Song Foundation’s Post

Serving Only to Oppress: An Intersectional and Critical Race Analysis of Constitutional Originalism Inflicting Harm  - PDF: https://lnkd.in/gjyHcFSd “[T]imes can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress.” - Justice Anthony Kennedy, Lawrence v. Texas (2003)1 This Note will first focus on a historical analysis of originalist constitutional interpretation, drawing attention to initial disparities in the Constitution incompatible with our current social context. It will discuss modern originalism as a method of perpetuating systemic shortcomings, drawing specific attention to originalist interpretation as a method of oppression against white women and people of color, specifically Black women.2 In analyzing the harm originalism does to those communities, this Note will utilize a Critical Race Theory analysis and intersectional framework concerning the oppression of Black women in Texas through three distinct disparities rooted in originalism: (1) voter disenfranchisement through discriminatory voting restrictions, (2) vote disempowerment through gerrymandering, and (3) restrictions on bodily autonomy through strict abortion laws.  

It's important to remember, when they start to silence our lawmakers for voicing dissent, not anything violent, we are already so far down the fa$ci$t rabbit hole. I would get kicked off for saying what I really want to say...which is exactly why I started my own (somewhat neglected) blog. The good news: we have many things in our favor. We have something they'll never have: each other. We also have an unwavering vision for social justice and equality. We have clarity when it comes to freedom. Don't let them waste your time or distract you. Human rights are NOT up for debate. They have a playbook. They have "the law." They have tools and tricks up their sleeves. So do we. Number 1: Get louder.

NEEDED CIVIL RIGHTS REFORM "The only hope for a diverse nation is a regime of colorblind equality." by Christopher F. Rufo Article excerpts: "What would this new civil rights agenda look like in practice? First, reformers should outlaw affirmative action and racial preferences of any kind. Both policies are euphemisms for racial discrimination. The next president should rescind Lyndon Johnson’s 1965 Executive Order 11246, which established 'affirmative action' and marked the initial deviation from the standard of colorblind equality. Congress should strengthen this principle by amending the language of the Civil Rights Act to make indisputably clear that the law will not permit state-sanctioned discrimination toward any racial group, whether in the minority or the majority." "Second, reformers must eliminate the 'disparate impact' provisions in the Civil Rights Act of 1991 and overturn Griggs v. Duke Power Co., both of which have entrenched the doctrine that disparate group outcomes are de facto evidence of racial discrimination. This is a preposterous standard: a system of equal rights necessarily means unequal outcomes, as different groups have different preferences, talents, and capacities. Under a just system, the criterion for assessing biased treatment would not be disparate outcomes but specific, concrete discrimination, driven by animus. Much as libel law requires actual malice, anti-discrimination law should require proof that an individual or institution sought to discriminate. The change in standard would have an immediate effect, reducing the number of frivolous lawsuits and changing the incentives that have driven institutions toward racialist ideology as a defensive strategy." "Third, legislators should abolish the DEI bureaucracies in all American institutions, which openly discriminate against disfavored racial groups, impose ideological orthodoxies on American citizens, and restrict freedoms of speech and association. In addition, federal legislators should radically reduce the size of the federal departments of civil rights enforcement. Bureaucracies are designed to discover—or, if the supply is low, fabricate—whatever transgression they are tasked with eliminating. While a large civil rights enforcement apparatus may have been necessary to enforce non-discrimination law in the past, it is no longer necessary." "The goal of these reforms is finally to realize a regime of full colorblind equality."

The word for the day (Thursday, April 18, 2024) is: (It is a hyphenated Word) **Anti-racism** - The advocacy for racial equality and anti-racism. - This involves promoting equal rights and justice for all races, and actively working to dismantle racial hierarchies and prejudices. KJJM https://lnkd.in/eckaCMh2

My take on Uttrakhand UCC move - "Beyond re-criminalising and de-legitimising queer relationships, the UCC takes a concerning stride toward the establishment of an Orwellian deep state that implies a pervasive surveillance. Where a metaphorical "big brother", the State in this case, is constantly monitoring, extending its reach even into the bedrooms of ostensibly adult and free individuals. This move is seen as a direct intrusion into the private lives of citizens. While purportedly framed in the name of women's safety, the code may, reinforce traditional norms & power structures that have long subjected women to restrictions, forcing them to lead unfulfilling lives. The proposed law, instead of addressing the root cause of violence against women—the entrenched patriarchal mindset in society and institutions—poses additional hurdles and obstacles. It raises concerns about the State's intrusive role in regulating individuals' lives, especially women, minorities and queers, particularly in sensitive cases where deeply ingrained caste and religious divisions have already destabilised socio-political realities" Link- https://lnkd.in/dWHuv3XF NewsClick.in

📣 Stand Firm, Speak Out! 📣 Reflecting on Neil's powerful message, we are reminded of the critical need to stand firm in our values, even when the odds seem against us. 🌟 Neil challenges us to speak out and make our voices heard. 👉 Imagine if every one of us took a moment to express our values to our representatives. The impact would be monumental! It’s time to reclaim the spaces where decisions are made and ensure our voices shape a just and moral society. 🗣️ Despite challenges, there are signs of hope. Significant strides have been made, like passing state amendments against gay marriage and growing opposition to abortion on demand. These victories show the power of persistent, principled advocacy. ✊ But the urgency is real. The cultural and political landscape is shifting rapidly, and we must act decisively to influence it. Let’s stand together, speak out, and actively participate in shaping a society that honors life, family, and moral integrity. 🌍✨ #StandFirm #SpeakOut #MoralValues #CommunityEngagement #PrincipledAdvocacy #EveryBlackLifeMatters

My latest article on how we took away the wrong lessons from the unprecedented successes of the Civil Rights Movement of the Sixties and Seventies. And how this has contributed to the weakening of minority rights and Western democracies. https://lnkd.in/e548eeYD

Sixty years ago, LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into law. Today, the activism continues: https://lnkd.in/g2X7wa6s Over a five-year span between 1865 and 1870, following the end of the Civil War, three constitutional amendments were ratified to end slavery (the 13th), make formerly enslaved people U.S. citizens (the 14th) and give all men the right to vote regardless of “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (the 15th). In the decades that followed, however, and despite provision that “the Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation,” various states and municipalities passed “Jim Crow” laws, abused poll taxes and literacy tests to limit voting and condoned racially motivated violence to enforce segregation and disenfranchise African Americans. Featured CU expert: Ashleigh Lawrence-Sanders, a University of Colorado Boulder assistant professor of African American and U.S. history

In 1872, Susan B. Anthony made history by casting a ballot in the presidential election, a bold act of civil disobedience that thrust her into the center of the suffrage movement’s struggle for women’s rights. However, her action didn’t go unnoticed by the authorities, leading to her arrest and subsequent trial. Anthony’s trial took place in a tumultuous era marked by fervent debates over the role of women in society. Charged with unlawfully voting “without having a lawful right to vote,” Anthony faced a formidable legal battle. Her defense argued that the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause implicitly granted women the right to vote, a daring assertion that challenged the prevailing norms of the time. Despite Anthony’s impassioned plea for justice, the trial was marred by bias and prejudice. The presiding judge, Ward Hunt, instructed the jury to deliver a guilty verdict without allowing them to deliberate. In a move that underscored the systemic discrimination against women, Judge Hunt denied Anthony the opportunity to testify on her behalf. The trial’s outcome was a foregone conclusion, with Anthony found guilty and fined $100 — a sum she defiantly refused to pay. Rather than accepting defeat, Anthony used the trial as a platform to amplify the suffrage movement’s message. She famously declared: “I shall never pay a dollar of your unjust penalty,” signaling her unwavering commitment to the cause. Anthony’s trial served as a rallying cry for women across the nation. Her unwavering resolve in the face of adversity inspired countless others to join the fight for equality. Although she never lived to see the ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment, which granted women the right to vote in 1920, Anthony’s legacy endures as a testament to the power of perseverance and activism. Photo: Anthony, depicted just before her trial in the Daily Graphic, the first American newspaper with daily illustrations. #WomensHistoryMonth #Suffrage #Equality #HSoftheNYCourts #NYSCourts #NYSJudges #NYSLawyers #NYSHistory #NYHistory #NYLegalHistory #LegalHistory #AmericanHistory #History

60 years ago, the Civil Rights Act was signed and passed into law. Although long before my time, I celebrate the courage and sacrifice of the civil rights activists who fought for justice and equality. I also recognize that we have a responsibility to continue the work of those brave men and women to advance diversity, equity and inclusion from the bottom to the top in the workplaces, institutions, and our communities - not just for us today but for future generations. #1964CivilRightsAct