<p>* That’s why we have lawyers and judges: contracts are broken, Constitutions are unequally applied. The point is to reactivate those documents so that the inequalities are remedied. We will continue to need that until some utopia moment when humanity has reached perfection.*</p>
<p>You were essentially advocating the view that until we have utopia, the best we can do when injustices like those against Gates take place, is send them to the courts and lawyers. The problem with this is that the injustices to which Gates was subjected have been settled quite long ago. They are in fact what freedom of speech is all about. The injustices ought never have happened without near automatic and universal condemnation. Yet we are treating them as if they are so unsettled that courts and lawyers are needed to inform us of them, and that this is how our system will be until Utopia comes (which, of course, is never).</p>
<p>My view is that we ought not refer to Utopia here in the way you do-- as a way of saying “That’s just the way our system works, and it is the best we can do”. It is to excuse our thoughtlessness in this case. We need nothing like Utopia to know when this most un-American treatment of a citizen has taken place. We only need the Constitution. But, of course, we allegedly have the Constitution, and yet this most fundamental question of free speech is still unanswered, at least in Gates’s case. That is because the horde makes the Constitution into an utter sham. It is made weak by the indiscipline of the majority.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Friend, both the document and system live and die with us. They are not entities, contrary to your implication here. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It is not the breach of the document that is the issue. Humans are fallible and therefore liable to in individual circumstances fall into error. The issue to which I refer here is the massive nationwide insanity currently dominating America wherein a citizen can actually have his rights trampled in broad daylight and the entire country act as if nothing more took place than the passing of a bus. To better understand the absurdity here, try to imagine that the cop, instead of cuffing and arresting Gates, had decided to taze or even shoot him. It is not a far-fetched idea, since if Gates was so unruly that the cop thought himself justified in cuffing him, he may not have had to stretch far to think himself justified in using some harsher, perhaps even lethal force against the man. Now imagine in this case our having the same sort of nationwide conversation concerning who was culpable. In my view the insanity here would be just as obvious as it is today. But I sincerely believe my opinion would leave me the odd man out even in the most obvious of unconstitutional circumstances.</p>
<p>The problem with this is that real evidence is before us. We simply refuse to acknowledge it, though we see it clearly. The description of two black guys with backpacks entered that police report somehow, and it did not enter in the way the cop claims. That much is quite obvious. And it is obvious that the discussion with Whalen and the confrontation with Gates could not have all occurred within 22 seconds. There is dishonor here, racism that is being used against Gates. The cop was simply exploiting ambient racism to add influence to his side of the story. I think he acted likewise in claiming that Gates’s used outdated and stereotypically “angry, inner city black” lingo in confronting the cop.</p>
<p>And it worked! Such is America.</p>
<p>Say what you will, but it is all racism, and nothing but.</p>
<p>No. My statements cannot be interpreted that way, logically. I said that the very fact that we are able to activate safeguards (judges, lawyers, juries, too, often – many of whom Do the Right Thing) prevents the Constitution from becoming “an utter sham.” </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Being weakened =/= being a sham.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And they will continue to be fallible until utopia (never, or in the Greek, “no place.”) The document, the Constitution, exists as the absolute beacon and fixed principle which we are all called on the exercise, not just judges and lawyers. Judges & lawyers exist to enforce those principles, enforcing them as a fallback, a default, not as the primary representatives, of which (I agree) we all represent.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s been about 4 years since anyone on CC has actually succeeded in making me cry. That’s quite an accomplishment. I’m very hurt, and I think justifiably so. My whole life lhas been an attempt to uphold equal opportunity in education, and still is. Yet you believe that 100% of the American population is nothing more than a sham. Thank you. :(</p>
<p>I can tell from the way you write and think that you know the difference between “real evidence” and a subjective viewpoint (you are choosing not to use that knowledge to approach this situation). Your analysis here is positively governed by the latter. I wish you would at least consider that this might be the case.</p>
<p>Just as we need to tune out the few nut bars out there whose world view is contingent upon a need to view one race as inferior to another, so must we tune out the extremists at the other end of the spectrum who need to keep stirring the pot in order to offset their own personal angst.</p>
<p>Strange that we do not see the President or Professor Gates squawking about the reaction of the “unAmerican majority”. They both sat down and talked to the cop. I would think their reactions at this point are a better example of how to approach this incident and its aftermath.</p>
<p>It is not you, and every rational and reasonable person on this thread knows that. Your posts have been enlightened, fair, logical, and rational. Thank you for your contributions. Please don’t cry over anything written by an irrational poster.</p>
<p>spideygirl:</p>
<p>You’re right, of course, but don’t expect the party you’re addressing to see that.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier:</p>
<p>I was watching the news this morning about an Apple store which was broken into and cleaned out in 31 seconds (all display items taken in that time). The criminals were described as “five black men in their 20’s.” Was that description issued by a racist?</p>
<p>Drosselmeier is posting the truth as he sees it. I think that more posters ought to read with an open mind, to understand the experiences that have led to this point of view. </p>
<p>I’m with epiphany, though, in viewing the Constitution as the surest safeguard of our liberty. Drosselmeier is correct that we ought not need to re-litigate rights that have been very clearly established. On the other hand, to assert that the Constitution is a “sham” seems (to me) to be tantamount to resigning oneself to violations of civil rights, when instead those rights ought to be strenuously re-asserted. (Perhaps I am not reading Drosselmeier’s viewpoint accurately enough.) Insisting that the Constitution does safeguard our liberties is (sadly) still a statement of principle, rather than simply a statement of fact–but it is a principle that one can stand upon.</p>
<p>What are Alan Dershowitz and Ronald Dworkin doing?</p>
<p>Of course we have not activated any such “safeguards” at all. The horde, rather than defend the Constitution, is still convinced that Gates is somehow culpable for what happened, though he merely exercised his rights.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Correct. The sham takes place when we lie to ourselves that the Constitution’s “strength”, so-called, protects our rights. This is a total sham, and obviously so when a man who literally must hobble around on a cane gets arrested merely for using his voice to decry dishonor, and America condemns both the victim, and the president who had the correct reaction to the cop’s misdeeds, while supporting the cop who trounced their “precious” piece of toilet paper. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, we just ought not be failing on these sorts of issues. And America ought to have been up in arms about this in favor of Gates and in favor of Obama. Instead, it condemned both men. And we know blooming well why that is.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t believe you are a sham, Epiph, though I think your beliefs here, while noble, are false. The problem is, there are too few of you. The country is infested with Real Americans instead.</p>
<p>It is merely a piece of paper, Quant. That is all. It lives or dies based on our defense, which as Gates further proves, does not exist to any extent that should give a free thinking black American any comfort at all.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assert the rights, and not because of the Constitution. I assert them because of human nature. My claim against the Constitution represents no resignation of natural rights. Instead, it is a declaration of the failure of the singular power that should have given the Constitution its value. What America did to Skip Gates in upholding the infringement of his rights rather than universally condemning it, is the modern equivalent to what America did to slaves, all while claiming the Constitution was the “Great Protector” of American freedom. It is not, and obviously not. Crowley became a hero, received a visit to the White House, and drank a nice cold one because he trashed the document. Obviously it means nothing.</p>
<p><a href=“Perhaps%20I%20am%20not%20reading%20Drosselmeier’s%20viewpoint%20accurately%20enough.”>quote</a> Insisting that the Constitution does safeguard our liberties is (sadly) still a statement of principle, rather than simply a statement of fact–but it is a principle that one can stand upon.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Gates obviously can’t. And neither can I. I want you to understand here that my position has little to do with moot points of conflict between citizens. It has to do with America’s centuries-long practice of infringing upon the indisputable rights of people, especially black people. Crowley was actually exploiting this practice when he lied in his report, deliberately mentioning two black guys and I think falsely ascribing ghetto language to Gates, because he knew it would have exactly the effect on whites that it ended up having. It was indeed stupid of Crowley to actually cuff and arrest the man. But when the president stated the obvious, white people poured out of the woodwork to condemn not the destroyer of Gate’s rights, but the man who told the truth about it. </p>
<p>Well of course you would think this. There is nothing novel and charitable here. A black guy gets his rights denied, and rather than advocate on his behalf you instead recommend he should have a beer with the person who harmed him, leaving the infraction in its fullest force.</p>
<p>I suspect a large number of “reasonable Americans” think likewise. Gates is aware of them. And with the loud condemnation they gave to Obama, you can be assured the president is also aware of them. It all means one thing: Gates never had a chance to have his infringement addressed by your “blessed organs of justice”. You people would at best ignore him, and very likely condemn him for not “moving on”.</p>
<p>There was nothing honorable taking place when those three men met at the White House. Obama called the meeting to get past the issue as quickly as possible. He knew Real Americans would vent their hatred even more than they now do, and that their hatred would stick were Gates to have pursued the issue. Gates also knew it, which is why to this day he is silent about it. And Crowley knew it, which is why he exploited it in his police report.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, I emphatically agree that the Constitution does not grant rights; we have them already, as human beings. But in the U.S., it is the Constitution that makes rights legally enforceable. Agreed, again emphatically, in this case, the rights are a matter of settled law that should have been followed automatically, so that Professor Gates would have no need to re-litigate settled issues. Agreed again, that the Constitution clearly cannot be self-enforcing–it is a piece of parchment. We the people have to enforce it. </p>
<p>I think I understand at least in part why Professor Gates might possibly not want to pursue the case, even though it is clear-cut. This brings me back to the issue of legal “standing” to file suit in Constitutional cases, which I raised several pages ago. When anyone’s rights are violated, all of our rights are violated. The country recognizes this issue in criminal cases (i.e, the State is the plaintiff). Why not here? And what are Professors Dershowitz and Dworkin doing, if not commenting on/taking this case?</p>
<p>Of course this fact is useless if the lion’s share of the nation’s power refuses to enforce the protection of these rights. And yet this has generally been the case for blacks since we have been here in the Cursed Land. I acknowledge a remarkable improvement in our absolute position since, say, 1787. But when I observe our position relative to everyone else I see the effects of America’s historic and ongoing infringements still exist as much as ever. I think many so-called Americans, even black ones, have grown so used to this state of things they have little imagination for anything else. Well, I have children, and hope one day to have grandchildren. I want them to live in a land where there is no question that they belong, and where it therefore will not occur to law enforcement to exploit racism against them as Crowley did against Gates, all sanctioned vigorously by the population of the United States, and tacitly by a Constitution that is silent because of this barbaric population. I will casually accept nothing less than my desire here, and I will never easily accept it in pieces. Indeed, until it exists in fullness, in the precise way it exists for everyone else, I will condemn it all as the sham it truly is. What use do I serve here? I am sure I do not know. I know I tell the truth, and therefore I assume there is something useful in it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite right. But for some reason Gates was condemned when he relied on the protections of the Blessed Document, and Obama was condemned when he pointed out the stupidity of infringing upon the rights enumerated in that Document. Both were exactly right in their positions, and yet America generally condemned both. Of course I know exactly why America condemned them, and so does Crowley. It makes no sense for me to trust in and extol the greatness of a document that must be protected by people who have a deep rooted and general hatred for folks like me. I tell you there are millions of blacks who understand the foolishness of honoring and trusting in America in this way. Had we seen America rise up and defend its Constitution on Gate’s behalf, it would have been striking evidence that the Constitution is worthy of our trust, that it can protect us. As it is, we see that if will not protect highly credentialed Gates, it will certainly not protect the lowly rest of us, and is therefore nothing more than the same worthless piece of paper that has always tended to ramble on about human rights while permitting America to reduce us to animals.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Because the people are rank savages who are interested mostly in revenge and restitution, rather than in justice without regard to who is to enjoy it. I think the evidence is clear that Crowley knew he would exploit this savagery when he crafted the archetypal scenario wherein a precious white female damsel in distress depended upon him to defend against the two blacks with backpacks. And he knew he would further exploit it when he claimed Gates was acting like an inner city thug, “yo mamma” and all. Whites, quite on cue, generally dismissed the trampling of Gates’s rights, and in many cases even claimed Gates got what was coming to him. In short, they just wanted the black guy to hang, damn the Constitution.</p>
<p>I think a similar savagery (but not the same one) can and has been in effect in cases involving whites. If the white person somehow establishes himself as an “other”, he becomes nearly as vulnerable to these infringements as blacks. I think there is a large barbaric horde of people purporting to be Americans who think the cops are “their” men and women. They identify with cops and government authority more closely than they do with the ideal of freedom. When they see a police car, or a cop walking with his gun and nightstick, they see comfort and good ol’ American virtue. They tend to be white and Republican, “law and order” types who claim allegiance to the Constitution but who have so little understanding of constitutional rights that they are but a hair’s distance from being rank statists. These are the people who so ardently support Medicare, Social Security, farm subsidies, and other socialist programs that they think it un-American to speak of ending any of them. Yet they scream at rallies against the black socialist president who is not an American citizen and who has taken their country from them, and from whom they want it back. They have no clue about what any of this means, of course, except that taking their country back means putting a white guy in as president. There are whites who are quite opposed to these savages. If these whites find themselves confronted by cops, and they somehow reveal that they are not part of the savage horde, they become quite vulnerable.</p>
<p>I read an article by one such white guy on the OJ Simpson verdict. I have tried now for many years to find it because as I read it, I felt I was reading someone like me. This guy admitted he was probably one of the few whites in America who was pleased with the OJ verdict. He said that he had several times been arrested by cops for minor drug offenses, and that the lies the cops had told against him, the evidence they had planted, had convinced him that blacks were largely telling the truth about lying cops. This white guy had established himself as an “other”, and so he lost the protection of the savages.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think it must be difficult for them to take on something like this, especially since they were not involved. Moreover, perhaps Obama has leaned on them. I think Obama thinks it is in his best interests to keep this issue from coming up again. And I would have to agree. There is no way America can understand the importance of it. Americans would just see it as yet further justification to hate the “socialist” spawn of Darkest Africa.</p>
<p>I was just thinking - if I wasn’t convicted of a crime, such as a murder, would I write a book outlining the details?</p>
<p>Hmmm. No.</p>
<p>But OJ Simpson did. For whatever reason, it possessed him as a good idea to illustrate how he would have committed the crime of murder “if he had done it.” How many of us would go to the trouble to write a tell all, hypothetical, what if book about this horrific crime? </p>
<p>I wasn’t on the jury to convict or not convict this man. I haven’t seen all the “evidence”. None of us have. Most of us have heard pieces of the story. We all have opinions on whether he did it, or didn’t do it - and thinking OJ was innocent or guilty of the crime didn’t necessarily fall along color/race line - not then, and not now. At least where I live, which was on the path of OJ’s slow cruise along the freeway in the Bronco.</p>
<p>OJ’s trial was not about the color of the skin, but the murder of two innocent people, in conjunction with a history of abuse against Nicole, blood and fiber evidence in the Bronco and his home, eyewitness testimony, the fact that he had the same type of murder weapon recently purchased, etc. This is why OJ was brought to trial.</p>
<p>Drosselmeier, I had in mind that Professor Dershowitz ought to be taking a public stand on this case. Has he done that? (The news is slow to reach my area of the country.) Has he not done that in other cases, absent his own personal involvement? He could presumably act as plaintiff’s attorney, if Professor Gates wanted to file a case–would commenting now interfere with that? </p>
<p>Professor Dworkin is one of the pre-eminent jurisprudential minds arguing for the principle of equality (in terms of resources). He is in England now, and therefore somewhat out of the loop–but if you’re going to write a book called Taking Rights Seriously, then shouldn’t you?</p>
<p>The landmark Supreme Court cases that cemented certain rights into practice, from the mid-50’s through the mid-60’s, were all opposed by large numbers of people. I have in mind Brown v. Board of Education in particular. (In the instance of criminal law, I also have in mind Mapp v. Ohio, Gideon v. Wainwright, Massiah v. United States, and Miranda v. Arizona.)</p>
<p>To the extent that Professor Gates might not want the disruption, time-consumption, hassle, expense, and possible danger that a lawsuit might involve, I empathize. This is a problem for all of us; and therefore, I really think that we (the people) should re-examine the issue of “standing” to file, in cases of violations of Constitutional rights.</p>
<p>You don’t see these characterizations as any less depersonalizing, any less caricatures, any less generalizing about an entire group of people whom you have not differentiated as individuals, than what Klan members and their ilk have historically said about blacks? (That they are “rank savages”? That they “all” think alike? That they are lacking, “overall,” in good, and a sense of goodness?) You don’t think this is treating all non-blacks as “the other”? This doesn’t sound to you like a denial of the humanity of an entire group of people, not all of whom you could have met?</p>
<p>I also don’t know how you receive, perceive, filter your information. Maybe it’s just different regions of the country? Different news sources? In my neck of the woods, almost as diverse as NYC, Gates was seen as the one in the right, the police as wrong.</p>