Marvin Gandall writes: >> But that case law, among other things, was used to justify Jim Crow, >> discrimination against women, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during >> WWII, and the hounding and jailing of left-wing dissenters at various times >> during US history. >> >> A written Constitution and the accumulated jurisprudence can't prevent a >> determined government from using its powers to strike at the democratic >> rights of its political opponents and vulnerable minorities - especially as >> such actions are subject to review by judicial authorities who are drawn >> from the same social stratum and share the same ideology as the political >> leadership, and who are not inclined to substitute their own judgment for >> that of the state as to what constitutes a "clear and present danger" to >> public safety or national security. >> >> If we have not seen generalized assaults on the civil liberties of the mass >> of Americans, it is because a relatively stable history and high degree of >> popular consent has rendered this unnecessary. But I don't think it can be >> seriously argued that if the system were ever fundamentally challenged, the >> Supreme Court would throw out First Amendment rights, as it has done before, >> on the basis that an "illegal conspiracy" was intent on a "violent >> overthrow".
I think you are unnecessarily confusing issues. For instance, you may be right that the Supreme Court justices may decide a case based upon prevailing political conditions, but that is a different point than if you want to discuss how a political order should deal with dissent, the case law is an excellent place to start. Furthermore, you are confusing the decisions of the executive and legislative branches (it is a good idea to imprison members of the Communist Party) and the judicial branch (can the government imprison members of the Communist Party if the Constitution provides that Congress shall make no law respecting the freedom of speech and assembly). The case law reflects abstract principles and concrete application that are the product of 200 years of dialectical argument. You can learn a lot from the case law even if you disagree about specific decisions. David Shemano David Shemano
