http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/13/BAD71N71NS.DTL
However, the same reasoning applies. Note that I did return to the issue of affirmative action, which was the subject of Prop. 187, later in this post.
The Declaration of Indedpendence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Consitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.
Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.
California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens. Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."
Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state.
With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.
Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.
The Declaration of Indedpendence refers to "certain unalienable rights." The Consitution defines such rights and enacts them as part of the supreme law of our land to ensure that these rights are not subject to being removed or restricted by the will or whim of whatever majority may exist within our citizenry at any given moment in our history. Its purpose is to avoid imposing "tyranny of the majority" upon any minority group of citizens.
Sadly, our history is tarnished with examples where, without such Constitutional safeguards, groups of our citizens have been denied equal rights, including the rights of women and minorities to vote, to marry a person of another race and more.
California's Proposition 187 is one example. It was enacted by a scant 51% majority, and it imposed their bigotry on an entire class of American citizens. Yesterday, New Jersey's state Senate approved a same-sex marriage bill, and their Assembly is expected to approve the measure on Thursday and send it to Gov. Chris Christie, who has stated that he will veto it and that the matter should be decided by the voters through a ballot measure. He further said that he thinks "people would have been happy to have a referendum on civil rights rather than dying in the streets in the south."
Like the OP, all Christie has proven is that he is utterly ignorant of our history, completely detached from reality and hell bent on maintaining bigotry and social inequality among American citizens. If he's right, maybe the people of New Jersey should also be given the opportunity to vote on a ballot measure that would bar morbidly obese, bigoted jackasses like him from marrying, or reproducing or even eating or breathing, let alone holding public office in their state.
With respect to affirmative action, as a nation, we have come a long way toward sharing the rights enshrined in our Constitution with groups whose rights were previously denied, but it is sad that some of the legacy of our past bigotry remains.
Affirmative action measures attempt to rectify that by providing a path for those who were formerly victims of discrimination toward a more balanced and equitable distribution of the rights and opportunities we claim to share equally among our citizens. It isn't pretty, and it isn't perfect, but our own history is proof enough that, without such action, the tyranny of a bigoted majority will remain an obstacle to granting equal rights to minorities for years, or even decades, to come.
Sorry. I actually have a life outside the forums, and I was in too much of hurry to get to some other work. Thanks for catching that. :thumbsup:
My post actually referred California's Prop. 8 that banned same sex marriages. Sadly, many of the same principles apply. Bigots will try anything and find any excuse to maintain their advantages and implement their bigotry, as was the case with the xenophobia spread by the bigots who pimped Prop. 187, and the same reasoning applies.
My, aren't you presumptuous and just a bit too absolute?
The U.S. Supreme Court has come down on different sides of various cases involving "affirmative action" suggesting that considerably more factual determinations and somewhat more nuanced views are required to determine whether a specific statute would be Constitutional.
I don't have time to dig up specific cases and argue them with you. If it matters to you, you could always do your own homework to learn more about what kinds of laws would and would not be valid under our Constitution.
Given my low opinion of many current Supreme Court justices, I would probably disagree with some of their findings, but that's the way our system works, and I'd be stuck with those decisions, at least until the were overturned by a more enlightened court. And THAT is hardly "destroying the Constitution to save it."
Facebook
Twitter