http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/26/AR20050
92601461.html [excerpt]
. . . And an Easy Life With Easy Answers

By Richard Cohen

Tuesday, September 27, 2005; Page A23

For some time now I have been reading "The African-American Odyssey."
It is the textbook assigned to ninth-grade students in Philadelphia,
the first major city in the nation to require a course on African
American history for high school graduation. The book is a
smooth-enough read, nicely illustrated, short on cant and long on
candor that filled in gaps in my knowledge and tells the largely
miserable story of how black people coped with white racism. I wish
John Roberts had read it.

I don't actually know that he hasn't -- I don't actually know much
about him at all -- but every sign suggests he has not.

From the memos
he has written in his various federal capacities, what we see is a
refreshing wit (always a good thing in dour Washington) but no
hesitation when legal ideology collides with monumental historical
wrongs. He knows his law, but does he know his history?

For instance, Roberts is opposed to affirmative action. So am I. But
Roberts was opposed way back when he was a staff lawyer in the Reagan
White House, which was way too early.

It is one thing to argue that
the work of affirmative action is done. It is another thing to argue
that it never should have happened in the first place. The
Philadelphia textbook suggests otherwise.

It is the same with other issues -- gay rights, civil rights,
abortion, church-state separation and, of course, the intimidating
reach of the federal government as it wages its war on terrorism,
terrorists and librarians. There is almost nothing in Roberts's record
or life story to suggest that he has any idea of what it is like to be
the underdog. Nothing about the man suggests he knows what it's like
to have a cop test your reflexes with a billy club or to be faced,
down and out, with a calamitous pregnancy. If he knows such things, if
he feels such things, then certainly none of it came out in his
just-concluded confirmation hearings. [end excerpt]

***************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR
alt.education

The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm

American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm

The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html

[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation
of Church and State in general, listed below]

HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/

[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members
from all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]

***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning.
Words take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts,
which is why "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York
Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed.
963 (1921) (Holmes, J.). Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980
F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992) . . .
****************************************************************

THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************