If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it I’d be okay.
But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And to that extent as radical as people tried to characterize the Warren court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren court interpreted it in the same way that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you, it says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted. One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.
I wholeheartedly agree with his statement you posted. Has the Constitution addressed equal pay for equal work? No, it hasn't in my opinion. Has it addressed all Americans' right to a decent standard of health care? No, it hasn't.
No, he didn't. He did not say they should have. What he said was: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
Pages
that is not the interview it was from 2001
yes that is it!
http://theusconstitution.org/blog.history/
---
Do you believe redistribution of wealth is a good policy?
---
Does anyone believe this isn't nothing more than a talking point?
The wealthy will still be wealthy, I will not suddenly become wealthy, no wealth is going anywhere.
================================
Reward Republicans for 8 years of failure? No way, No how, No McCain!
I've been searching the internet(s) for more on this.
Sopal
<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />
No, he didn't. He did not say they should have. What he said was: "But the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.
Pages