Was Brown Vs. Board Unconstitutional?

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Here is a stunning example of thinking outside of the box. Thomas E. Woods, Jr. and Kevin R.C. Gutzman take a look at the Holiest of Holies-the 1954 Brown Vs. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court outlawing racial segregation in schools. Please read this with an open mind. From VDARE.com.

OswaldTheOsprey

http://www.vdare.com/asp/printPage.asp?url=http://www.vdare.com/misc/080725_woods.htm

[spunkloaf]

I'm too lazy and drunk right now to read all this.  Can you summarize?

[Peter1469]

I'm too lazy and drunk right now to read all this.  Can you summarize?

It was a Supreme Court decision from 1954 that many point to as the end of our federal republic- meaning that States no longer had any power before the might of the federal government. 

[spunkloaf]

But why?

Should public schools be segregated?
I don't understand how such trivial racial issues can tear our country apart as this apparently did.  Are people that uptight about race and culture that they needed the government to step in and draw a clear line between preserving culture vs. discrimination?  How far does this go?  It obviously isn't fully resolved or people wouldn't be talking about it 54 years later.

I should read into this I guess.

.........

[Peter1469]

But why?

Should public schools be segregated?
I don't understand how such trivial racial issues can tear our country apart as this apparently did.  Are people that uptight about race and culture that they needed the government to step in and draw a clear line between preserving culture vs. discrimination?  How far does this go?  It obviously isn't fully resolved or people wouldn't be talking about it 54 years later.

I should read into this I guess.

.........

While reading up on the issue, keep this question in mind: under our constitutional system, should these decisions be made by the state governments or by the federal government.  Do the words in the Constitution provide any clues? 

I admit that I am not advocating one side or another at this point.  I would have to read the important cases from Plessy through Brown and look at the historical record for the same period to determine whether the States demonstrated sufficiently to the Supreme Court that they had no intention to cease government-sanctioned racism in order to warrant federal encroachment on States’ rights. 

[spunkloaf]

Well, they managed to forever change our money with the federal reserve act.  And they outright gave themselves the power in 1913 to tax our income which was previously outlined as FORBIDDEN in the constitution.  Why is so much attention being paid to a racial issue versus these other history changing and dangerous events, having DIRECTLY to do with our money and wealth?

I will read Brown vs. Board tomorrow.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Well, they managed to forever change our money with the federal reserve act.  And they outright gave themselves the power in 1913 to tax our income which was previously outlined as FORBIDDEN in the constitution.  Why is so much attention being paid to a racial issue versus these other history changing and dangerous events, having DIRECTLY to do with our money and wealth?

I will read Brown vs. Board tomorrow.

The instances you describe plus Brown and numerous others have all added together to change our nation for the wors4.

OswaldTheOsprey

[they call me MR. GRUMPY god damn it!]

this is a silly article and an even sillier discussion.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

this is a silly article and an even sillier discussion.

How is the article silly?

OswaldTheOsprey

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

[spunkloaf]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

So is this about race or is it about the constitution?

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

So is this about race or is it about the constitution?

Both.

[OswaldTheOsprey]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

Indeed, they have either been debunked or at best are no longer pertinent.

OswaldTheOsprey

[spunkloaf]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

So is this about race or is it about the constitution?

Both.

Does the constitution not provide the same rights to all citizens?

I suppose, since it is not clearly defined, we all have the right to discriminate against whatever we can find to discriminate against.

In that case, the constitution is void because nobody's rights are safe--not even the states', or federal.

[Mr. Dirlewanger]

Was this when sociologists etc. used the Black and White dolls and a heaping helping of shady social science? The orthodox (read liberal) views on prejudice have been thoroughly debunked.

What was the problem you had with this question? Is there something wrong?