Originally posted by James Wesley Chester:
I think Walter Williams has found "a place to stand" in his profession. Found a/his niche, if you will. To achieve and sustain status, one must find a position to advance, and defend. It must also be somewhat unique. Walter Williams' niche is that of Constitutional Pragmatist. That's bad. Nor is it intended to be derogatory. It's just opinion. Every commentator has his/her bag.
I think he is thorough.
I often disagree.
I particularly don't like his presentation of his identity to America. But, that too certainly is his prerogative.
I just heard a presentation (speech)... (can't think of her name right now... she was a Black Panther)... (Elaine Brown!)
Anyway, she articulated in perhaps the most striking terms exactly why I have an issue exhalting the Constitution the Williams does... She asked the rhetorical question:
Are there any Jews who have esteemed the "founders" of Nazi Germany and what would you think about them if they did?
Of course, her question was more about the "founders" than the Constitution itself but it follows that if you esteem the "founders" then exhalting the Constitution follows. She was speaking specifically about Jefferson (I believe).
Below is my argument in-principle to Williams' Constitutionalism:
quote:One might quibble over perhaps some exaggerated wording of mind but the principle of the Poisonous Tree is sound legal doctrine which is the hallmark of ethics...
"White Americans must recognize that justice for black people cannot be achieved without radical changes in the structure of our society." - Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.I contend that MLK's statement still holds true today. From a
revolutionary sense, those radical changes have never occurred. Revolutionary meaning fundamental... fundamental change. And, no, simply including African Americans into *the system* does not constitute radical or fundamental change... Revolutionary meaning something of the same essential essence of what
was the idealistic impetus of the American republic in the first place - In Order To Form A More Perfect Union.
Why Fundamental & Radical Change?
Simply put... The Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree!
Adapted from the Legal Principle, The Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree then is the doctrine that something obtained and/or arrived at by an
illegal, unethical, or immoral means developes into something of little legitimate use or worth.
The theory is that the TREE - originally planted and nutured in the soiled history of illegitimacy - is poisoned and thus taints what grows from it. Hence, the necessity for radical change to uproot and cast aside the spoiled fruits and roots of the whole rotten tree!