized power. They knew if left to the free market racist businesses would go out of business quickly as almost every human would recognize them as backward and ignorant. They enforced segregation by law, in order to hide their racist friends from view, in order to keep them from going out of business.
The States had no right to legislate segregation as that denies to the States the right to a Republican form of government, which is given as a power of Congress in the US Constitution. The free market, actually would have taken the racists out of power more quickly, as their funding would have dried up when the ignorant went out of business.
As that decision was rightly overturned in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), it was overturned for the wrong reason. SCOTUS overturned the rhetoric justifying the law, they did NOT overturn the philosophic origin of the law -- that the US Congress is empowered by the Constitution with a duty to guarantee a /Republican/ form of government, which is inherently individualistic and free, being centered on the philosophy of "personal sovereignty under law."
Brown v. Board focused on the idea of "group rights," discussing the inherent flaw in "separate but equal" logic, recognizing that any legal separation is inherently unequal. While it is true that separate is inherently unequal, the problem remains that the Complainant was being denied a Republican form of Government, a direct (not derived) power of the Constitution, which actually prevents the States from enacting segregation in the first place.
and while Plessy v. Ferguson desperately needed overturning, it ought to have been overturned for it's blatantly unconstitutional government enforcement of demographic collectivism in the several states, subverting the guarantee to the States a Republican form of Government.
In the same way, Wickard v. Filburn is as blatantly unconstitutional as was Plessy v. Ferguson -- but it is critical to put the right challenge to seek a ruling on the right principles.
The powers of the Federal Government are specific and enumerated, and had the Federal Government actually been obeying the Constitution in 1896, the Supreme Court would have denied the State's claim in Plessy v. Ferguson on the grounds that the Federal Government is required to provide for the States a Republican form of government.
Let's not make the same mistake in Wickard v. Filburn like Borwn v. Board, and let's get it rejected on the appropriate Constitutional grounds. The appropriate Constitutional grounds for State/Federal government reform today is the Tenth Amendment and the Enumerated Powers. Constitutional intent would have solved the disease of segregation 58 years earlier than we finally did.
The exponential growth we see in the Federal government today is also a disease, but more like a cancer than a plague. The lack of Constitutional checks and balances between State and Federal governments were unintentionally erased following the ratification of the 17th Amendment in 1913, and the High Courts failure to follow the clear text and intent of the US Constitution in 1896 led to the disaster of segregation.
Likewise, the Court's lack of direction in Wickard v. Filburn has led to the cancerous overgrowth of Federal government that duplicates every service and has plummeted our quality of education amongst the nations of the world.