Princeton Protests: Removing Woodrow Wilson over Segregation Stance?

[Vigilante]

Take down DemocRAT Wilson, and while you're at it add that JAPANOPHOBIC DemocRAT FDR for his camps during WW II!

 

[emilynghiem]

Nope, emily, I won't let you go there now anymore than I have in the past.

There does not have to be a spirit of universal agreement or reconciliation, the latter a wasted word in therapy if ever there was one.

Our system is not going to change for you.

Houston is not going to change for you, and neither are the word and the precinct.

Who said anything has to change for me? JakeStarkey Not so for me any more or less
for you, or any other citizen who all count the same, if we are truly equal as citizens of the US.

I find that when people agree on Constitutional principles, corrections follow THOSE ethical standards.

That's not just for me, I'm only one person.
Consensus means the public reaches agreement on policy.
That's everyone, not just me. I just happen to believe in consensus, and speak up in defense of it that includes ALL people. Consensus is the driving force, but that takes everyone's input
to form a consensus on each point, principle and policy. I can't speak for anyone but myself,
and respect others in their own choice of either representing themselves or whatever person or group they want to do that for them.

How is this about me if I am only 1 in how many million people???
Where did you get that from???

 

[JakeStarkey]

We reach consensus by Constitutional standards, which means Congress legislates, President manages, and SCOTUS opines, and the losers go along until they become the majority.

 

[emilynghiem]

We reach consensus by Constitutional standards, which means Congress legislates, President manages, and SCOTUS opines, and the losers go along until they become the majority.

JakeStarkey
The SCOTUS has not only "opined" but crossed the line into creating legislation.
That is the job of the legislature, but since the legislature was deadlocking due to political parties
not resolving conflicts BEFORE passing laws, then the SCOTUS ended up deciding laws for the public, instead of voiding them and kicking them back to the legislatures to clean up first before passing them as laws!

Sure we have this going on until the 'majority' rules otherwise.

But look at slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was declared first.
The Thirteenth Amendment didn't pass until later by majority rule.
And some states still didn't ratify the later Amendments until only recently.

Does that mean that slavery continues until the laws are passed in writing?

Isn't the first step to AGREE that something is unconstitutional.
Then go through the democratic process of writing and passing laws that REFLECT that AGREEMENT.

The problem here Jake is that we don't agree what is Constitutional or not.
We are stuck at step zero, and can't even get to step one two or three.

So when we use the legislative or judicial branches of govt to push one side or another (instead of resolving conflicts first and AGREEING what laws should be voted on and/or passed) there are conflicts of beliefs, which govt is not supposed to take sides on, but we are pushing on govt to decide for us! That's not separation of church and state, but abusing state to make decisions for the people that govt was never designed to mandate.

* on marriage, one group is pushing the point that denying marriage to any citizen based on orientation is unconstitutional discrimination; while the other group is arguing the govt cannot impose or deny religious beliefs without violating constitutional equality either. Both are right that they are both being wronged.
* on health care, one group pushes the belief that health care is a right that should be protected and promoted by govt, while the other argues again that govt cannot impose on beliefs or individual freedoms without due process to prove a crime was committed that justifies depriving individuals of liberty. both are right, that denying their beliefs would be wrongful.

We would have to write laws that respect BOTH sets of beliefs in order to avoid this constant
arguing that the judiciary is playing politics if they favor one side or the other. Of course that is taking sides!

Both sides have political beliefs that under Constitutional laws should be treated equally.
So it is a catch-22. No govt office or official, whether executive legislative or judicial,
can take sides where beliefs are involved, and not expect to be accused of discrimination by creed.

Because either way, the other side is going to be slighted.
The only Constitutional solutions to a dispute over beliefs is a consensus decision:
either agree on a solution that includes both sides equally, or agree to separate where neither is endorsed
nor denied by govt.

 

[JakeStarkey]

emily, we have been through this before.

Your opinion is nonsense.

Once and if you get the majority, you can do as you please.

In the meantime, the does abide, and you must subside.

Yell all you want, but you will follow the law.

 

[emilynghiem]

emily, we have been through this before.

Your opinion is nonsense.

Once and if you get the majority, you can do as you please.

In the meantime, the does abide, and you must subside.

Yell all you want, but you will follow the law.

Hi JakeStarkey I am asking the laws to be followed.
Just at a higher standard than people who are willing to vote on political beliefs through govt,
well knowing it is going to violate the equal Constitutional beliefs of one side or the other.

I believe in enforcing the Bill of Rights, Fourteenth Amendment, and Code of Ethics for Govt
Service in a way that RESPECTS and PROTECTS equal beliefs, religious political or secular.

I find if conflicts are resolved in advance, laws can be written and passed that don't violate ANYONE's beliefs.

Sorry if you think this is violating laws to resolve such conflicts before writing laws;
whereas I find that not respecting equal creeds is in violation of Constitutional ethics and principles, and creates waste and loss to taxpayers in violation of the Code of Ethics as well.

Sorry we disagree, and hope we can resolve this and get on the same page Constitutionally.
I regard you as a good intentioned reasonable person, so that any disputed point between
us should be able to be resolved by analyzing and identifying the causes and correcting those problems.

Honestly I don't see how respecting the political beliefs of all sides equally
is against Constitutional law, but merely following it in letter and in spirit.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Sigh. The law is being followed, the 14th is being followed, and so forth. Your concept of 'reconciliation' simply is not compatible with how we elect people and create legislation.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sigh. The law is being followed, the 14th is being followed, and so forth. Your concept of 'reconciliation' simply is not compatible with how we elect people and create legislation.

Dear JakeStarkey
I am saying that for issues of BELIEFS, then consensus is necessary to prevent
the abuse of govt to impose on the BELIEFS or CREEDS of citizens.

I am arguing that for these cases, BELIEFS are involved on both sides deserving of equal protection
and consent:
* marriage laws
* health care policies either involving govt or free market
* death penalty, abortion, and policies on termination of life
* also, to many people gun rights, voting rights, immigrant rights are as religious as marriage rights and laws

These are very particular areas where I have found people have beliefs they refuse to let govt dictate for them.
I am NOT making this up on my own, this is shown in people's statements, reactions and even lawsuits.
It is clear people on both sides of these issues have BELIEFS at stake, so out of respect
for religious freedom and equal protection of creeds from discrimination,
it makes sense to work out these policies by consensus before passing laws, so that the public agrees on them and there is NO imposition of beliefs by govt.

Sorry if you and others do not think this is possible, and that is why you object to this as out of the question.

If equal protection of creeds, and equal justice under law is not possible, then we should strike that
law from the books and not even promise it if we can never deliver.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sigh. The law is being followed, the 14th is being followed, and so forth. Your concept of 'reconciliation' simply is not compatible with how we elect people and create legislation.

BTW JakeStarkey I am glad you have faith that the system is working as it should, and will continue being used to correct and reform things in the future.

My concern is that in the meantime,
* people have suffered under slavery that was not protecting people equally
because "consent" was not respected
* people have suffered until the marriage laws were changed
because "consent" was not respected
* people are killed, raped and robbed every day
because "consent" is not respected

We are still teaching that laws are decided by the bigger bully.
So until we teach Consent of the Governed as the basis of social contracts and laws,
we have not yet perfected our Democratic Process that is SUPPOSED
to protect the rights of all people EQUALLY and NOT Deprive any person of
equal rights freedoms security or protection without DUE PROCESS OF LAW.

We aren't fully following the laws, and that's why we have to go back and fight for corrections
AFTER the fact

AFTER people have been enslaved for centuries before we abolish that
AFTER people are raped or robbed
AFTER people are denied rights or freedoms

Why not get on the side of prevention and proactive democracy
instead of correcting problems AFTER the fact?

We can never restore a person's equal rights after they are raped or murdered.

If people are truly going to enjoy equal protection of the laws
that ultimately means working toward PREVENTION Of any violation to begin with.
So people can be equal if nobody gets their rights violated at all.

So that is the level of equality I believe we are supposed to achieve.

You are talking about what we face right now.
I am talking about doing even better in the future by starting in the present.

Raising the standard by free choice, by education and awareness of how
conflicts resolution and healing relations can change the decision making dynamics.

And then letting public policy and govt reform follow from the change in people's perception
of what is our true potential, and what equal justice under law really looks like.

This isn't it, sorry JakeStarkey. Our govt and democratic process isn't fully evolved yet.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about today, and, yes, the law is working.

Get a majority and legislate.

 

[emilynghiem]

We are talking about today, and, yes, the law is working.

Get a majority and legislate.

That still does not account for the damage done
because people and politicians did not respect equality to begin with.

I agree we have no choice but to use the given process.
But unlike you, I recognize damage has been done by violations
that could have been prevented. You act like this is the cost of doing business.

I am saying it was not fully following Constitutional standards,
and that is why it is costing the taxpayers so much.

I still use the system as you argue as well.
But the difference between you and me is that you do not
expect to hold officials accountable for the unnecessary cost of
damages caused in the meantime, because beliefs and creeds
were not respected equally on both sides of these issues. I do!

 

[Delta4Embassy]

Students want Woodrow Wilson's name removed from Princeton

I get the point being contested by the Princeton students, but don't think the solution is removing people from history books and landmarks that are their legacy.

What are we going to do -- remove Leonardo da Vinci from history books because, at one point, he mistakenly theorized that the penis must have some internal tract connected to the lungs to provide the "breathe" to sustain an erection? Should he be axed for that?

And Jefferson axed for believing that Blacks should be deported back to Africa.
So forget all his other achievements and contributions to human political development.
Is that one point enough to strike the man out, bench him for the rest of eternity, and not include him on the team that helped to build the path to democratic governance?

If half of Congress voted for or against Civil Rights, or the Iraq War (or extending federal govt into health care without first Amending the Constitution)
Are we going to strike down that half of Congress from the history books for being on the wrong side?

WTF Who is going to be left?

If you are going to protest, then why not RESOLVE the conflicts to begin with.
Then you don't need to contest one side or the other if both reach agreement on solutions.
Gee Whiz! What next?

Don't people self-segregate if they can anyway? Opposing segregation, from your home surrounded by your own ethniciticy, is hypocritical.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We are talking about today, and, yes, the law is working.

Get a majority and legislate.

That still does not account for the damage done
because people and politicians did not respect equality to begin with.

I agree we have no choice but to use the given process.
But unlike you, I recognize damage has been done by violations
that could have been prevented. You act like this is the cost of doing business.

I am saying it was not fully following Constitutional standards,
and that is why it is costing the taxpayers so much.

I still use the system as you argue as well.
But the difference between you and me is that you do not
expect to hold officials accountable for the unnecessary cost of
damages caused in the meantime, because beliefs and creeds
were not respected equally on both sides of these issues. I do!

Your hold them accountable in elections.

Get a majority and legislate.