| |
 |
 |
|
Chicago Tribune, Tuesday, March 30, 1999
Section 1 17
Commentary
If America Had only one
mixed race
By Geoffrey R. Stone
The Supreme Court of the
United States:
John Powers and Mary Smith
vs, director,
United States Agency for
Mandatory Miscegenation
June 21,2101 |
|
|
MAIN
UPDATES
Nordic Fest 2008
I.S.D. Memorial Concert 2005
Nordic Fest 2005
Order Your IKA HANDBOOKS
(Members Only)
Doctrinal Statements
New Flyer: Fag Marriages!!
FEATURE FLYER:
The TRUE Thanksgiving Holiday
November Criminals
Kludd Komment Korner
America, have we got away from God?
IKA Links
20 reasons
ZOG Raid
IKA Application
Klan History
You may be an heir
|
|
|
Chief Justice Harper Delivered
the opinion
of the court:
Petitioners John Powers
and Mary Smith seek
to enjoin the enforcement
of the Mandatory
Miscegenation Act of 2100
on the ground that
it violates the U.S. Constitution.
The Act
provides that: No person
who is not genetically
certified as a person of
mixed race may procreate
with another person of
the same race."Mr
Powers and Ms. Smith have
both been genetically
certified as members of
the white race. They
wish to have a child. They
may not do so
without violating the Act
and thereby risking
serious penalty. The Mandatory
Miscegenation
Act was enacted by Congress
after several
years of public debate.
It was hailed by
President Muhammad as "the
most important,
the most fundamental civil
rights legislation
in the history of our nation."
When
the Act was first introduced
in Congress,
its drafters explained
the Act as follows:
"After centuries of
racial strife and
division, after endless
failed efforts to
eliminate racism from our
hearts, our minds
and our social policies,
it is time to bring
us all together and to
end race once and
for all as a divisive social
construct. If
all Americans have only
one race-the mixed
race that is the one true
melting pot of
America-then and only then
will we finally
be 'one nation, indivisible.'
" Petitioners
argue that the Act violates
the constitutional
right of privacy. This
court first fully
embraced the constitutional
right of privacy
in Eisenstadt vs. Baird
(1972), which announced
that the right of privacy
includes the right
of the individual "to
be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion
into matters so fundamentally
affecting a person as the
decision whether
to bear or beget a child."
The following
year, in Roe vs. Wade (1973),
the court held
that the right of privacy
is "broad
enough to encompass a woman's
decision whether
or not to terminate her
pregnancy."
And in Falwell vs. Mississippi
(2006), we
held that the right of
privacy guarantees
the right of homosexual
couples to employ
artificial means of reproduction
to have
children of their own.
Although we have given
broad scope to the right
of reproductive
privacy, we have also recognized
that the
right is not unlimited.
In Middleton vs.
United States (2038), for
example, we upheld
the federal Natural Reproduction
Act, which
banned human cloning. As
the court explained
in Middleton, although
the constitutional
right of reproductive autonomy
is well-established
in our decisions, it is
equally well- established
that the government "may
limit that
right in order to promote
a compelling societal
or governmental interest."
In Middleton,
the court held that the
government has a
"compelling interest
in preventing future
abuses and tragedies arising
out of human
cloning like those that
have become so familiar
over the last 25 years."
The case before
us today poses a particularly
vexing challenge.
It puts into direct and
irreconcilable conflict
the cherished right of
the individual "to
be free from unwarranted
governmental intrusion
into matters so fundamentally
affecting a
person as the decision
whether to bear or
beget a child" and
the nation's profound
interest in finally achieving
racial peace
and harmony. As President
Muhammad noted
when he signed the Mandatory
Miscegenation
Act, our nation has a long
and troubled history
of racism and racial strife.
Slavery led
to Civil War which led
to Jim Crows which
led to segregation which
led to economic
and educational deprivation
and urban isolation.
Civil rights l egislation,
welfare legislation,
voting legislation, affirmative
action policies,
anti-affirmative action
policies, voluntary
resegregation policies,
redistributive policies
and reparations policies
have not solved
the problem. We remain
a nation bitterly
divided along racial lines.
Blacks vote for
blacks; whites vote for
whites. Black live
with blacks; whites live
with whites. There
are once again universities
for whites, although
we proudly proclaim that
this is "voluntary."
Whatever progress we make
quickly turns back
on itself. The Great Society
works, then
it doesn't. Affirmative
action works, then
it doesn't. It is as if
racism has been bred
into our souls, if not
our genes. Congress
has determined to put an
end to this endless
cycle of racism in the
most direct and most
effective way possible:
by creating a nation
of one race-not a race
of whites, or blacks,
or Asians, but a single,
mixed race of Americans."
In one or two or at most
three generations,
we can and will do what
we have failed to
do in almost 500 years-achieve
the truly
"color-blind"
society. If ever
there was a compelling
government of racism
in our nation, once and
for all. Although
we feel for petitioners,
who unquestionably
love one another and wish
nothing more than
to bear a child together,
the interest of
the nation is paramount.
It is through such
sacrifices, not small,
but essential, that
we will finally attain
a society in which
all people are in fact
as well as in declaration
"created equal."
At the dawn of
a new century, this is
the right promise
for the future. We fine
that the Mandatory
Miscegenation Act of 2100
is consistent with
the United States Constitution
and therefore
affirm the decision below.
Right results?
____________________________________________________________
Geoffrey R. Stone is provost
of the University
of Chicago and former dean
of the University's
law school. This is the
first of two dozen
University of Chicago faculty-written
essays
about the future that will
appear on the
University's Millennium
Project home page.
The Project, which starts
Tuesday, was designed
for faculty members to
speculate on changes
that may take placein their
fieids of expertise
over the next century.
Readers will be able
to indicate their agreement
or disagreement
with each article and see
the results of
previous voting. The address
for the web
page is: http://www.uchicago.edu/
Note:
From the Editor of the
IKA
This could be our Future!
My Brothers and
Sisters, What would it
be like to never have
a child of our own race?
What would it be
like to be a one race?
What would it be for
the future of man kind?
Is this the laws
of the Bible? Or is the
the laws of Man?
NO, this is the law of
the Beast! A One world
Government. A One World
Order! A One world
Faith! A One World People!
Dose it say in
the Bible, "Like kind
with like kind"?
These people are putting
this information
out to see what people
will think about it?
I think not. They are putting
this out so
that we will start getting
use to it. This
is all planed for the future
of the world.
We not let our government
know, that will
not put up with it. Each
Race has a RIGHT
to live. Each Race has
a right to be with
it's own kind! Each Race
has the right to
love it's own! Please think
about what has
been said here. Let local
and federal governments
know that we will not be
a one Race, Faith
or Nation!
|
|
|
Help preserve White heritage. Join the IKA
today
IKAHq@kkkk.net
Back to main |
|
|
|
|
