NOT SPAM
Unfortantely, the supreme court rulled against separate but equal and the military was brought in to enforce that. Maybe they have more power in the modern era, with judges legislating from the bench. Nothing punishes a supreme court judge who doesn’t follow the consitution, you are supposed to just trust them…yeah right!
Comment by kane
ME:
Yes, Federal troops were used to enrorce integration when Aransas and Mississippi tried to resist it.
But no respectable conservative will ever mention that today many cities refuse to enforce laws against illegal immigration. In fact, many cities have declared themselves to be havens for illegals. If the president was constitutionalrly required to send troops to the South, why are there no Federal troops in those cities?
This is ammunition to use on the firing line, not a purely philosophical question.
#1 by Elizabeth on 10/07/2006 - 5:59 pm
NOT SPAM
Absolutely, but don’t forget we have a globalist for a President who has lots of rich friends who depend on those illegals for their profit margins.
Tsk! Tsk! All those nasty little things like health insurance and worker’s comp and state labor departments that mandate healthy working conditions and cost money that rich globalists could
put to better use!!!
#2 by kane on 10/07/2006 - 7:30 pm
NOT SPAM
I never made that connection, but will use it in the future. When people say its ridiculous to put troops on the border, then I’ll say it was perfectly “reasonable” to use them to integrate.
#3 by kane on 10/07/2006 - 7:40 pm
NOT SPAM
you see, the left is open to the “flip-flop” charge here. I’m no Bush fan but that is a powerful argument and it dismantled Kerry’s compaing, of whom I’m also no fan.
I’m not open to the flip-flop charge, because I don’t believe the judges were following the constitution. I fail to see how separate but equal violates the constitution.