Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: nigel bates who wrote (32236)	9/12/2008 7:02:09 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

koan: "I sure appreciate your posts Nigel. I always learn a lot." Nigel: "It was not until the 1920s that the Supreme Court, shamed by the judicial murder of black Americans in the Southern states, began to take the powers to enforce amendment rights, starting with habeas corpus. That action was undoubtedly judicial activism, and a damned good thing too." koan: "It was judicial activism that efeectively ended segregation as well. One of the dirty little secrets that is not taught in schools or talked about, were the barbaric chain gangs that existed in the south until the WWII. Right after the civil war and after the assasination of Lincoln in 1865, the north sort of forgot about the south. The south developed a segregated judicial system. One for blacks and one for white. The white criminals went to a white prison. But blacks were arrested, very often for nothing, and then sold to plantation owners as efeectively slaves. They were chained together, whipped constantly and forced to excrete and drink from the same swampy waters they were working in. Very few lasted 10 years. This went on unabated from the time of the civil war until WWII as mentioned. It was so ugly it is hard to post it. So where were all the good folks in the south while this was taking place? Or in the north for that matter? Racists have always been right at the top of my shit list-lol! My great mother and I divorced almost all of our family as they were mostly racists and neither of us would put up with it.

To: nigel bates who wrote (32236)	9/12/2008 7:31:11 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

I'm afraid you just don't understand (or have never taken the trouble to discover) your own nation's constitutional history. I attempted to explain this to you in earlier posts. Amendment rights were not binding on states when they were incorporated into the Constitution. They should have been, and Madison argued strongly for a specific amendment which would have made them so. He was defeated in that effort. The actual status of amendment rights was unclear until 1833, when the Supreme Court ruled in explicit terms that they were not binding. Didn't Justice Marshall think the Constitution was binding on states and didn't the SC so decide a number of times in the early 1800's? See Worcester v Georgia, Cohens v Virginia, McCulloch v Maryland, Martin v Hunters Lessee, and especially Fletcher v Peck (the SC ruled a state law unconstitutional). I'll admit Barrons vs Baltimore went the way you say. Looks to me like things are a little more complicated than what you outlined. But you're free to interpret history in whatever frame you wish. ---------------------------------------------------------- >>Thats because they worded it pretty clearly. << As well as not being an historian, you're clearly not a lawyer. Thank you. I am not a lawyer.