Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board (Read 1906 times)
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6221
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Feb 12th, 2019 at 5:45pm
Print Post  
Plessy v. Ferguson was the case in which the USSC ruled that schools for black children could be separate from schools for white children.  So long as they were equal, that satisfied the Equal Protection clause.

Brown v. Board was the case in which the USSC ruled that separate but equal is inherently unequal and therefore not allowed under the Equal Protection clause.  Which was right under a strict constructionist view of the constitution?  Which was right under a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?  Which was right under the dynamic “living document view of the constitution?

Try not to let your opinion be colored (no pun intended) by your opinion of which was right under the view that the USSC should focus on moral outcomes rather than either of the above options.  Unless you are willing to state that morality should be the determining factor in all court cases and not the law.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9381
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #1 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 6:08pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 5:45pm:
Plessy v. Ferguson was the case in which the USSC ruled that schools for black children could be separate from schools for white children.  So long as they were equal, that satisfied the Equal Protection clause.

Brown v. Board was the case in which the USSC ruled that separate but equal is inherently unequal and therefore not allowed under the Equal Protection clause.  Which was right under a strict constructionist view of the constitution?  Which was right under a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?  Which was right under the dynamic “living document view of the constitution?

Try not to let your opinion be colored (no pun intended) by your opinion of which was right under the view that the USSC should focus on moral outcomes rather than either of the above options.  Unless you are willing to state that morality should be the determining factor in all court cases and not the law.


We should not have government schools and the private ones should make their own rules
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51091
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #2 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 7:09pm
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 5:45pm:
Plessy v. Ferguson was the case in which the USSC ruled that schools for black children could be separate from schools for white children.  So long as they were equal, that satisfied the Equal Protection clause.

Brown v. Board was the case in which the USSC ruled that separate but equal is inherently unequal and therefore not allowed under the Equal Protection clause.  Which was right under a strict constructionist view of the constitution?  Which was right under a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?  Which was right under the dynamic “living document view of the constitution?

Try not to let your opinion be colored (no pun intended) by your opinion of which was right under the view that the USSC should focus on moral outcomes rather than either of the above options.  Unless you are willing to state that morality should be the determining factor in all court cases and not the law.
"Separate but equal" wasn't equal, so Plessy failed at that practical level, but the real issue was, there were separate laws for people based on their race, or at the least one law that treated people differently based on their race. "Black kids in this school, White kids in this one".

Brown was correct, but anything the Court did beyond making that decision was wrong. The Court (and the federal government in general) have no authority to force integration of schools, and set quotas, they only have authority to stop racial segregation by governments.

Forced integration required that governments take race into account in the execution of a law.

The only way to have equal treatment under the law when it comes to race is to not take race into account at all.
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6221
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #3 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 8:11pm
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 6:08pm:
We should not have government schools and the private ones should make their own rules


Correct.

  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6221
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #4 - Feb 12th, 2019 at 8:21pm
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 7:09pm:
"Separate but equal" wasn't equal, so Plessy failed at that practical level, but the real issue was, there were separate laws for people based on their race, or at the least one law that treated people differently based on their race. "Black kids in this school, White kids in this one".

Brown was correct,


I should have made this more clear, but can you state which of the following approaches do you take:

a) strict constructionist view of the constitution?

b) a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?

c) the dynamic “living document" view of the constitution?

d) some other approach that you can articulate?

e) whatever Jeff says about a particular situation?

Not meaning to sound snarky with that last.  It's just that logically, if you cannot articulate how you interpret it, then the only option is "whatever Jeff says about this example."




  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9381
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #5 - Feb 13th, 2019 at 6:44am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 8:21pm:
I should have made this more clear, but can you state which of the following approaches do you take:

a) strict constructionist view of the constitution?

b) a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?

c) the dynamic “living document" view of the constitution?

d) some other approach that you can articulate?

e) whatever Jeff says about a particular situation?

Not meaning to sound snarky with that last.  It's just that logically, if you cannot articulate how you interpret it, then the only option is "whatever Jeff says about this example."






The Constitution is a living document and it can be modified any time with 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 votes.

Modifying it with "historical" context makes the SCOTUS a politburo which can(and does) unilaterally modify the Constitution any time for any reason.  It's absurd that 5/9 vote can change the law of the land.  It's no different than the USSR operated.  And the SCOTUS has no hesitation at all to use and abuse that power
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51091
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #6 - Feb 13th, 2019 at 7:57am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Feb 12th, 2019 at 8:21pm:
I should have made this more clear, but can you state which of the following approaches do you take:

a) strict constructionist view of the constitution?

b) a view that requires taking into account the historical context of the ratification of the amendment?

c) the dynamic “living document" view of the constitution?

d) some other approach that you can articulate?

e) whatever Jeff says about a particular situation?

Not meaning to sound snarky with that last.  It's just that logically, if you cannot articulate how you interpret it, then the only option is "whatever Jeff says about this example."
It seems to me that I've talked enough about the Constitution for you to figure out where I'm coming from, but you want me to tuck myself into a labeled category.

Read this opinion piece and make your best decision on your own.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/11/strict_constructionist_or_stri....
  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 51091
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #7 - Feb 13th, 2019 at 8:15am
Print Post  
kaz wrote on Feb 13th, 2019 at 6:44am:
The Constitution is a living document and it can be modified any time with 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4 votes.

Modifying it with "historical" context makes the SCOTUS a politburo which can(and does) unilaterally modify the Constitution any time for any reason.  It's absurd that 5/9 vote can change the law of the land.  It's no different than the USSR operated.  And the SCOTUS has no hesitation at all to use and abuse that power
It's actually a 5/4 vote in the S. Ct. as I'm sure you meant to write. Otherwise I believe we are in agreement.

It is important to understand what was meant by the people who wrote and ratified the constitution, simply because the language and our understanding of it has changed, but the proper avenue to pursue when there is controversy or misunderstanding about what the law means (which surely must refer to what it meant when it was enacted) is to discuss it in it's historical context.

For instance did the people who ratified the Constitution believe that the 2nd Amendment meant that they could keep and bear arms only if they were members of the organized State Militia, and that otherwise they could be required to be disarmed?


The following view, I believe, is correct, and Madison wasn't the only one who held it:


Federalist No. 49: Madison
           
"As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of government, but also whenever one of the departments may commit encroachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several departments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commission, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers; and how are the encroachments or the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission, can alone declare its true meaning, and enforce its observance?"


It seems obvious that the Founders never intended SCOTUS to have any power to decide the meaning of the Constitution.

The power granted SCOTUS was jurisdiction over cases arising under the Constitution, and disputes between branches of the government about who was granted what power and what the actual granted power was are not under the Constitution, they are fundamentally within the Constitution, so they must be referred back to the  people, and decisions of the people regarding the meaning of the Constitution, according to the Constitution itself, can only be arrived at and and expressed through Article V.

  

"Free hate speech"
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Little Big Man
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 6221
Location: Republic of Me
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #8 - Feb 13th, 2019 at 9:04am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Feb 13th, 2019 at 8:15am:
For instance did the people who ratified the Constitution believe that the 2nd Amendment meant that they could keep and bear arms only if they were members of the organized State Militia, and that otherwise they could be required to be disarmed?





The 2nd amendment is the only amendment which contains its own interpretation within its wording.  It is intended to protect our natural right to form militias to preserve a free state.

Why the founders did not  specifically protect a right to bear arms as an individual, I cannot say.
  

Snarky no more!
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
kaz
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Minarchist

Posts: 9381
Location: Kazmania
Joined: Jun 6th, 2017
Re: Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Reply #9 - Feb 13th, 2019 at 9:10am
Print Post  
Little Big Man wrote on Feb 13th, 2019 at 9:04am:
The 2nd amendment is the only amendment which contains its own interpretation within its wording.  It is intended to protect our natural right to form militias to preserve a free state.

Why the founders did not  specifically protect a right to bear arms as an individual, I cannot say.


It's hilarious how the teacher can't read.  Again, that's why you're a teacher, bad grades.  Typical of teachers.  You are low educational achievers.

But try reading the second again.  "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That is the protected right.  Period.  The part on the militia is an explanation of the right, it is not a condition for the right.  You'd know that if you had reading skills.

Try reading it again and see if you can get it this time.  They don't define militia because they don't need to.  They are explaining it's about self defense.  But again, that is an EXPLANATION not a CONDITION or a QUALIFIER for the right.

Read, man.  And take some remedial reading courses.  They should have remedial reading for teachers as you have particular special education requirements
  

Contest winner:  I predicted Kaz' meltdown
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 16
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy