pulp8721
01-17-2014, 04:14 PM
Last night on Greta Rand said the following: "President's
governing philosophy to the kind of "majority rule" that led to Jim Crow laws and Japanese internment camps"
msn bc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thats-what-gave-us-jim-crow
That’s quite an assessment. It’s also remarkably nonsensical, even for Rand Paul.
First, Rand Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, then partnered with neo-Confederate who celebrates the birthday of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin. Given this, maybe the senator should avoid incorporating Jim Crow into his arguments.
Second, Rand Paul’s embrace of “individual rights” rings hollow given his belief that the government can and should dictate American women’s reproductive choices and the government can and should prevent same-sex couples from getting married.
Third, if Paul or anyone else has evidence of President Obama saying he’d do whatever he wants because there are no rules that restrain him, I’d love to see it. As best as I can tell, Obama has spent the last five years pleading with congressional Republicans to work with him towards compromises – on just about anything and everything.
Fourth, if Paul or anyone else has evidence of President Obama saying majority rule should trump constitutional law, I’d love to see that, too.
And finally, since when do “progressives” reject “constitutional rule”? What on earth is he talking about?
Actually, Democracy did lead to Japanese Internment Camps (http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal111/Japan4.pdf)
West Coast politicians, bolstered by prevailing public opinion, clamored for the federal government to respond to the “Japanese Problem”. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the “Secretary of War, and the Military Commanderswhom he may from time to time designate, toprescribe military areas from which anyor all persons may be excluded”.
If the Court ruled internment unconstitutional, it certainly risked a drop in prestige in the eyes of the public. The Court felt that during wartime it was essential for the country to be unified. The Court sacrificed fundamental principles in order notto stand in the way of the nation’s unified racist support for the internment of Japanese-Americans. The harsh realities of total war and the racial hysteria it can engender, led to the break-down of the constitutional system in the United States to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.
It's moments like this I'm reminded of one of Ron Paul's greatest papers:
Sadly, the constitution and its protections are respected less and less as we have quietly allowed our constitutional republic to devolve into a militarist, corporatist social democracy. Laws are broken, quietly changed and ignored when inconvenient to those in power, while others in positions to check and balance do nothing. The protections the founders put in place are more and more just an illusion.
governing philosophy to the kind of "majority rule" that led to Jim Crow laws and Japanese internment camps"
msn bc.com/rachel-maddow-show/thats-what-gave-us-jim-crow
That’s quite an assessment. It’s also remarkably nonsensical, even for Rand Paul.
First, Rand Paul opposed the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act, then partnered with neo-Confederate who celebrates the birthday of Abraham Lincoln’s assassin. Given this, maybe the senator should avoid incorporating Jim Crow into his arguments.
Second, Rand Paul’s embrace of “individual rights” rings hollow given his belief that the government can and should dictate American women’s reproductive choices and the government can and should prevent same-sex couples from getting married.
Third, if Paul or anyone else has evidence of President Obama saying he’d do whatever he wants because there are no rules that restrain him, I’d love to see it. As best as I can tell, Obama has spent the last five years pleading with congressional Republicans to work with him towards compromises – on just about anything and everything.
Fourth, if Paul or anyone else has evidence of President Obama saying majority rule should trump constitutional law, I’d love to see that, too.
And finally, since when do “progressives” reject “constitutional rule”? What on earth is he talking about?
Actually, Democracy did lead to Japanese Internment Camps (http://www.stanford.edu/group/sjeaa/journal111/Japan4.pdf)
West Coast politicians, bolstered by prevailing public opinion, clamored for the federal government to respond to the “Japanese Problem”. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 authorizing the “Secretary of War, and the Military Commanderswhom he may from time to time designate, toprescribe military areas from which anyor all persons may be excluded”.
If the Court ruled internment unconstitutional, it certainly risked a drop in prestige in the eyes of the public. The Court felt that during wartime it was essential for the country to be unified. The Court sacrificed fundamental principles in order notto stand in the way of the nation’s unified racist support for the internment of Japanese-Americans. The harsh realities of total war and the racial hysteria it can engender, led to the break-down of the constitutional system in the United States to protect the fundamental rights of individuals.
It's moments like this I'm reminded of one of Ron Paul's greatest papers:
Sadly, the constitution and its protections are respected less and less as we have quietly allowed our constitutional republic to devolve into a militarist, corporatist social democracy. Laws are broken, quietly changed and ignored when inconvenient to those in power, while others in positions to check and balance do nothing. The protections the founders put in place are more and more just an illusion.