CDZ A New and Improved Constitution for the USA

[PratchettFan]

Name me one unalienable right.

It's clear you don't grok the definition of "unalienable right". Let's see how you define it before I provide a reply.

Unalienable means it cannot be taken away from you. What do you think it means?

Well, let's take a look at some Thomas Jefferson quotes:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:315

"A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate." --Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774. ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

"Some other natural rights... [have] not yet entered into any declaration of rights." --Thomas Jefferson to John W. Eppes, 1813. ME 13:272

"Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." --Thomas Jefferson to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819.

"Under the law of nature, all men are born free, every one comes into the world with a right to his own person, which includes the liberty of moving and using it at his own will. This is what is called personal liberty, and is given him by the Author of nature, because necessary for his own sustenance." --Thomas Jefferson: Legal Argument, 1770. FE 1:376

"If [God] has made it a law in the nature of man to pursue his own happiness, He has left him free in the choice of place as well as mode, and we may safely call on the whole body of English jurists to produce the map on which nature has traced for each individual the geographical line which she forbids him to cross in pursuit of happiness." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

"The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but is impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of kings or legislators, but under the King of Kings." --Thomas Jefferson to John Manners, 1817. ME 15:124

Very nice. Interesting ideas from a man who owned human beings. Do as I say, not as I do?

Just like you're using a computer to access the internets while you hate the people who produce?

I'll note that Jefferson freed his slaves upon his death. Somehow, I don't see you renouncing the benefits of Capitalism.

I'm sorry. I hate programmers? I wasn't aware of that. Thank you for enlightening me.

Yes, he freed his slaves when they were no longer of any use to him. Very noble. As to capitalism, I don't recall any discussion on that subject with you. How do you know what my position is on it?

 

[BlackSand]

Let me understand. The Justice Department's involvement in this is to instruct the School Board they must apply the same upgrades to the schools on an equal basis?

The Justice Department was called to investigate the Parish School Board when the test scores significantly dropped in the one school district located in the Parish Seat.

They have the authority to review all policies and School Board initiatives for approval until the the investigation is completed. They have the authority to dictate rules to address their concerns.

In regards to the facilities ... There is nothing the Parish School Board did to ensure an equal basis for anyone. The facilities in the one District were never financed by the Parish School Board and the District was not reimbursed when the other Districts were upgraded.

Edit:
Additionally if you can follow the arguments ... The one school district that privately financed their athletic facilities and was never reimbursed ... And basically paid the bulk share for the upgrades to the other districts through their taxes. They are the community in the Parish that provides a greater share of revenue than the Parish Seat and the other two Districts combined.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

If you want battle over specifics ... I can discuss three of many issues to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Justice Department still oversees some (I am not qualified to indicate whether or not it is all or how many if not) Louisiana Public School Boards. Public School Boards are designated as Parish wide. Each Parish is divided into school districts. The Parish I will be talking about has four Districts within one Parish.

The main school district is in the Parish seat which is solidly control by Democrat representatives in all levels from the Parish School Board to the Mayor's Office. The other three Districts are centered in the outlying communities ranging from 18-25 away.

Over the past 10 years ... The white citizens who lived in the Parish Seat started moving out to the surrounding communities to escape the Democrat controlled city and what they felt were destructive policies. This out-migration resulted in a catastrophic drop in Public School scores within the Parish Seat. The Justice Department was asked to investigate.

First Issue ... Parish-Wide Student Mobility

Since the test scores were directly tied to the exodus if white children ... Rules were put in place to stop the flow. Minority students were subsequently allowed to attend any school of their choice within the Parish and at the appropriate grade level. The Parish provides transportation for these students and minorities take advantage of this opportunity.

White students whose parents move to another District within the Parish are not allowed to transfer schools when they do. Transportation is not provided for white students whose parents chose to relocate within the Parish even though they are required to attend school as much as 28 miles away.

I have no problem with the first part. The second part is wrong and infringes upon the rights of the white students ... And without even the slightest attempt to accommodate the required compliance of white students. The Justice Department has no right to make white children continue to attend failing schools for no other reason than to prop up their scores.

Second Issue ... Minority Teacher Initiative

I will refer to it as an initiative because they won't assign a specific number thus qualifying it as a quota.

There is a gross disparity in regards to African American students and African American teachers. There is also a disparity in regards to African American teachers and the fact they are primarily employed in the failing schools. Overall there are far more white teachers in the outlying schools.

To increase the number of African American teachers in the Parish as a whole, an initiative was started to recruit these minorities. Recruiting includes traveling to Universities in neighboring states or further and attracting minority graduates. The employment requirements in regards to scores on the National Teacher's Exam are lower for minority teachers. To encourage minority teachers to apply ... Signing bonuses are rewarded once they agree to work for the Parish.

White teachers are not recruited in the same manner. Equal bonuses are not offered to new white teachers. White certified teachers with higher scores who live in the community are not recruited until the School Board runs out of other options. White teachers are frequently relocated to the failing school districts as the failing teachers are spread out across the Parish. Minority teachers are not assigned to the failing schools unless there are no other options.

The first part ... I don't really have a problem with (except for the NTE scores). The second part is discriminatory in every way, shape and form ... And fails to protect the rights of the teachers involved.

Third Issue ... Artificial Turf
(included to demonstrate the absolute pettiness of the policies)

While things were moving around, the population swelled particularly in a majority white District (85% which is particularly high in this region). The school facilities recognized a 100% enrollment increase in 5 years. Local and community taxes supported expansion that was eventually approved by the Justice Department ... But fell short of meeting what the community was satisfied with in regards to athletics facilities.

The school district (without any support from the Parish School Board) aggressively started a campaign to raise money through private donations and upgrade their facilities. They were successful in doing so. The stadium was upgraded. Premium equipment in a college class weight room and training center were put in. Everything was brought up to desired standards including artificial turf on the football field with private donations collected within the community.

This flew all in the face of the two minority (classification only because minorities are not a minority there) controlled school districts who were upset that the one district had far better facilities.

Once it was brought to the attention of the Justice Department officials investigating the School Board ... They instructed the board they would have upgrade the other districts to the same standards using Parish School Board funding from Parish taxes (the vast majority of which comes from the community that privately financed their own upgrades). The School District that did the initial upgrade was never reimbursed by the Parish School Board for the upgrades they made.

....

The instances above are not the only issues, just a broad representation of how far the Justice Department has taken it liberty with the law. It is particularly interesting that the measures enacted ... Seem more to punish some people and reward others.

.

And the whole mess could be fixed by a new constitution allowing the federal government no authority of any kind over the local schools. The Founders certainly intended the original constitution to serve that purpose, but that was overridden by opportunistic politicians. It is that kind of abuse and misinterpretation of constitutional intent that prompted this discussion in the first place.

 

[BlackSand]

And the whole mess could be fixed by a new constitution allowing the federal government no authority of any kind over the local schools. The Founders certainly intended the original constitution to serve that purpose, but that was overridden by opportunistic politicians. It is that kind of abuse and misinterpretation of constitutional intent that prompted this discussion in the first place.

I am not ready to suggest that the Federal government didn't play a crucial role in assisting with desegregation during the 60's.

I am willing to suggest that the whole issue has been bastardized into an utter mess wrought with corruption and abuse of power at the Federal level.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

And the whole mess could be fixed by a new constitution allowing the federal government no authority of any kind over the local schools. The Founders certainly intended the original constitution to serve that purpose, but that was overridden by opportunistic politicians. It is that kind of abuse and misinterpretation of constitutional intent that prompted this discussion in the first place.

I am not ready to suggest that the Federal government didn't play a crucial role in assisting with desegregation during the 60's.

I am willing to suggest that the whole issue has been bastardized into an utter mess wrought with corruption and abuse of power at the Federal level.
.

I agree that it did, BUT.....desegregation happened a lot of places long before the federal government got involved. And had we made the cultural argument for it and let people choose to do the right thing more, we might have had less angry attitudes about it with much less residual resentment. Who knows?

I do think affirmative action laws were initially warranted in many cases as many people would have been unjustly locked out of the American dream without them. BUT.....once that war was won and people could see that the world didn't end if minority groups worked side by side with them, the federal government and social opportunists should have stopped fighting it.

By continuing it, the government created the impression that those same good people who happened to be minorities were inferior and could get those jobs not because they were qualified for them, but because the business had to have a "token" according to law. Thus the government itself perpetuated subtle racism in the image of black people as not being as smart or capable or able as others. And that is so unfair to so many of those so accused.

And the idea that black people were entitled to a job because they were black also created a new entitlement mentality that has not served many people well.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Pratchet and Boedicca's comments about TJ freeing slaves are inaccurate.

Boe, J only freed his five children by Sally H. He could not free Sally, because she was in the estate of her white half-sister, J's wife, and upon her death, Sally became the property of her white half-niece, the wife's daughter.

Prat, you have no idea at all about their worth to J and as to why he freed some and not others.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Please show us lots of examples of where "desegregation happened a lot of places long before the federal government got involved". And then show us all the places where it had not happened prior to Emmett Till, and then give us a list of all the deaths from the Civil Rights fight after that.

No one has given any verifiable evidence in this thread that the federal involvement was not necessary any more than anyone has ever given any solid evidence in other threads that slavery was on its peaceful way out.

One, slavery was recognized and protected in the Constitution.

Two, no one has demonstrated that federal enforcement was not needed in ending segregation.

The states have clearly demonstrated they were not competent in ending this cankers on the American society and soul.

 

[Conservative65]

When right wingers talk about changing the constitution, it's always about restricting rights of people they don't like. Minorities, gays, atheists and so on. Some how, the right wing thinks they are "better". They have this fantasy they built everything good in the United States. They freed the slaves and won WWI and WWII. They even know science better than scientists.

When left wingers talk about exercizing freedoms in the Constitution, they tend to find things the Constitution does not address or want to limits things it does to those for which they think people should be able to do.

You mean like gun ownership for everyone, refusal to pay taxes and stealing land rights from the federal government?

Or denying voter's rights, suppression and a constitutional amendment to discriminate?

Are those good examples?

Like social welfare handouts. That would be just one example.

 

[dcraelin]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

 

[dblack]

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

Indeed.
Jefferson did us no favors with his love of flowery language.

 

[BlackSand]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me understand. The Justice Department's involvement in this is to instruct the School Board they must apply the same upgrades to the schools on an equal basis?

The Justice Department was called to investigate the Parish School Board when the test scores significantly dropped in the one school district located in the Parish Seat.

They have the authority to review all policies and School Board initiatives for approval until the the investigation is completed. They have the authority to dictate rules to address their concerns.

In regards to the facilities ... There is nothing the Parish School Board did to ensure an equal basis for anyone. The facilities in the one District were never financed by the Parish School Board and the District was not reimbursed when the other Districts were upgraded.

Edit:
Additionally if you can follow the arguments ... The one school district that privately financed their athletic facilities and was never reimbursed ... And basically paid the bulk share for the upgrades to the other districts through their taxes. They are the community in the Parish that provides a greater share of revenue than the Parish Seat and the other two Districts combined.

.

I'm still trying to figure out the issues here, because it sounds more like local government playing fast and loose with finances. A school district is a government entity. It can't privately finance anything, because it is not private. I don't know what the laws are in Louisiana, so I can only speak to what they are in Virginia. A school district or board can borrow money for a specific project, but that project has to be approved in open hearings. It can't just decide it is going to expend a significant sum of money on a project on a whim. If it does, then it is skirting, if not crossing into, illegal territory.

I don't know who called the Justice Department in. They typically don't come in unless there is a complaint or they are requested to by the state or local government. So that would be my first question. A drop in test scores is not illegal, so they would have no jurisdiction in the matter unless the allegation was made that the drop was the result of illegal actions. If, for example, the district or board were pumping the bulk of its budget into the schools for the affluent at the expense of the other schools, that might well be seen as a violation of law. It would certainly be a violation of Virginia law.

The same thing applies to donations. A major donor can donate a significant amount of money but once it is donated it becomes part of the district funds. The district can't then use the money to turn one school into a palace while the other schools languish. This is probably why public schools systems don't typically get large donations.

So far, what you are describing sounds to me like inept local government failing to follow government accounting standards. The federal government is stepping in to tell them they can't do that. Are you really using that as an example of your rights being trampled on in contrast to being barred from the use of a public park because your skin is too dark?

 

[PratchettFan]

I have pointed out very specific denial of rights done by the states. What exactly are these rights and liberties you claim are currently being denied by the federal government?

If you want battle over specifics ... I can discuss three of many issues to demonstrate what I am talking about.

The Justice Department still oversees some (I am not qualified to indicate whether or not it is all or how many if not) Louisiana Public School Boards. Public School Boards are designated as Parish wide. Each Parish is divided into school districts. The Parish I will be talking about has four Districts within one Parish.

The main school district is in the Parish seat which is solidly control by Democrat representatives in all levels from the Parish School Board to the Mayor's Office. The other three Districts are centered in the outlying communities ranging from 18-25 away.

Over the past 10 years ... The white citizens who lived in the Parish Seat started moving out to the surrounding communities to escape the Democrat controlled city and what they felt were destructive policies. This out-migration resulted in a catastrophic drop in Public School scores within the Parish Seat. The Justice Department was asked to investigate.

First Issue ... Parish-Wide Student Mobility

Since the test scores were directly tied to the exodus if white children ... Rules were put in place to stop the flow. Minority students were subsequently allowed to attend any school of their choice within the Parish and at the appropriate grade level. The Parish provides transportation for these students and minorities take advantage of this opportunity.

White students whose parents move to another District within the Parish are not allowed to transfer schools when they do. Transportation is not provided for white students whose parents chose to relocate within the Parish even though they are required to attend school as much as 28 miles away.

I have no problem with the first part. The second part is wrong and infringes upon the rights of the white students ... And without even the slightest attempt to accommodate the required compliance of white students. The Justice Department has no right to make white children continue to attend failing schools for no other reason than to prop up their scores.

Second Issue ... Minority Teacher Initiative

I will refer to it as an initiative because they won't assign a specific number thus qualifying it as a quota.

There is a gross disparity in regards to African American students and African American teachers. There is also a disparity in regards to African American teachers and the fact they are primarily employed in the failing schools. Overall there are far more white teachers in the outlying schools.

To increase the number of African American teachers in the Parish as a whole, an initiative was started to recruit these minorities. Recruiting includes traveling to Universities in neighboring states or further and attracting minority graduates. The employment requirements in regards to scores on the National Teacher's Exam are lower for minority teachers. To encourage minority teachers to apply ... Signing bonuses are rewarded once they agree to work for the Parish.

White teachers are not recruited in the same manner. Equal bonuses are not offered to new white teachers. White certified teachers with higher scores who live in the community are not recruited until the School Board runs out of other options. White teachers are frequently relocated to the failing school districts as the failing teachers are spread out across the Parish. Minority teachers are not assigned to the failing schools unless there are no other options.

The first part ... I don't really have a problem with (except for the NTE scores). The second part is discriminatory in every way, shape and form ... And fails to protect the rights of the teachers involved.

Third Issue ... Artificial Turf
(included to demonstrate the absolute pettiness of the policies)

While things were moving around, the population swelled particularly in a majority white District (85% which is particularly high in this region). The school facilities recognized a 100% enrollment increase in 5 years. Local and community taxes supported expansion that was eventually approved by the Justice Department ... But fell short of meeting what the community was satisfied with in regards to athletics facilities.

The school district (without any support from the Parish School Board) aggressively started a campaign to raise money through private donations and upgrade their facilities. They were successful in doing so. The stadium was upgraded. Premium equipment in a college class weight room and training center were put in. Everything was brought up to desired standards including artificial turf on the football field with private donations collected within the community.

This flew all in the face of the two minority (classification only because minorities are not a minority there) controlled school districts who were upset that the one district had far better facilities.

Once it was brought to the attention of the Justice Department officials investigating the School Board ... They instructed the board they would have upgrade the other districts to the same standards using Parish School Board funding from Parish taxes (the vast majority of which comes from the community that privately financed their own upgrades). The School District that did the initial upgrade was never reimbursed by the Parish School Board for the upgrades they made.

....

The instances above are not the only issues, just a broad representation of how far the Justice Department has taken it liberty with the law. It is particularly interesting that the measures enacted ... Seem more to punish some people and reward others.

.

And the whole mess could be fixed by a new constitution allowing the federal government no authority of any kind over the local schools. The Founders certainly intended the original constitution to serve that purpose, but that was overridden by opportunistic politicians. It is that kind of abuse and misinterpretation of constitutional intent that prompted this discussion in the first place.

You assume that intervention was bad without even questioning the specifics. That is the problem with placing ideology above practicality.

 

[PratchettFan]

And the whole mess could be fixed by a new constitution allowing the federal government no authority of any kind over the local schools. The Founders certainly intended the original constitution to serve that purpose, but that was overridden by opportunistic politicians. It is that kind of abuse and misinterpretation of constitutional intent that prompted this discussion in the first place.

I am not ready to suggest that the Federal government didn't play a crucial role in assisting with desegregation during the 60's.

I am willing to suggest that the whole issue has been bastardized into an utter mess wrought with corruption and abuse of power at the Federal level.

.

You won't get a dispute from me that a lot of nonsense comes out of the feds. It is run by people and people do stupid things. I don't know it is corruption per se, but certainly people will use what position they might have to bolster their own ego. They will follow the letter of the law rather than apply the law in a reasoned manner based upon the situation. What I do dispute is the notion that state and local governments are any different. I fail to understand why behavior in the federal government is seen as an abuse of power while the exact same behavior in the state is not.

 

[PratchettFan]

Pratchet and Boedicca's comments about TJ freeing slaves are inaccurate.

Boe, J only freed his five children by Sally H. He could not free Sally, because she was in the estate of her white half-sister, J's wife, and upon her death, Sally became the property of her white half-niece, the wife's daughter.

Prat, you have no idea at all about their worth to J and as to why he freed some and not others.

No, I don't know their worth to him. However, I have to take with a grain of salt the lofty statements about the rights of man from someone who owned slaves. We can argue about why he freed some and not others, but that he owned human beings is simple fact. If he actually believed the right to liberty is inalienable and given by God, how did he justify denying that very liberty to others?

It may sound like I am being judgmental, and I suppose I am. But the real point is quoting Jefferson to demonstrate the existence of inalienable rights is of no value.

 

[PratchettFan]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

 

[BlackSand]

Let me understand. The Justice Department's involvement in this is to instruct the School Board they must apply the same upgrades to the schools on an equal basis?

The Justice Department was called to investigate the Parish School Board when the test scores significantly dropped in the one school district located in the Parish Seat.

They have the authority to review all policies and School Board initiatives for approval until the the investigation is completed. They have the authority to dictate rules to address their concerns.

In regards to the facilities ... There is nothing the Parish School Board did to ensure an equal basis for anyone. The facilities in the one District were never financed by the Parish School Board and the District was not reimbursed when the other Districts were upgraded.

Edit:
Additionally if you can follow the arguments ... The one school district that privately financed their athletic facilities and was never reimbursed ... And basically paid the bulk share for the upgrades to the other districts through their taxes. They are the community in the Parish that provides a greater share of revenue than the Parish Seat and the other two Districts combined.

.

I'm still trying to figure out the issues here, because it sounds more like local government playing fast and loose with finances. A school district is a government entity. It can't privately finance anything, because it is not private. I don't know what the laws are in Louisiana, so I can only speak to what they are in Virginia. A school district or board can borrow money for a specific project, but that project has to be approved in open hearings. It can't just decide it is going to expend a significant sum of money on a project on a whim. If it does, then it is skirting, if not crossing into, illegal territory.

I don't know who called the Justice Department in. They typically don't come in unless there is a complaint or they are requested to by the state or local government. So that would be my first question. A drop in test scores is not illegal, so they would have no jurisdiction in the matter unless the allegation was made that the drop was the result of illegal actions. If, for example, the district or board were pumping the bulk of its budget into the schools for the affluent at the expense of the other schools, that might well be seen as a violation of law. It would certainly be a violation of Virginia law.

The same thing applies to donations. A major donor can donate a significant amount of money but once it is donated it becomes part of the district funds. The district can't then use the money to turn one school into a palace while the other schools languish. This is probably why public schools systems don't typically get large donations.

So far, what you are describing sounds to me like inept local government failing to follow government accounting standards. The federal government is stepping in to tell them they can't do that. Are you really using that as an example of your rights being trampled on in contrast to being barred from the use of a public park because your skin is too dark?

That is my point ... I know you are having a hard time understanding it ... And that is because you don't want to understand that the Justice Department is abusing its powers and dictating policies it has no right to dictate.

Keep trying to prove their actions fall within the bounds of their responsibilities ... And you will never understand they are working outside their bounds using race driven policies to discriminate against the citizens.

The individual Districts can approach donors through their booster clubs ... And those funds are never under control if the Parish School Board ... The same as individual schools can have fund raisers for new uniforms or trips to Washington for seniors (or whatever). The only difference is that the school involved raised a pant load of money and upgraded more than most schools do anywhere.

I also indicated that I only included that example to show how absolutely petty the Justice Department was in forcing the Parish to spend extra Parish funds to bring the other schools up to the same level ... With no Parish derived grounds to do so.

Remember ... There is no case for discrimination involved with the any of decisions except how they discriminate against whites. Even in the case of the facilities ... If you refer back to my first point ... Any minority can attend any school within the Parish transportation provided. You cannot say a minority was denied services or rights when the Justice Department ensured the only rights discriminated against were those of white people.

They dictated the white students don't have the right to transfer schools within the Parish regardless whether or not they move out of one District to another ... And must provide their own transportation if they do so. The reason the Justice Department was called is because when the white students left the one School District for another within the same Parish and the test scores fell through the floor ... Some idiot thought that had something to do with discrimination.

.

 

[dblack]

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

Maybe. But it's been the source of much confusion. Perhaps if he envisioned his words being debated two and a half centuries later he might have been more explicit. In my view, the most damaging misapprehension of the word comes from defenders of the intent, who see it as synonymous with "sacrosanct". Too often conservatives take it as a decree that government 'shall not' take away the rights in question, rather than a recognition the we're born with them; that government literally can't take them away (even if they wanted to).

 

[dblack]

Trying to reply with an old "out of date" browser is hell. I t may have been me who someone thought hated programmers...leave the fuck well enough alone.

or make them backward compatable. had to erase post replying to just to get a damn cursor.

I like most of Jefferson's thinking but his use of the word inalienable is confusing. Try just putiting that in a new Constitution, everyone has their inalienable rights....would give us endless litigation.

BTW Jefferson did NOT freee all his slaves. just his black mistress and those he may have fathered.

"Inalienable rights" is a very specific term ... It means that the rights are not the government's to give ... And that we have the rights with or without the government while the Constitution protects them from the government. Inalienable just means it is not yours to give or take away in the case of the rights and the Constitution.

Jefferson wasn't using the word to be flowery with language ... The word itself limits the government in scope and purpose regarding its assumed stance against where those rights originate.

It only really results in a problem when people lose all kinds of logical guidance and start suggesting rights not previously identified and ratified in the Constitution are assumed to be protected by it. Like when of religion freedom is bastardized into freedom from religion ... And if they meant the latter they would have indicated so.

There are mechanisms identified within the Constitution that can be used to change it at any time ... People need to stop assuming it means something it doesn't say and change it if necessary.



.

No. Inalienable means it cannot be taken away or surrendered. That is the definition. Go to Websters and look it up. If I can take it away from you, then it is not inalienable. It's a meaningless word used by propagandists.

Pratchett, regardless of whether you agree with our interpretation, in the interest of understanding what we're saying, you can simply insert "free will" for "inalienable rights", it's (very nearly) the same thing.

 

[PratchettFan]

Let me understand. The Justice Department's involvement in this is to instruct the School Board they must apply the same upgrades to the schools on an equal basis?

The Justice Department was called to investigate the Parish School Board when the test scores significantly dropped in the one school district located in the Parish Seat.

They have the authority to review all policies and School Board initiatives for approval until the the investigation is completed. They have the authority to dictate rules to address their concerns.

In regards to the facilities ... There is nothing the Parish School Board did to ensure an equal basis for anyone. The facilities in the one District were never financed by the Parish School Board and the District was not reimbursed when the other Districts were upgraded.

Edit:
Additionally if you can follow the arguments ... The one school district that privately financed their athletic facilities and was never reimbursed ... And basically paid the bulk share for the upgrades to the other districts through their taxes. They are the community in the Parish that provides a greater share of revenue than the Parish Seat and the other two Districts combined.

.

I'm still trying to figure out the issues here, because it sounds more like local government playing fast and loose with finances. A school district is a government entity. It can't privately finance anything, because it is not private. I don't know what the laws are in Louisiana, so I can only speak to what they are in Virginia. A school district or board can borrow money for a specific project, but that project has to be approved in open hearings. It can't just decide it is going to expend a significant sum of money on a project on a whim. If it does, then it is skirting, if not crossing into, illegal territory.

I don't know who called the Justice Department in. They typically don't come in unless there is a complaint or they are requested to by the state or local government. So that would be my first question. A drop in test scores is not illegal, so they would have no jurisdiction in the matter unless the allegation was made that the drop was the result of illegal actions. If, for example, the district or board were pumping the bulk of its budget into the schools for the affluent at the expense of the other schools, that might well be seen as a violation of law. It would certainly be a violation of Virginia law.

The same thing applies to donations. A major donor can donate a significant amount of money but once it is donated it becomes part of the district funds. The district can't then use the money to turn one school into a palace while the other schools languish. This is probably why public schools systems don't typically get large donations.

So far, what you are describing sounds to me like inept local government failing to follow government accounting standards. The federal government is stepping in to tell them they can't do that. Are you really using that as an example of your rights being trampled on in contrast to being barred from the use of a public park because your skin is too dark?

That is my point ... I know you are having a hard time understanding it ... And that is because you don't want to understand that the Justice Department is abusing its powers and dictating policies it has no right to dictate.

Keep trying to prove their actions fall within the bounds of their responsibilities ... And you will never understand they are working outside their bounds using race driven policies to discriminate against the citizens.

The individual Districts can approach donors through their booster clubs ... And those funds are never under control if the Parish School Board ... The same as individual schools can have fund raisers for new uniforms or trips to Washington for seniors (or whatever). The only difference is that the school involved raised a pant load of money and upgraded more than most schools do anywhere.

I also indicated that I only included that example to show how absolutely petty the Justice Department was in forcing the Parish to spend extra Parish funds to bring the other schools up to the same level ... With no Parish derived grounds to do so.

Remember ... There is no case for discrimination involved with the any of decisions except how they discriminate against whites. Even in the case of the facilities ... If you refer back to my first point ... Any minority can attend any school within the Parish transportation provided. You cannot say a minority was denied services or rights when the Justice Department ensured the only rights discriminated against were those of white people.

They dictated the white students don't have the right to transfer schools within the Parish regardless whether or not they move out of one District to another ... And must provide their own transportation if they do so. The reason the Justice department was called is because when the white students left the one School District and the test scores fell through the floor ... Some idiot thought that had something to do with discrimination.

.

Perhaps a school district means something different there. A district is just a specific geographic area. It's lines on a map. A district not under the control of the school board? What exactly is it? What authority does it have?