1256. News + How Did We Get Here? PART 2

Weekly news + a look at how the 1964 Civil Rights Act has resulted in a 2-constitution system in America

IT’S NEW TO ME

Democrats Openly Urging United Nations To Intervene In America! (MUST READ)

Insane Dem Introducing Bill To Protect Rioters And Looters From Trump!

Amid National Racial Awakening, Alabama Deputies Called to Extinguish Burning Cross

Race Hustling Academic Proposes Punishing White Children Because They are Inherently Evil

BLM Plan to Police the Police (What could possibly go wrong?)

 DOJ Charges Man with Using Facebook to Incite Riot

After NYC Mayor Reveals Partial Police Defunding – 600 Police Officers Consider Abandoning The Force

Russians may have intervened in 2016 election, for Hillary

 White Protesters Wash Feet Of Black Protest Organizers

Unbelievable: Democrats Approve Protests, But Still Crackdown On Churches! 

Forget October; John Bolton to Drop June Surprise on Trump Reelection Campaign

“Looney Tunes” Remakes Now Eliminating Elmer Fudd’s Evil Hunting Rifle¬†

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison’s Son: “We Are Going To Dismantle The Minneapolis Police Department”

Twitter Takes Another Action Against Trump’s Account Over George Floyd Memorial Video

Tucker: Here Are The Radical Leftists Demands From Autonomous Zone

It Begins: UN Authorizes Officials To Start Working With Antifa Protesters

NYC police union to sue rioters for cops’ injuries

SETTING OUR MINDS ON THINGS ABOVE

HOW DID WE GET HERE
Part 2 – How We View the Constitution Today

Today we continue our look at the extreme partisan divide that has polarized our nation.¬†As we saw in¬†last week’s article,¬†civil rights law gave bureaucrats and judges emergency powers to override the normal constitutional order, bypassing democracy. But the key question is:

Under what conditions is the government authorized to activate these emergency powers?

It is a question that has been much studied by political thinkers in Europe. Usually when European governments of the past bypassed their constitutions by declaring emergencies, it was on the grounds of a military threat or a threat to public order.

¬†But in America, as our way of governing has evolved since 1964, emergencies are declared on a moral basis: people are suffering; their newly discovered rights are being denied. America can’t wait anymore for the ordinary democratic process to take its course.

In order to justify its special powers, the government must create a class of officially designated malefactors. With the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the justification of this strong medicine was that there was a collection of Southern politicians who were so wily and devious, and a collection of Southern sheriffs so ruthless and depraved, that one could not, and was not morally obliged to, fight fair with them.

That pattern has perpetuated itself, even as the focus of civil rights has moved to American institutions less obviously objectionable than segregation. Every intervention in the name of rights requires the identification of a malefactor. So very early on in the gay marriage debate, those who believed in traditional marriage were likened to segregationists or to those who had opposed interracial marriage. (Joe Biden recently said: “Let’s be clear: Transgender equality is the civil rights issue of our time. There is no room for compromise when it comes to basic human rights.”)

As civil rights laws have been extended by analogy into other areas of American life, the imputation of moral non-personhood has been aimed at a growing number of people who have committed no sin more grievous than believing the same things they did two years ago, and therefore standing in the way of the progressive juggernaut.

In addition to the moral component, there’s another characteristic of the new “civil rights constitution.” It’s called¬†intersectionality. As long as civil rights law was limited to protecting the rights of Southern blacks, it was a stable system. It had the logic of history behind it, which both justified and focused its application. But if other groups could be given the privilege of advancing their causes by bureaucratic fiat and judicial decree, there was the possibility of a gradual building up of vast new coalitions, maybe even electoral majorities.

This was made possible because almost anyone who was not a white heterosexual male could benefit from civil rights law in some way.

By the mid1980s, the “intersectional” coalition of civil rights activists started using the term “people of color” to describe itself. Now, logically, if there really is such a thing as “people of color,” and if they are demanding a larger share of society’s rewards, they are ipso facto demanding that “non-people of color” get a smaller share.

We’ll conclude this series next week. Stay tuned.

RELATED ARTICLES

ON THE LIGHTER SIDE

The Bible tells us to love our neighbors, and also to love our enemies, probably because they are generally the same people.

Check out my YouTube channel.

ATTRIBUTIONS

Inclusion of photographs and/or images in no way implies the endorsement of this blog or its information by the photographer or designer.


Leave a Reply

xx