Post by NOTTHOR on Mar 23, 2008 9:26:56 GMT -6
This morning's Chicago Tribune was an Obama spooge-fest of race related editorials disguised as news, imploring us to confront our racial divide, break the racial stalemate, and engage in racial dialogue to bring about progress. But none of the so-called news explained the goals of these actions, so I need some help from liberal pals on the board to get to the bottom of things.
My questions are simple, what is the end game of this dialogue? What progress is it supposed to achieve?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires government on all levels to treat citizens equally and though liberal activist judges have sufficiently carved out wealth and income based exemptions (to name but a few), legislation or activities regarding race are always subject to strict scrutiny and are now only permissible if they have a goal of enhancing diversity or remediating the wrongs of the past. The impact of this is that institutions sponsored by the state like schools and government agencies that contract with outside contractors generally treat all individuals and entities the same, but grant preference points and set asides for minorities and minority owned businesses.
Government on all levels has also significantly regulated private transactions and proscribed racial discrimination in employment, housing, banking and general consumer transactions, as well as many other areas.
When Dr. King took his message across the South, it was clear that in the shadow of legislation like "Separate but Equal," internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the Chinese Exclusion Act, government was not faithfully adhering to the requirements of the 14th Amendment. With the multitude of Civil Rights laws now on the books, set asides and affirmative action, as well as active court enforcement of any violation and market punishment of entities seen as discriminatory against minorities, it is difficult to comprehend what is really left to accomplish.
So I ask of you liberals, please explain what the end game is here. With equal protection under the law in terms of dealing with the government and in private transactions, affirmative action and set asides to enhance diversity and remediate past wrongs, what more do we need? Is it more change, more hope, more hope for change, or change for hope? Thanks in advance.
BTR
My questions are simple, what is the end game of this dialogue? What progress is it supposed to achieve?
The 14th Amendment to the Constitution requires government on all levels to treat citizens equally and though liberal activist judges have sufficiently carved out wealth and income based exemptions (to name but a few), legislation or activities regarding race are always subject to strict scrutiny and are now only permissible if they have a goal of enhancing diversity or remediating the wrongs of the past. The impact of this is that institutions sponsored by the state like schools and government agencies that contract with outside contractors generally treat all individuals and entities the same, but grant preference points and set asides for minorities and minority owned businesses.
Government on all levels has also significantly regulated private transactions and proscribed racial discrimination in employment, housing, banking and general consumer transactions, as well as many other areas.
When Dr. King took his message across the South, it was clear that in the shadow of legislation like "Separate but Equal," internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the Chinese Exclusion Act, government was not faithfully adhering to the requirements of the 14th Amendment. With the multitude of Civil Rights laws now on the books, set asides and affirmative action, as well as active court enforcement of any violation and market punishment of entities seen as discriminatory against minorities, it is difficult to comprehend what is really left to accomplish.
So I ask of you liberals, please explain what the end game is here. With equal protection under the law in terms of dealing with the government and in private transactions, affirmative action and set asides to enhance diversity and remediate past wrongs, what more do we need? Is it more change, more hope, more hope for change, or change for hope? Thanks in advance.
BTR
