Dan Henninger is one of the best.
Today, he contrasts the moral unambiguity of The Civil Rights Act with the bureaucratic entanglements of Grutter v. Bollinger.
"'The Law School's admissions program bears the hallmarks of a narrowly tailored plan. . . . it must be 'flexible enough to consider all pertinent elements of diversity in light of the particular qualifications of each applicant, and to place them on the same footing for consideration, although not necessarily according them the same weight.'
"Stare at that language and you don't quite know what you're supposed to do. Look at the Rev. King's language on the Mall and you know exactly what you're supposed to do."
I also posted this response to Mr. Henninger's column at the WSJ.com OpinionJournal
The essence of the Civil Rights Act is exactly the same as what was the essence of Prohibition, an attempt to codify in the law what is strictly an issue of morality. The law should do one thing and one thing only, protect individual citizens from the initiation of force. Laws written for any other purpose, including promoting a proper morality, inevitably end with neither morality nor the law being served.
Russ,
I am not an expert on the Civil Rights Act, but I have never considered it "legislated morality." Does it not protect citizens?
I'm no prohibitionist, in fact I would probably legalize all drugs. I just do not see enforcing equal rights as coercive.
Posted by: jk at June 28, 2003 01:51 AMYou ask, "Doesn't it protect citizens?" The answer is no. It actually violates their rights. A proper definition of a "right" would be: A moral priniciple defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context."
Under this definition what the government is doing when it enforces "equal rights" is deprive one of the parties involved in a dispute of his rights, his freedom of action, in favor of another.
Let's take the example of a bigoted restaurant owner who doesn't want to hire black waitresses, or allow black customers into his store. This is clearly immoral, but if we are serious (and I am) about freedom then he MUST have every right to act as he chooses with his property and his business. A proper government has NO right to interfere with his free choices regardless of how immoral they are.
This is why I say that the Civil Rights Act is another instance of legislating morality.
And we are on the logical path from that instance of codifying morality into law as can be seen in this truly dreadful Supreme Court decision. The only person who should EVER have the right to decide who is to attend a law school is the owner of the law school. The government should have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Russell Shurts at June 29, 2003 10:35 AMHere is where my ignorance of its content is gonna get me in trouble. I am blurring it with the '65 Voting Rights Act, but think there are elements of public policy that are guaranteed. I agree with you about private rights.
Posted by: jk at June 29, 2003 11:29 AMThis is what is so frustrating about our government. Even those who supposedly champion a precise reading of the Constitution, rather than a liberal reinterpretation of it, hold that it mandates a "moral" government. This leads to statements like that of Antonin Scalia to the effect that certain private sexual acts must be prohibited by law in order to prevent the disintigration of our civilized and moral society. Poppycock!
This bit of Constitution twisting then leaves the door wide open for an interpretation by Sandra O'Connor that affirmative action is not Constitutionally mandated but is Constitutionally justified and, by peering into her crystal ball, she sets an expiration date on affirmative action measures: 25 years from the date of their vague, subjective, relativistic and indefensible ruling.
I agree with Riza: affirmative action is crap!
Posted by: JohnGalt at July 1, 2003 09:10 AM4775 You can buy viagra from this site :http://www.ed.greatnow.com
Posted by: Viagra at August 8, 2004 01:27 AM