Interim definitions
by Jack GrantI am still working on a post that definitively defines the “Amber and Cruelty” theme that I am trying to develop that encompasses all of the aspects, from both the right-wing AND left-wing extremists.
Unfortunately for my efforts, perhaps because I read more right-wing leaning material than that originating from the left-wing, I continually encounter things that I cannot refrain from commenting upon immediately, instead of incorporating them into the long, balanced dissertation that I doubt many, if any, will read in its ultimate entirety.
In this case, the unintentional irony embedded within one weblog and one statement by a school board member both illustrate my meanings in the phrase “Amber and Cruelty” as used here.
The first, from a post on Don Surber’s eponymous weblog, which mainly is composed of a column he wrote for the Daily Mail in recognition of the contribution to humanity by Rosa Parks:
On May 18, 1896, the court handed down Plessy v. Ferguson, which said states could have colored sections under the nonsensical doctrine of “separate but equal.” It was constitutional alchemy.
Only Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented. He was from Kentucky, and he had owned slaves. But he knew that separate meant second-class, not equal.
“But in view of the Constitution, in the eye of the law, there is in this country no superior, dominant, ruling class of citizens,” Justice Harlan wrote in his dissent.
“There is no caste here. Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law. The humblest is the peer of the most powerful.”
It would be another 58 years before the humblest would indeed become the peer of the most powerful, and in that very court.
I have gone back into the archives at Surber’s blog to see if I can extract any specific reasons he supported the nomination of Harriet Miers to the US Supreme Court beyond his statement of “I trust President Bush,” but I have not found anything concrete yet since he doesn’t seem to have categories on his blog (Mr. Surber, if you disagree with my assumptions that follow, please let me know and I will correct the post). Assuming that Surber’s “trust” in the President is that he would nominate someone “in the mold of Thomas and Scalia,” it is safe to say that he is supporting an “originalist” interpretation of the Constitution.
The problem here is that if we do indeed take the “frozen in amber” interpretation advocated by the “originalists” such as Scalia (and, nominally at least, those who support overturning Roe v. Wade and a number of other ostensibly liberal Supreme Court decisions that offend their so-called conservative sensibilities), then the decision in Plessy v. Ferguson was correct. The Consitution as originally written and originally intended by the founders did indeed recognize race when they wrote into it the “three-fifths clause” regarding “other persons,” thereby officially recognizing that slaves were worth less than regular people.
Who were the slaves?
It was universally recognized at the time of writing (which is what the originalists insist upon) that slaves were “negros.”
Therefore, despite what Justice Harlan wrote, there was indeed in the Constitution, within the minds of the Founders, a color-aware caste system put in place, that knew and tolerated classes among citizens.
Although the thirteenth amendment outlawed slavery, it did not explicitly change the “original intentions” of the founders regarding “other persons” according to the frozen in amber interpretation of the “originalists.”
Yet…
Surber writes as if the dissent of Justice Harlan is the correct interpretation.
According to a strict reading of the “originalist” creed, it is not correct.
So, we are left to wonder.
Further interpretation is left as an exercise for the reader.
The second unintentional irony comes from a statement made by a member of school board in Pennsylvania who denied advocating that creationism be taught with evolution in high school biology classes.
He claimed he “misspoke” in an interview. To state it explicitly, William Buckingham is changing his story:
Buckingham, who led the board’s curriculum committee when it approved the policy a year ago, confirmed Thursday that he said during a June 2004 board meeting that the biology textbook is “laced with Darwinism.” The clip that was shown later in the day came from an interview that he gave to a news crew from WPMT-TV in York later in the month.
“It’s OK to teach Darwin,” he said in the interview, “but you have to balance it with something else, such as creationism.”
‘Deer in the headlights’
Asked to explain by a lawyer for the plaintiffs, Buckingham said he felt “ambushed” by the camera crew as he walked across a parking lot to his car and that he had been consciously trying to avoid mentioning creationism.
“I had it in my mind to make sure not to talk about creationism. I had it on my mind. I was like a deer in the headlights. I misspoke,” he told U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III, who is presiding over the non-jury trial.
Why would you have to consciously try to not talk about creationism unless it is uppermost on your mind as the fundamental reason behind your actions?
Then we are presented with this gem:
When Stephen Harvey, the plaintiffs’ lawyer, noted the similarity of the newspaper reports to what he told the TV crew, Buckingham replied, “That doesn’t mean it’s accurate.”
So, what he said and what was repeated verbatim was not “accurate.”
I cannot say anything that would add to the weight of evidence needed for an intelligent mind, regardless of any belief in “intelligent design” if that mind were indeed truly open.
Do your own math.
This is at the least an example of the “frozen in amber” portion of why I decry the attitude of “Amber and Cruelty” …
Trackback URL (right-click and choose the copy shortcut/link option)
