reply to post by TsukiLunar
Did you read the legislation before deciding you didn't like it? Here is one example where if you read it the blurb on the blog sounds worse than it
really is.
From the blog
H.R.4982: A bill to provide for civil rights in public schools.
The bill summary.
SUMMARY AS OF: 2/29/1984--Introduced. Public School Civil Rights Act of 1984 - Eliminates inferior Federal court jurisdiction to issue any
order requiring the assignment or transportation of students to public schools on the basis of race, color, or national origin. Permits
individuals and school boards to seek relief from court orders made prior to this Act unless the court makes certain findings, including: (1) that the
acts giving rise to the order intentionally and specifically caused the segregation; (2) that no other remedy would work; and (3) that the benefits of
the order outweigh its economic, social, and educational costs. Lists remedies which remain available for unconstitutional segregation.
In other words the federal government can not force towns to redraw school districts based on race. The only exceptions would have been if towns were
trying to force segregation, or no other methods would end segregation.
It wasn't about civil rights in school. It was about cities and counties being forced to draw their school districts on arbitrary lines to avoid
being sued. This is the type of thing that lead to forced busing of students and kids getting on the bus at 5am to make it to school by 8am. The
Federal courts were forcing unfunded mandates on schools in an attempt to meet arbitrary and vague quotas. It was costing school systems untold
thousands every year. That was money being taken away from actual education.
Ron Paul was voting against judicial activism on the federal level, and voting to improve education by putting money back in to the schools. He most
definitely wasn't voting against "civil rights in public schools." However, this is the same old song and dance we see when it comes to Ron Paul.
He didn't vote to support my special interest and to give me special consideration so he is an anti-woman, racist, homophobic, Nazi.
Here is another example of a jab that wasn't thought out.
This "champion of peace" wanted to prohibit the dismantling of ICBM silos in the U.S.:
So, somehow believing in maintaining defensive strength means you aren't for peace? That makes absolutely no sense. It is a logical fallacy to
believe a peaceful person can not also believe in the need for defense.
He has promoted the Bricker Amendment to the Constitution, and otherwise sought limit the protections of international law. He would also prohibit
U.S. courts from citing foreign laws or policies (other than English ones) in their decisions:
What exactly is the Bricker amendment to the constitution? Well according to the blog:
A resolution proposing the Bricker amendment to the Constitution of the United States relative to force and effect of treaties and executive
agreements.
Okay that doesn't tell me anything. What does the Library of Congress say the Bricker Amendment is?
Constitutional Amendment - Provides that a treaty which denies or abridges any right enumerated in the Constitution shall not be of any force or
effect. States that no treaty shall authorize or permit any foreign power or any international organization to supervise, control, or adjudicate any
matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the United States. Provides that a treaty shall become effective as internal law in the United
States only through the enactment of appropriate legislation by the Congress.
So, no treaty or foreign court can abridge our constitutional rights and be considered legally binding in America. Well holy hell who would want to
actually support our national sovereignty and the constitution? Anybody that believes in the constitution and the freedoms protected by it must be
evil and crazy.
Those are just the ones I picked at random. Please show me the one from your link that you had a problem with. Put the blog summary and the LBoC
summary up. I will be more than happy to discuss it. I'm always open to new points of view.
