Group urges southerners to answer census race question with "Confederate Southern American"

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

A group of Confederate rights activists is urging southerners with Confederate ancestors to declare themselves "Confederate Southern Americans" on census forms in order to qualify for national origin protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. The South Carolina-based Southern Legal Resource Center believes that people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

Question 9 of the census form asks respondents to identify their race and lists White, Black/African American/Negro, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Japanese and Korean as options, among others. But it also leaves a box with 19 blank spaces for anyone who wants to write in another race not listed.

"Fill in 'Confed Southern Am.' ... This will put your Confederate nationality on the record. It's just that simple," SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk D. Lyons says.

...

Lyons continues: "We can start the process to give the southern community here in America a voice again, so that our concerns will be heard, and so that we will stop being harassed and persecuted because we are proud of our southern and Confederate ancestry." The group has defended teachers and other activists who have been fired or disciplined in other ways for refusing to remove the Confederate flag from classrooms and other public places.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/03/eye_opener_group_wants_souther.html

[SMR 368]

A group of Confederate rights activists is urging southerners with Confederate ancestors to declare themselves "Confederate Southern Americans" on census forms in order to qualify for national origin protection under the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Federal law makes it illegal to discriminate because of a person's birthplace, ancestry, culture or language. The South Carolina-based Southern Legal Resource Center believes that people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

Question 9 of the census form asks respondents to identify their race and lists White, Black/African American/Negro, American Indian, Native Alaskan, Japanese and Korean as options, among others. But it also leaves a box with 19 blank spaces for anyone who wants to write in another race not listed.

"Fill in 'Confed Southern Am.' ... This will put your Confederate nationality on the record. It's just that simple," SLRC Chief Trial Counsel Kirk D. Lyons says.

...

Lyons continues: "We can start the process to give the southern community here in America a voice again, so that our concerns will be heard, and so that we will stop being harassed and persecuted because we are proud of our southern and Confederate ancestry." The group has defended teachers and other activists who have been fired or disciplined in other ways for refusing to remove the Confederate flag from classrooms and other public places.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/federal-eye/2010/03/eye_opener_group_wants_souther.html

This is ridiculous. But no more ridiculous than most of the PC ####### that gets passed off as legitimate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Hmmm, maybe I should have put Texan as my race/nationality

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

This is ridiculous. But no more ridiculous than most of the PC ####### that gets passed off as legitimate.

I don't know, the following does sound reasonable:

... people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I don't know, the following does sound reasonable:

... people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

It is a bit reasonable, but I also think you would have to show sufficient evidence that you've always considered yourself to be that. You can't just wake up one day and be like "oh, I'm a confederate."

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

... I also think you would have to show sufficient evidence that you've always considered yourself to be that.

Not on a Census form, you don't.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Not on a Census form, you don't.

Well, yeah... I mean beyond that though for those who would seek such 'protections.'

Then it could even be a moot point and nullify the census findings if not enough people could prove that ancestory to gain that type of protection.

All of this is hypothetical to begin with, but still...

[scandal 951]

I don't know, the following does sound reasonable:

... people with ancestors who were citizens of the Confederate States of America should be entitled to ethnic identity and protection since the country no longer exists.

It's not reasonable since the Confederate States of America is not recognized as a country that ever even existed. Secession was not legal, and any fruits of that secession, including the "creation" of a fictional country called CSA, are null and void.

Southern states had no right to secede, and their secession was not legal, and effectively never happened. They were at all times states of the United States, without interruption.

Texas v. White, 1869

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It's not reasonable since the Confederate States of America is not recognized as a country that ever even existed. Secession was not legal, and any fruits of that secession, including the "creation" of a fictional country called CSA, are null and void.

Southern states had no right to secede, and their secession was not legal, and effectively never happened. They were at all times states of the United States, without interruption.

Texas v. White, 1869

It was never illegal either.

It's very erroneous in nature to think that a state cannot secede.

The SCOTUS actually violated their own constitutional authority in Texas vs. White. The surpreme court literally CREATED law with that ruling, which is not within the boundries of their authority. They were under great pressure because of the Civil War in the decision they made, so it's almost an understandable decision, no matter how wrong it was.

There again, if people understand the intent of the United States and her founding, they'd know that secession was actually a very important part of our founding and if any state legislature and her people (key part being her people) wanted to secede from the union in a PEACEFUL manner, then it was their said right to do so.

[Justine+David 218]

I thought the census was asking about actual genetics?

So...if I'm German by genetics but I identify culturally as a Hispanic, I can do that?

[scandal 951]

It was never illegal either.

It's very erroneous in nature to think that a state cannot secede.

The SCOTUS actually violated their own constitutional authority in Texas vs. White. The surpreme court literally CREATED law with that ruling, which is not within the boundries of their authority. They were under great pressure because of the Civil War in the decision they made, so it's almost an understandable decision, no matter how wrong it was.

There again, if people understand the intent of the United States and her founding, they'd know that secession was actually a very important part of our founding and if any state legislature and her people (key part being her people) wanted to secede from the union in a PEACEFUL manner, then it was their said right to do so.

I getcha bud, I getcha.

The world according to the RWN --

Legal supreme court decisions: Those the RWN happens to agree with. E.g. - Gore V.Bush 2000 is legal, because it put Dubya in the White House and stopped the Florida recount. Heck, Dred Scott is a-ok too!

Illegal supreme court decisions: Those the RWN happens not to agree with. E.g. Texas V White, and key New Deal cases like Steward Machine Company v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis. I mean, who the heck are these Supremes to decide what the Constitution actually means? It's MY job to tell them what it means, right?

Thankfully, while you have First Amendment rights to say whatever hooey comes out of your mouth, the law of the land comes from the Court and not from you.

Texas v. White IS settled law. Whatever you want to say about its fairness or justness is nothing more than your opinion. A flatly wrong opinion, if you think that settled law is not actually settled.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I getcha bud, I getcha.

The world according to the RWN --

Legal supreme court decisions: Those the RWN happens to agree with. E.g. - Gore V.Bush 2000 is legal, because it put Dubya in the White House and stopped the Florida recount. Heck, Dred Scott is a-ok too!

Illegal supreme court decisions: Those the RWN happens not to agree with. E.g. Texas V White, and key New Deal cases like Steward Machine Company v. Davis and Helvering v. Davis. I mean, who the heck are these Supremes to decide what the Constitution actually means? It's MY job to tell them what it means, right?

Thankfully, while you have First Amendment rights to say whatever hooey comes out of your mouth, the law of the land comes from the Court and not from you.

Texas v. White IS settled law. Whatever you want to say about its fairness or justness is nothing more than your opinion. A flatly wrong opinion, if you think that settled law is not actually settled.

However, it's not settled because the Supreme Court CANNOT write/create laws. A court makes judgments based upon the law, but a court cannot create law. Just like a court cannot issue punishment based on laws that's not already been on the law books by legislatures.

That's the whole point of our checks and balances system.

There is nothing constitutional or unconstitutional for that matter about a state that wants to secede.

[scandal 951]

However, it's not settled because the Supreme Court CANNOT write/create laws. A court makes judgments based upon the law, but a court cannot create law. Just like a court cannot issue punishment based on laws that's not already been on the law books by legislatures.

That's the whole point of our checks and balances system.

There is nothing constitutional or unconstitutional for that matter about a state that wants to secede.

You're wrong.

In Texas V. White the court was deciding a factual matter of law, the question of the sale and ownership of bonds by the state of Texas during the Civil War.

In order to take up the matter it first needed to establish jurisdiction in the case, which raised the question of whether Texas secession was legal in the first place. To answer that question, the court and Chief Justice Salmon Chase relied upon LAW. They did not "create" law, what they did was interpret existing law. Which law? Nothing less than the Constitution itself, the highest law in the land. From the ruling of the Majority Decision:

the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union." It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?

The words "to form a more perfect union" come from the Constitution, the mouths of the Framers themselves.

The logic of the following sentence interpret the idea of "more perfect union" and determine that they mean indissoluble and perpetual.

On that basis, secession from the United States by a legally admitted state is impossible.

Texas was legally admitted, under the Constitution.

Therefore Texas never seceded, nor did any other Southern state.

You may not like the decision. You may rant and rave and rail against it.

But it was decided. Factually and legally, and based upon interpretation of the Constitution by the majority of Court.

It was law. It is law.

Deal.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

You're wrong.

In Texas V. White the court was deciding a factual matter of law, the question of the sale and ownership of bonds by the state of Texas during the Civil War.

In order to take up the matter it first needed to establish jurisdiction in the case, which raised the question of whether Texas secession was legal in the first place. To answer that question, the court and Chief Justice Salmon Chase relied upon LAW. They did not "create" law, what they did was interpret existing law. Which law? Nothing less than the Constitution itself, the highest law in the land. From the ruling of the Majority Decision:

The words "to form a more perfect union" come from the Constitution, the mouths of the Framers themselves.

The logic of the following sentence interpret the idea of "more perfect union" and determine that they mean indissoluble and perpetual.

On that basis, secession from the United States by a legally admitted state is impossible.

Texas was legally admitted, under the Constitution.

Therefore Texas never seceded, nor did any other Southern state.

You may not like the decision. You may rant and rave and rail against it.

But it was decided. Factually and legally, and based upon interpretation of the Constitution by the majority of Court.

It was law. It is law.

Deal.

Word. We can settle the problem quite easily, we'll be truthful. Confederate Southern American will henceforth be called by the correct term, Criminal Traitor to the United Staes or the much more PC name, Klansman.

[Pooky 3,853]

That's rather like the UK in 2001, when there was a movement to have enough people put down their religion as "Jedi" in order to have it officially recognised as such. They got the 10,000 they needed, but the Government kind of lost its sense of humour.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Pooky