Posted on 12/23/2021 5:11:21 AM PST by Kaslin
This time of year, dear readers, is when us writers curate lists. Some are about the best movies, top kitchen appliances or favorite new songs of 2021. This year, I'd like to recommend three books to read after the tumultuous events of 2021.
My first is a new and important book by law professors Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick: "The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, and before it, no individuals of African descent -- including slaves and free persons -- could become U.S. citizens. While the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, it didn't make African Americans citizens, and Southern states enacted "black codes" to reinstitute slavery-like practices. As such, the 14th corrected this deficiency.
This is at issue each time you hear about a First or Second Amendment challenge to state legislation. While the Bill of Rights didn't originally apply to the states, the 14th Amendment required that individual protections guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution must also pertain to state and local governments.
Unfortunately, just a few years after its ratification, the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment was virtually written out of the Constitution by a series of Supreme Court decisions. The result was increased difficulty for people trying to vindicate their civil rights in court or fight racial and economic discrimination in the states. Anyone interested in racial justice should know about the 14th Amendment.
Frederick Douglass believed the U.S. Constitution was an anti-slavery document, meaning that the Founding Fathers had not enshrined slavery but instead guaranteed the rights of self-governance, liberty and human rights. Barnett and Bernick see things in a different way, and yet their book gives us a path to fulfill the promise of the American project and Douglass' dream. Doing so would require that Supreme Court Justices reconsider some long-standing assumptions about the 14th Amendment by looking at its original meaning.
The second book is by the late economist Walter Williams, called "Race & Economics."
As Williams writes in the preface:
"There is no question that (African Americans) suffered gross violations of basic human rights in the form of chattel slavery, discrimination under Jim Crow laws and customs, and personal violence -- lynching, beatings, and arson. But an acknowledgement of and consensus on those injustices, and on residual discrimination, do not carry us very far in evaluating what is or is not in the best interest of blacks nowadays."
Williams examined how throughout some of the most shameful parts of our history, African Americans worked in both skilled and unskilled roles, owned businesses and in many cases accumulated wealth. The relative color blindness of the market compensated for some of the discrimination brought about by private racism and government rules. Meanwhile, many wage regulations supposedly designed to help workers -- not least the minimum wage -- represented active discrimination against black people and prevented many from making the first step up the income ladder.
Today, those who would meddle with economic freedom and opportunity should remember that it keeps countless struggling Americans afloat. Without it, things could be much worse.
The final book I recommend is called "Hate: Why We Should Resist It With Free Speech." It's by Nadine Strossen, the president of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) from 1991 to 2008 and one of our nation's foremost champions of free speech. At a time when we hear people incessantly use the term "hate speech," Strossen's book offers an important reminder that this has no consistent legal definition under U.S. law. There is also no legal definition for evil ideas, rudeness, unpatriotic speech or other speech that people find offensive.
This fact is important in an era when many people are clamoring for crackdowns on free speech on the internet and in other forms of media. With very few exceptions, speech that makes us uncomfortable can't be restricted in ways that are consistent with our Constitution. It also explains why it's so hard to draft anti-hate-speech legislation, and why those laws that do exist often backfire, as we've seen in multiple other countries. Strossen recommends drowning out hate speech with more and freer speech.
Identifying ways to improve our society and country is important. But it's only half of the battle. The other half is figuring out how to achieve those goals without causing other harms. I believe these books will help in answering this challenge in 2022 and beyond.
Ms de Rugy’s screed is classic covert messaging. Key phrase ‘America’s most shameful days’
Has anyone published on the difference in wording between the first and second amendment? Why does the first say "Congress shall make no law ..." while the second has the more absolute "...shall not be infringed"? Does this mean that the first originally only applied to Congress and not to the executive or judicial branches or to the states, while the second's prohibition originally did apply to all branches and the states too?
“...when us writers curate lists.”
Why should I pay any attention to a “writer” who didn’t learn third-grade grammar?
Am I correct? BTW English is my second language and I only speak, read and write two. English and my native language.
You are correct. For what it’s worth, I always liked Bruce Willis’s line in The Fifth Element: “Lady, I only speak two languages, English and bad English.”
I always admire anyone who becomes truly fluent in a second language as an adult. I’ve picked up some of a few languages over the years, but can’t be called fluent in any.
Things like that are especially annoying, though, when the person is claiming to be a writer. To me, it’s like a carpenter driving wood screws with a hammer. Learn to use the tools of your trade.
“My sister and I” is correct when used as the subject of the sentence. It is equally correct to say “my sister and me” when it is the object of the sentence or phrase. Examples:
My sister and I walked to school. (Subject of the sentence)
You can come to the playground with my sister and me. (Object of the prepositional phrase)
This list of ‘books to read’
might be of interest.
Remember all first letters of a word that is prefexed? with der, die, das is always capitalized. Here are some examples: der beste Praesident war (ist) Donald Trump, (2) die Haupt Stadt von Tennessee ist Nashville. And finally: das Kind ist klein
Ich lebte von 1978-81 in Wiesbaden.
Queen Elizabeth his company had to march for her. He was cussing her out when he told me about it years later, because it was raining cats and dogs. I did not see her because I did not know she had come.
I did like Mainz because you could walk into down town, or take the bus, or street car.
Thanks for the tip. I’ll check it out...
Merry Christmas.
Yes, it is for those of us who had teachers that used such common-sense lessons. However, young students can get stuck on a pattern or get admonished about improper usage in way that causes them to decide “my sister and I” is the correct form at all times. I had a great 4th-grade teacher who began her career in a one-room schoolhouse in the Depression. I got the benefit of her experience 30-years later and bless her memory for the grounding she gave in all of her methods: spelling bees, math bees, regular writing assignments, etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.