The main thesis is that we have two irreconcilable constitutions, and our country is split over which constitution they subscribe to, the one of 1789 or 1964
amazon.com/dp/B07THQW1R2/…
Meant to stop segregation in the south, it later set precedents into uplifting other groups beyond race (e.g. immigrants, children, gay rights)
Hubert Humphrey said, “If this results in affirmative action, I’ll eat the bill”
In the Congressional debate then, you can see ppl mocking others worried about things that later came to pass
For that issue.
But wasn't so clear for others.
People were always "protected" as individuals, but today they're protected as groups.
Unclear how to determine which groups need extra gov't protection beyond individual rights & in what capacities.
served as a precedent for kind of activist government in the in the years that follow
In short, power moved from congress to courts.
By moving to the courts, activists could get written into law things that were highly unpopular & would never get legislated otherwise.
Shortcut.
This could have only happened based on legal precedent Civil Rights set.
Bypassing congress became an alternative way of conducting politics in the United States
Raegan ran on this platform & won. But he didnt/couldnt overturn it
Instead he called a truce.
Combination of Raegan tax cuts plus social programs plus competing with Russia put us in debt.
He tried to have his cake & eat it too, which worked temporarily, but future generations had to pay for it.
into a party of those who have been helped by the new constitutional developments and the party of those who have been harmed by it."
/FIN.
Interested in hearing responses to Caldwell's ideas