3 ms·

A lot of Civil Rights rulings in force in 1905 were overturned in the century since. See my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173737 https

by DenisM 6y ago

A lot of Civil Rights rulings in force in 1905 were overturned in the century since. See my sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173737 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23173737

erichocean 6y ago
There weren't any "Civil Rights" rulings (note capital letters) prior to the mid-1960s, as the legislation and legal system supporting it didn't exist prior to that.[0] Modern "Civil Rights" is a parallel legal system in the US that overrides the former Anglo-derived legal system (though both are still on the books) whenever they conflict. That's why you get people on the Right muttering about "muh Constitution" wondering why Supreme Court rulings that were considered impossible 70 years ago are commonplace today. Civil Rights legislation even overrides the Bill of Rights. It is what is. But it's 100% anachronistic to being talking about Civil Rights rulings in 1905—that's roughly equivalent to discussing Marxist governance in ancient Rome. ---- To those downvoting, explain the right already lost in the 1st Amendment to Civil Rights: the right to be a racist asshole and choose who you associate with. That was 100% legal under any Anglo-derived system (hell, it's literally in the Bill of Rights!), but it's obviously not legal under a Civil Rights regime. Hence, what was once legal is now illegal, "muh Constitution" and "muh Bill of Rights" or not. And why didn't it take an amendment to the Constitution to lose that right? Precisely because Civil Rights established its own legal system and justifications, allowing the Supreme Court to re-interpret previously held rights through the lens of Civil Rights whenever convenient. Boom: no more legislation and laws supporting racist assholes. This is also why things like The Federalist Society and their quote-unquote originalists are so potentially damaging. When they say "originalist", they literally mean the original Anglo-derived legal system (complete with racist assholes) vs. the new Civil Rights-derived legal system. That's what the conflict is about. Nothing I've written here should be remotely controversial. [0] Not strictly true, the rulings started in the mid-1950s with Brown v. Board of Education, and you can find various overrides of the Anglo-derived system even further back.... However, I would argue the legal (as opposed to ethical) basis for earlier decisions is dubious, and didn't actually arrive until the mid-1960s.
- pdonis 6y ago
  > Nothing I've written here should be remotely controversial. I agree it shouldn't be, but apparently it is, given the downvotes you're getting. I've upvoted you to try to compensate a little, for what it's worth.
- Fezzik 6y ago
  Not a downvoter, but you may have missed nearly a century of US history. The first Civil Rights Act (note the capital letters) was enacted in 1866 and there is loads of caselaw prior to the 20th century dealing with Civil Rights. Plessy v. Ferguson, decided in 1896, is one of the many landmark fuckups where the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation, for example. It is cases like this that the prior comment is addressing, I imagine. edit: mild clarity
  - erichocean 6y ago
    > The first Civil Rights Act (note the capital letters) Title Case :P. I stand by the idea that modern "Civil Rights" began in earnest after WW2 and was primarily encoded in legislation in the mid-1960s (though some decisions were earlier—Brown v. Board of Education for example), and that modern Civil Rights (as a broad concept) supersedes the Anglo-derived legal system the US was founded on and replaces it with a different (and at times conflicting) set of principles. Do you actually disagree with any of that? I'm genuinely curious to find someone who thinks that the law didn't fundamentally change in favor of modern Civil Rights after WW2, vs. what came before…
srj 6y ago
The 10th amendment partly exists to award police powers to the states.

by DenisM 6y ago

erichocean 6y ago

There weren't any "Civil Rights" rulings (note capital letters) prior to the mid-1960s, as the legislation and legal system supporting it didn't exist prior to that.[0] Modern "Civil Rights" is a parallel legal system in the US that overrides the former Anglo-derived legal system (though both are still on the books) whenever they conflict. That's why you get people on the Right muttering about "muh Constitution" wondering why Supreme Court rulings that were considered impossible 70 years ago are commonplace today. Civil Rights legislation even overrides the Bill of Rights. It is what is. But it's 100% anachronistic to being talking about Civil Rights rulings in 1905—that's roughly equivalent to discussing Marxist governance in ancient Rome. ---- To those downvoting, explain the right already lost in the 1st Amendment to Civil Rights: the right to be a racist asshole and choose who you associate with. That was 100% legal under any Anglo-derived system (hell, it's literally in the Bill of Rights!), but it's obviously not legal under a Civil Rights regime. Hence, what was once legal is now illegal, "muh Constitution" and "muh Bill of Rights" or not. And why didn't it take an amendment to the Constitution to lose that right? Precisely because Civil Rights established its own legal system and justifications, allowing the Supreme Court to re-interpret previously held rights through the lens of Civil Rights whenever convenient. Boom: no more legislation and laws supporting racist assholes. This is also why things like The Federalist Society and their quote-unquote originalists are so potentially damaging. When they say "originalist", they literally mean the original Anglo-derived legal system (complete with racist assholes) vs. the new Civil Rights-derived legal system. That's what the conflict is about. Nothing I've written here should be remotely controversial. [0] Not strictly true, the rulings started in the mid-1950s with Brown v. Board of Education, and you can find various overrides of the Anglo-derived system even further back.... However, I would argue the legal (as opposed to ethical) basis for earlier decisions is dubious, and didn't actually arrive until the mid-1960s.

pdonis 6y ago
> Nothing I've written here should be remotely controversial. I agree it shouldn't be, but apparently it is, given the downvotes you're getting. I've upvoted you to try to compensate a little, for what it's worth.
Fezzik 6y ago
Not a downvoter, but you may have missed nearly a century of US history. The first Civil Rights Act (note the capital letters) was enacted in 1866 and there is loads of caselaw prior to the 20th century dealing with Civil Rights. Plessy v. Ferguson, decided in 1896, is one of the many landmark fuckups where the Supreme Court upheld racial segregation, for example. It is cases like this that the prior comment is addressing, I imagine. edit: mild clarity
- erichocean 6y ago
  > The first Civil Rights Act (note the capital letters) Title Case :P. I stand by the idea that modern "Civil Rights" began in earnest after WW2 and was primarily encoded in legislation in the mid-1960s (though some decisions were earlier—Brown v. Board of Education for example), and that modern Civil Rights (as a broad concept) supersedes the Anglo-derived legal system the US was founded on and replaces it with a different (and at times conflicting) set of principles. Do you actually disagree with any of that? I'm genuinely curious to find someone who thinks that the law didn't fundamentally change in favor of modern Civil Rights after WW2, vs. what came before…

srj 6y ago

The 10th amendment partly exists to award police powers to the states.