Skip to comments.
Restoring Equality, Restoring Civil Rights
National Review Online ^
| 6/25/03
| William J. Bennett
Posted on 06/25/2003 6:13:41 AM PDT by NYC Republican
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
Excellent piece by Mr. Bennett.
To: NYC Republican
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Bennett has harmed himself, his family and conservatives in general. This (and every other moment for the next 30 years) would be a good time for him to shut up. No, he didn't break any laws, but it is just plain stupid to throw big bucks around in a casino. Its about his judgement, not his actions.
2
posted on
06/25/2003 6:35:12 AM PDT
by
RKV
To: NYC Republican
This is racial discrimination no matter how you look at it, and as such it's unconstitutional.
In a civil society of Free Men, electing those who make laws, this ruling would either never have taken place, or if it did take place would be reviewed by The People at voting time.
As it stands now SCOTUS has absolute power in such matters and The People have no recourse but to sit back and wonder how they got left out of the law-making process.
This ruling is a stark reminder of how a handful of people, in black robes, can determine the fate of an entire race of people.
In the end only The people themselves are to blame for fostering this system of being governed by an unelected elite judiciary.
3
posted on
06/25/2003 6:36:07 AM PDT
by
Noachian
To: NYC Republican
Equality of the general rules of law and conduct, however, is the only kind of equality conducive to liberty and the only equality which we can secure without destroying liberty. Not only has liberty nothing to do with any other sort of equality, but it is even bound to produce inequality in many respects. This is the necessary result and part of the justification of individual liberty: if the result of individual liberty did not demonstrate that some manners of living are more successful than others, much of the case for it would vanish. F.A. Hayek
4
posted on
06/25/2003 6:40:01 AM PDT
by
Sam Cree
(Democrats are herd animals)
To: NYC Republican
The notion that race determines thinking was a notion that should have been buried in a Berlin bunker 50 years ago. This says more about the spiritual pedigree of the Left than anything else.
5
posted on
06/25/2003 7:26:16 AM PDT
by
Noumenon
(Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn’t go away. -- Philip K. Dick)
To: RKV
I have to disagree with you on that one RKV. The Libs were looking to take Mr. Bennett down. There is nothing on public record of him coming out against gambling. Now your and my pesonal belief on the subject notwithstanding but it seems that he met all of his financial obligations while loosing all of that money. Plus it was his money to do what he wanted with as well as being involved in a legal activity. If you come out against this what about the state run lotteries?
Mr. Bennett is right about teaching morals and values to children. I am sure all of us on this network have wasted money but remember it was our money to waste in the first place.
6
posted on
06/25/2003 7:37:43 AM PDT
by
Warrior Nurse
(We came, we saw, we kicked their a$$. Who's next?!)
To: NYC Republican
INTREP
To: LiteKeeper
Sorry- what's INTREP?
To: NYC Republican
I am a retired Army officer (artillery, MI, and chaplain). I have the privilege of teaching several classes in Colorado Springs to high school, college, and adults on comparative worldviews (biblical vs secular). As I read the various threads, some impress me as good for illustrating different worldviews. So, using some Army terminology, I mark "incidents" as "SPOTREPS" (spot report) and "descriptions of the current world scene" as "SITREPs" (situation reports). INTREP (Intelliegence Report) provides information of an event involving those of the "opposition;" INTSUM (Intelligence Summary) provides more general information. When I get home, I download these SPOTREPs and SITREPs to a database for future use.
Does that help?
To: NYC Republican
What everyone fails to realize (on both sides of the aisle) is that the original goal of affirmative action was to achieve equality, not diversity.Diversity as a concept didn't even enter into the conversation until the race warlords went nuts during the latter portion of the Clinton Administration.
If we can get back to the concept of "equality", and fix the broken system that obviously is not working when it comes to that, then, and only then will we be able to say that things are working.
But the political correctness police is on the job and breaking their collective necks to ram "diversity" down our throats in an effort to keep their agenda on the table.
10
posted on
06/25/2003 9:09:14 AM PDT
by
mhking
To: LiteKeeper
Got it. Thanks for the clarification.
To: mhking
Diversity as a concept didn't even enter into the conversation until the race warlords went nuts during the latter portion of the Clinton Administration. It appeared much earlier in academia. In the late 80's, I was the only scientist, and only conservative, in a program for young faculty at SUNY Stony Brook. "Diversity' was the buzzword among the leftist faculty; I remember making what I thought was an obvious comment that one's legal rights should not depend on one's race or sex, and one of them told me this was racist, sexist and homophobic. That's when my head started to swim.
To: NYC Republican
Nice piece; I wonder who ghosted it for him? There are, however, three slight problems with it.
The notion that race determines thinking was a notion that should have been buried in a Berlin bunker 50 years ago.
That was 58 years ago, not 50.
Thurgood Marshall: He adamantly supported AA.
MLK: His oft-quoted line from 1963 notwithstanding, he very soon became wed to AA and racial spoils.
13
posted on
06/25/2003 3:48:50 PM PDT
by
mrustow
(no tag)
To: Warrior Nurse
I am absolutely against state (not private) lotteries and against states (not private businesses) selling booze or cigarettes. The state has no business earning income from the citizens vices - they might as well own a brothel. Notwithstanding the fact that he was able to meet his obligations, I still question Bennett's judgement. He needlessly gave the oposition a club with which to beat us. If the amounts had been smaller, there would have been no concern.
14
posted on
06/25/2003 8:25:39 PM PDT
by
RKV
To: Noachian
"This is racial discrimination no matter how you look at it, and as such it's unconstitutional."
Point to where in the constitution it says you can't discriminate by race.
15
posted on
06/26/2003 11:34:26 AM PDT
by
babygene
(Viable after 87 trimesters)
To: babygene
Try Amendment 14, Section 1. The last clause that deals with EQUAL protection of the laws.
It doesn't say some people are more equal than others. Too bad the Supremes don't read the Constitution more often.
16
posted on
06/26/2003 12:23:43 PM PDT
by
Noachian
To: Noachian
"Try Amendment 14, Section 1. The last clause that deals with EQUAL protection of the laws."
"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
At best, it states what the government can or can not do. Not what other citizens can or can not do...
17
posted on
06/26/2003 3:42:11 PM PDT
by
babygene
(Viable after 87 trimesters)
To: babygene
You got it right. Now read it again real carefully.
The Judiciary is part of the government. The Judiciary is that part of government that tells citizens what they can and can't do.
Amendment 14 says we're all due equal protection. The Judiciary says we're not.
Go figure.
18
posted on
06/26/2003 4:05:41 PM PDT
by
Noachian
To: mhking; All
Well said... diversity is a cuss word that emerged from the political correctness movement. This whole debate already plays into the hands of people who are already prejudiced. No offense to FR but there are people who say they won't go to a minority doctor because of this decision (when I suspect no matter what a black doctor does they'll feel that way anyway). I've never looked at someone and wondered if they got where they were because of AA or some other reason. I think AA should be trashed altogether. Besides what does race have to do with admittance anyway? Many schools also offer scholarships based on ethnicity, black, indian, irish,etc. Also, what's to stop anybody from checking off hispanic or black if they aren't? If I go to Michigan will I get points for being white, for being black, hispanic, and maybe asian? All of my family are immigrants, not Americans. Does this count?
SEE HOW RIDICULOUS THIS CAN GET?
19
posted on
06/26/2003 11:55:27 PM PDT
by
cyborg
(I'm a mutt-american)
To: Noachian
LOL, and you'd be sad if they had voted AA down totally?
Though the judiciary has way too much power, were you complaining in 2000?
I'll put it this way, if unconstitutional and tyrannical laws didn't seem to get enacted so often by legislators you wouldn't need the judges to rule on these matters.
And BTW, these AA racist policies were not enacted by judges but by elected officials. I'll conclude by saying this, I'd rather have 9 Clarence Thomases deciding the rule of law than have 50 legislatures dominated by leftists.
Sorry, freedom trumps all.
20
posted on
06/27/2003 12:20:59 AM PDT
by
Skywalk
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-23 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson