Is Official Colorblindness Unconstitutional?

Posing a question that answers itself — but that contemporary liberals get wrong — Georgetown law professor Nicholas Rosenkranz asked yesterday, “Is Martin Luther King’s Dream Unconstitutional?

Fifty years ago today, Martin Luther King, Jr., spoke these immortal words: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” He would have been mystified, one imagines, by the question presented in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: “Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions.”

 

Say What? (7)

  1. B.B. August 30, 2013 at 12:37 am | | Reply

    [Martin Luther King] would have been mystified, one imagines, by the question presented in Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action: “Whether a state violates the Equal Protection Clause by amending its constitution to prohibit race- and sex-based discrimination or preferential treatment in public-university admissions decisions.”

    Mr. Rosenkranz certainly has an active imagination.

  2. B.B. August 30, 2013 at 12:43 am | | Reply

    Thankfully the commentators at the Volokh Conspiracy are more grounded in reality on the matter of MLK than Mr. Rosenkranz is. Nathan_M’s top-rated comment being a prime example.

  3. CaptDMO August 30, 2013 at 9:07 am | | Reply

    There seems to be some confusion.
    Affirmative action…to do what? Fail to enact a failure to act on failure act?
    Kinda’ like a recent trend in “interpretations” of what MAY, and SHALL, um…imply.

    Whether the minority of minority wethers can weather their interpretation, they’re set to set their relations with “There IS no there there!” behind that witch, which lies upon the lies of what the “interpretation” of is is,
    as in an “interpretation” that assault weapons are easier than voting is, until the minority minority’s prejudiced justice judges “shall not be infringed” IS there for “interpretation” by the Department of Justice.

    But, What does it matter?
    We’ll just have to pass it to see what’s in it, and if you like what you have, you can keep it, if you can keep it.

    Commence with commensurate “Commerce Clause” commandment for commencement comment.

  4. Cobra September 3, 2013 at 10:38 am | | Reply

    The Constitution?

    You mean when Founding Fathers like this were drafting it?

    ” Mr. Charles Pinckney [SC]: If slavery be wrong, it is justified by the example of all the world. He cited the case of Greece, Rome and other ancient states; the sanction given by France, England, Holland, and other modern states. In all ages, one half of mankind have been slaves. If the Southern States were let alone, they will probably of themselves stop importations. He would himself, as a citizen of South Carolina, vote for it. An attempt to take away the right, as proposed, will produce serious objections to the Constitution, which he wished to see adopted.”

    –Cobra

  5. Federale September 3, 2013 at 3:05 pm | | Reply

    News flash, it was never about judging people by the content of their character. It was about misdirecting the white population to think that while black leaders went radical left on all issues, including supporting terrorism and communism, affirmative action, the massive welfare state, reparations, attacks on whites, and otherwise sticking it to whitey.

  6. Cobra September 3, 2013 at 10:22 pm | | Reply

    Yes, Federale. Because Jim Crow adhered dogmatically to the principles of “color blindness.”

    Some of these posts could use a laugh track.

    –Cobra

  7. Hube September 8, 2013 at 10:02 am | | Reply

    The Constitution? You mean when Founding Fathers like this were drafting it?

    More like how the Founders got this put into the Constitution.

Say What?