Look To Right-Wing Think Tanks Rather Than Judges To Interpret The Constitution

[American]

And Joseph Coors an asshole billionaire who created the Heritage Foundation to promote the far right agenda by methods as biased as Moveon's.

What's your point?

"Coors profits funded the Center for Individual Rights (CIR), the law firm notorious for the attack on the University of Michigan's affirmative action programs in the two cases Grutter v Bollinger and Gratz v Bollinger. CIR filed the two U of M cases after successfully striking down affirmative action in the 1996 Hopwood v Texas case. Hopwood was the first anti-affirmative action lawsuit brought in higher education since the 1978 Bakke case, and ushered in the recent decade-long assault on affirmative action in higher education. In 1997, CIR defended California's segregationist Proposition 209 against legal challenges. Prop 209 was Ward Connerly's first anti-affirmative action ballot initiative and caused a sharp drop in underrepresented minority students at the University of California flagship schools, making clear to the nation the unacceptable cost of ending affirmative action.
* William Coors' racism was publicly exposed in a statement he made to black and Mexican-American businessmen in 1984. He told the group that if they thought it was "unfair" that their "ancestors were dragged here in chains against their will…I would urge those of you who feel that way to go back to where your ancestors came from, and you will find out that probably the greatest favor that anybody ever did you was to drag your ancestors over here in chains, and I mean it."

Later in the speech, Coors elaborated on what he saw wrong in Africa: "They lack the intellectual capacity to succeed, and it's taking them down the tubes. You take a country like Rhodesia, where the economy was absolutely booming under white management. Now, black management is in Zimbabwe, and the economy is a disaster, in spite of the fact that there is probably ten times the motivation on the part of the citizens of that country to make it succeed. Lack of intellectual capacity--that has got to be there."
* In December 2001, Joseph Coors gave Ward Connerly $100,000 for his so-called "Racial Privacy Act" (Prop 54), the California ballot initiative that aims to make it illegal for any state institution to collect racial or ethnic data, making it impossible to expose patterns of discrimination.

In January 2002 Joseph Coors, along with John Moores (owner of the San Diego Padres) and Peter Preuss (Republican University of California Regent) co-hosted the kick-off event for Connerly's Racial Privacy Initiative election campaign. By throwing his political weight and money behind Connerly's effort as well as lending his name, Joseph Coors has made clear he is not just a passive supporter of Connerly's attack on civil rights.
* The Coors family gave money to pro-South African apartheid groups.
* When Joseph Coors established the Heritage Foundation in 1974, he chose Roger Pearson, an outspoken anti-Semite and pro-Nazi, as co- editor of the Heritage Foundation publication "Policy Review." Pearson is the author of a racist book called "Race and Civilization," which uses pseudoscience to falsely assert the biological inferiority of black people. Pearson has also edited or co-edited several racist and neo-Nazi magazines, as well as written and organized for the far right-wing Northern League in northern Italy.
* Paul Weyrich, far right wing strategist and Heritage Foundation co-founder, has many ties to Nazi collaborators and neo-fascist organizations. In the 1970s, Weyrich and Joseph Coors made appointments and set up political contacts on Capitol Hill for Franz Joseph Strauss, then the Bavarian head of state, who helped émigré Nazi collaborators. The Free Congress Foundation, co-founded by Joseph Coors and Weyrich, became active in eastern European politics after the Cold War. Figuring prominently in this effort was Weyrich's right-hand man, Laszlo Pasztor, a former leader of the pro-Nazi Arrow Cross organization in Hungary, which had collaborated with Hitler's Reich. After serving two years in prison for his Arrow Cross activities, Pasztor found his way to the United States, where he was instrumental in establishing the ethnic-outreach arm of the Republican National Committee.
* Coors money was directly behind the first formal challenge to affirmative action with the filing of the August 1990 Colorado contracting case, Adarand Constructors, Inc. v Skinner by the Mountain States Legal Foundation (MSLF). The MSLF was set up by Joseph Coors, who was the first Chairman of the Board of Directors and provided the initial start-up money of $250,000.
* On August 1, 2003 a lawsuit was filed against Berkeley, California's historic voluntary school desegregation plan, the first of its kind in the nation, established in 1968. This suit was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), another Coors-funded right wing law firm/foundation. The PLF has launched this attack as part of a campaign of lawsuits in California, cynically named "Operation End Bias" in an attempt to use the racist Proposition 209 to re-segregate state and local agencies. They also unsuccessfully attempted to end Seattle, Washington's high school integration plan, losing at the state Supreme Court in June 2003. PLF is also known for weighing in against affirmative action in the two University of Michigan cases at the U.S. Supreme Court level with amicus briefs arguing against the programs.
* During the 1964 Civil Rights Act debate in Congress, William Coors campaigned for the failure of the bill. He called the Coors workforce together on paid company time and urged them to contact their Senators to oppose the passage of the bill, lying and telling them that sixty white employees would lose their jobs to black workers if the bill passed.
* Since 1981, Coors money and ideology has been directing Republican presidents. The Heritage Foundation, founded and funded by Joseph Coors and other far right wing supporters, published "Mandate for Leadership," a set of recommendations to the Reagan administration calling for massive reductions in social programs and big tax cuts for the rich. Within his first year in office, Reagan had implemented two-thirds of the several thousand recommendations. He lauded the Heritage Foundation and cemented its fame and political influence. When Reagan was re-elected in 1984, Heritage published "Mandate for Leadership II," which included recommendations repealing affirmative action policies, reducing the enforcement of voting rights and civil rights laws and lessening legal redress for victims of racist actions. Heritage also wrote policy guidelines for Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.
* Heritage has successfully put forward candidates for policy positions in the government starting with Reagan. The Heritage foundation had substantial input into Gingrich's "Contract with America" and recently successfully installed a distinguished fellow from Heritage into the Bush cabinet -- U.S. Labor Department Secretary Elaine Chao.
* Coors money helped sponsor the landmark public education setback, the Cleveland vouchers case. In June 2002 the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the use of public funds ("school vouchers") to pay for private schools, including religious schools. This effort to weaken public education has been led by the Institute for Justice and annually funded by Coors profits.
* Adolph Coors Sr.'s family friend and lawyer owned Castle Rock, the monumental red-rock knob that overlooked the Coors Brewery property, and lent it to the KKK in the 1920's for cross burnings that could be seen from all over Denver."
Boycott Coors

Moveon.org is a PAC.

 

[Catawba]

Moveon.org is a PAC.

Doesn't change the fact that the Heritage Foundation is a biased hack organization for the far right without credibility.

 

[RightinNYC]

At least I provided sources to back up my opinion. Thanks!

No, you provided links to a few places that criticized some aspects of Heritage. As you probably know, that's not even remotely the same as "proving" that Heritage is any worse (or better) than Moveon. In support of that claim, all you have is your terribly skewed perspective. Since there is once again no point in arguing with you any further, I'll leave you to it.

 

[Catawba]

No, you provided links to a few places that criticized some aspects of Heritage.

And so far you have provided zero evidence to refute them. Thanks!

 

[MattyP]

Robert Yates also mentioned that he agreed with the three-fifths law. Are you suggesting that we go back to that. and this was all said before the constitution was ratified. So here is how the constitution works, you have the legislative branch, which creates laws; the Executive branch, which enacts the laws; and the Judicial branch, which interpets the law. That is how the constitution works.

Health care legislation is not for the consitution.

 

[Harshaw]

Robert Yates also mentioned that he agreed with the three-fifths law. Are you suggesting that we go back to that.

Go back to what? It's still there. It's simply meaningless now because all persons are now free, and there are no "all other Persons."

 

[Aegis]

How can this bill NOT be against the constitution??

The congress itself made the health industry unregulatable when it banned people the right to buy over state lines. The constitution specifically states that only inter-state commerce may be regulated by the federal gov't.

Article 1 Section 8: "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

 

[Aegis]

there are no "all other Persons."

Not true, Didn't ya hear that scientists think dolphins should be considered, "non-human persons"

 

[danarhea]

Not true, Didn't ya hear that scientists think dolphins should be considered, "non-human persons"

Dolphin: "I agree with that, and BTW, thanks for all the fish". :mrgreen:

 

[Crunch]

Dolphin: "I agree with that, and BTW, thanks for all the fish". :mrgreen:

Thank you DA. :mrgreen:

 

[Voluntary]

Right Wing Think Tanks = Supreme Court in which it has recently defended abortion and habeas corpus.

I don't agree with all their past actions, especially during FDR, but the Interpreters of the Constitution are very "liberal".

 

[Aegis]

Judicial branch, which interpets the law.

WRONG. The Judicial Branch REVIEWS the law to ensure that it is compatible with the constitution, they are the guardians of the constitution (at least they're supposed to be). I cannot understand how someone opens up interperatation to something so plainly written. Law is objective, it does not discriminate and its meaning is eternal. Of course the advancing of time has lead us to take modern technology into context, such as having "the right to free speech" also be a defence of free expression of thought on the internet. That is extremely different from congress saying the general welfare clause gives them the right to establish the Federal Reserve, or a seperate market of mandated health insurance, despite the fact that the constitution specifically states the sorts of entities the congress CAN establish. It is taking the foundation of all law within our society, and stripping it down to one single clause that, taken into context with the rest of the document, is not nearly as elastic as politicians wish for us to believe.

 

[Aegis]

the constitution specifically states the sorts of entities the congress CAN establish

Adding on: a central monopoly bank and a mandated health insurance market ARE NOT included in this admittedly expansive list.

 

[RightinNYC]

I cannot understand how someone opens up interperatation to something so plainly written. Law is objective, it does not discriminate and its meaning is eternal.

If you think law is plainly written and completely objective, I could use your help in explaining wtf is happening in my fed cts class.

 

[Aegis]

What's happening in your "fed cts class"?

 

[RightinNYC]

What's happening in your "fed cts class"?

Don't know, that's why I'm asking you. :2razz:

(It's a joke about how the law is actually really ****ing complicated, as evidenced by federal courts, which is the worst course in all of law school.)

 

[Harshaw]

It doesn't help when Congress abdicates its duty to legislate and purposely leaves laws vague for the courts to sort out.

 

[Aegis]

Don't know, that's why I'm asking you. :2razz:

(It's a joke about how the law is actually really ****ing complicated, as evidenced by federal courts, which is the worst course in all of law school.)

The constitution is only a couple of pages, its not hard to follow.

 

[akyron]

The constitution is only a couple of pages, its not hard to follow.

Apparently its impossible for congress and the senate to follow.

 

[Groucho]

If it was really easy to figure it out we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. We wouldn't be arguing about it here.

Anyone who claims that they know exactly what the law should always be and that there are no gray areas whatsoever just doesn't understand the law.

 

[American]

If it was really easy to figure it out we wouldn't need a Supreme Court. We wouldn't be arguing about it here.

Anyone who claims that they know exactly what the law should always be and that there are no gray areas whatsoever just doesn't understand the law.

Anyone who claims that the Constitution is open to any willynilly interpretation by the 'living document' crowd, doesn't understand the history of it.

 

[Groucho]

Anyone who claims that the Constitution is open to any willynilly interpretation by the 'living document' crowd, doesn't understand the history of it.

I agree with that as well.

It's not as if there are only the two extremes. It is a gray area.