CommentsCORRUPTION WARCH-In the mid 1770s, we had similar conditions to our current mess.
The nation was beset with claims of Group Rights. The British insisted they had greater rights than the colonists and the White colonists claimed that they had better rights than Blacks (who had no rights).
White Men Rebelled Against Other White Men
Whether we like history or not, Great Britain and the colonies were ruled by White males. Unlike some of the present day “Ignoranti” who have gained power in the United States, these rebellious White men were well-educated in history and political philosophy. They were aware of the evils that Group Rights had visited upon Europe. England had been torn apart more than once by religious warring between Protestants and Roman Catholics and the continent had suffered a similar fate.
Group Rights crossed the Atlantic. Many so-called “havens of religious tolerance” tolerated only their own kind. And even within their own religious communities, they devised Group Rights. The most infamous example was lumping some women into a group of witches, then burning them at the stake and stealing their property.
John Locke and the Evils of Group Rights
John Locke posited that all individuals had inalienable rights and men created governments to protect each person’s inalienable rights. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he faced a dilemma. John Locke’s inalienable rights included Life, Liberty and Property, which contained an inherent contradiction. Slaves were both individuals and property. If Jefferson kept the term “property,” he would be endorsing Group Rights between Whites as free men and Negroes as slaves. Thus, Jefferson replaced “property” with “Pursuit of Happiness.”
When drafting the Constitution, the framers knew that Group Rights had to end and so devised a system that would allow future generations to do away with slavery. Hence, they used the term “3/5ths of all other persons” to exclude the concept of slavery from the Constitution. (They knew abolition was coming; in 1761 mainland Portugal had abolished slavery.)
Almost a century after the Civil War, we had the opportunity to reassert the nation’s core value – Liberty as an inalienable right. Brown v the Board of Education (1954), however, betrayed the Declaration by refusing to apply the inalienable right of Liberty to Blacks. The Brown case said that because Blacks as a group did poorly in segregated schools, segregation was unconstitutional. If Blacks’ educational achievement had been equal to Whites, then under the Brown decision, segregation would have been constitutional.
“Segregation of White and colored children in public schools has a detrimental effect upon the colored children. The impact is greater when it has the sanction of the law, for the policy of separating the races is usually interpreted as denoting the inferiority of the negro group. A sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn. Segregation with the sanction of law, therefore, has a tendency to [retard] the educational and mental development of negro children and to deprive them of some of the benefits they would receive in a racial[ly] integrated school system.” -- Brown v Board of Education. [Bold added]
Nowhere does the Brown case mention liberty, freedom or inalienable rights. Its sole concern is whether the law impacts the negro group in a harmful manner. The key word became “equality” which is not an inalienable right. Because of this pernicious denial of the inalienable right of Liberty to Black individuals, Blacks could secure decent treatment only on the basis of how their group was treated. Group Rights became necessary for survival. The Democrats seized upon it to fashion their Identity Politics in which Blacks and other minorities were treated fairly only on the basis of their group membership.
Brown v Board of Education Should Have been based on Liberty
The Supreme Court has had sixty-four (64) years to restate Brown on the basis of Liberty: “Segregation is an unconstitutional deprivation of an individual’s liberty.” That is all that Brown had to say. Yet, after six decades the U.S. Supreme Court cannot bring itself to admit that Blacks have the inalienable and constitutional right of Liberty. In contrast, in Lawrence v Texas in 2003 Justice Kennedy squarely placed Gay Rights on Liberty. (In 2003 Gays were seen as White men; hence Liberty applied.)
“Liberty protects the person from unwarranted government intrusions. Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions.”
Although Justice Kennedy was unequivocal that Gay Rights derive from the inalienable right of Liberty, the Democrats try to include Gays in their Identity Politics while the bigoted GOP want to exclude Gays.
The Dems’ Identity Politics Pose an Existential Threat to Whites
Whites perceive an existential threat from the Dems’ Identity Politics which promises to politically submerge the White population. Minorities repeatedly brag that they will soon be the nation’s majority and then the day of reckoning will come for their White oppressors. In a White defensive move, Brett Kavanaugh has been chosen as the latest Great White Hope, no matter how reprehensible he may be as an individual. Group Rights always leads to horrible internecine violence, the civil war being America’s experience with such group violence. Abraham Lincoln knew that a “a house divided against itself cannot stand.” That is true today.
In a nation based on inalienable individual rights, there would be no temper tantrum throwing Brett Kavanaugh. Americans need to recognize that Kavanaugh is a symptom of not only White racism but also of the threat the Dems pose to the nation with their Identity Politics. One part of society cannot pose an existential threat to another part of society and think it will not result in extreme violence – as Trump has threatened.
(Richard Lee Abrams is a Los Angeles attorney and a CityWatch contributor. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Abrams’ views are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Edited for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
Tags:
