Well, if by condoning “racial prejudice” you mean he went to an “afro-centric” church, then I suppose you are right. But reminding black people of the historical equality/greatness of Africans, in the face of so much negative news and stereotypes of black Americans, is not a bad thing towards building the spirits of African-Americans.

Now, in terms of Affirmative Action…its simply an administrative way to ensure that racial discrimination is not occurring. Many companies or colleges can’t control the actions of their middle managers, so in order to ensure fairness, they have measures in place to try and make sure that their employment/enrolment matches that of the population at large.

It doesn’t mean giving Black people of inferior intelligence or skills a hand up, it means that if things are equal, and your company/college is not diverse, you give preference to diversity. In most cases, that leans towards Hispanics/Blacks/etc…in some cases that means accepting whites.

People often make hiring decisions based on intangibles such as the vibe they get, or whether they like the person they are talking to…and when it comes to cultural differences, that might give preference to the majority, instead of the minority.

Affirmative action is about leveling the playing field, so that differences in culture don’t exclude people from the business or college world. Sometimes, this is taken too far, and it needs to be stepped back…but the principle, in and of itself, is not a bad one.

Sometimes, this is taken too far, and it needs to be stepped back…but the principle, in and of itself, is not a bad one.

Therein lies the rub. There are many arguments that Afirmative Action is actually holding back minorities by allowing substandard individuals to gain positions that they would not have achieved based on their own merit. At some point the “levelling of the playing field” begins to become too much of a counterbalance, and actually reverses the progress already made.

When you have people getting positions that deal with life and death who are not qualified for the position yet have to be hired to meet quotas, this can become dangerous.

I think that AA was a necessary policy to address the obvious racial and gender discrimination that existed and still exists to a degree in our economy and education system. However, there are arguments to be made that some of the policies are beginning to bear rotten fruit.

The problem is, it is such a hot button issue that rarely do reasonable arguments get heard.

Now, in terms of Affirmative Action…its simply an administrative way to ensure that racial discrimination is not occurring.

No, its an administrative way to ensure that racial discrimination IS occurring.

Yep, I’ve heard that argument Sean. The reason I think it is unwise policy is that (a) it presumes prejudice and (b) it is INSTITUTIONALIZED/systemic racism.

You know as well as I do that fear of lawsuits drives much of the decision-making in business and academia; so, when an admissions or hiring agent is presumed to be racially prejudiced and when some “general” quota is established (but applied very individually) what does a person trying to avoid lawsuit do?

But this is the main thing I hope you’ll see . . . you said,”its simply an administrative way to ensure that racial discrimination is not occurring.” I contend that AA is per se racial discrimination. How can we expect to judge people as individuals if we continue to institutionally judge them by race?

Going forward, as long as you have Affirmative Action, you’ll have suspicion of unqualified recipients of positions; you’ll have resentment of all those persons not selected by gov’t to win. Can’t you appreciate the difference between the prejudice/unfairness that results from the value of liberty and the prejudice/unfairness that results from positive law?

Lastly, I think that the “diversity” argument is hollow . . . how can it not be just a cover for quotas? There WILL be diversity (by which you mean “racial diversity”) as long as admissions etc. are based on merit.

As long as Title VII of the Civil Rights Act is the law, there are going to be hiring quotas. It is unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Sean Braisted:

Ned Williams said in an earlier thread that you don’t need my help (something I already knew, btw) because you don’t get all upset when he disagrees with you. It’s nice to know that there are some people who won’t upbraid Ned Williams for making “arguments” that are supported only by his own opinions,(aside to Ned: this sort of comment, “it is INSTITUTIONALIZED/systemic racism.”–with the all caps thingie doesn’t make it true–it just makes it strident.).

Well, I’m actually on vacation and traveling, so it’s difficult to get online as much I would like–don’t worry, Ned Williams, it’s only for a few more days. I have to go find a place that gives free beer to penniless, non-working ne’er-do-wells. Ta.

Something I’ve been thinking about: when white and black folks talk about race, they tend to suck all of the air out of the room. You’d think that hispanic, asian, and native american folks didn’t exist at all.

All I know is affirmative action is an awful, awful deal for asian students. Espeically in CA, but elsewhere also.

My kids are asian, but culturally caucasian, which is probably the worst of all possible scenarios when we get to the age of searching for admission to higher education.

Slarti,

Rev. Wright talks about Asians and Native Americans in his infamous 9/11 sermon.

Good points slarti; I perceive that Caucasian European settlers bear the brunt of the charges of racism (or at least their racism is perceived to be of the greatest import because they are the ruling majority). Also, Asians and Hispanics didn’t enslave African-Americans.

That being said, Asians (Koreans?) are increasingly accused of racism in the black community, and Jews have long been suspect to the black community, it seems. Sean, what was the gist of Wright’s statements about Asians and Native Americans? Did he call them out or identify them as victims of white oppressors, too?

democommie,
You’re penniless and don’t work? WHAT BUSINESS DO YOU HAVE STATING AN OPINION? Please enjoy your vacation . . . I know I will.

Victims of Government crimes and oppression, yes.

I dunno, if I keep having these “discussions” I’m going to pull out all of my dreads.

The invalid premise in most of the arguments against Affirmative Action in these threads appear to misunderstand the reason Presidents signed the Executive Order. Let’s allow LBJ to explain:

You do not wipe away the scars of centuries by saying: ‘now, you are free to go where you want, do as you desire, and choose the leaders you please.’ You do not take a man who for years has been hobbled by chains, liberate him, bring him to the starting line of a race, saying, ‘you are free to compete with all the others,’ and still justly believe you have been completely fair . . . This is the next and more profound stage of the battle for civil rights. We seek not just freedom but opportunity—not just legal equity but human ability—not just equality as a right and a theory, but equality as a fact and as a result.

As a practical matter, this has little to do with whether or not you yourself, present day White professional/contractor/college applicant have actually ever discriminated against anyone. This is the kindergarten kid’s argument against picking up a piece of paper on the sidewalk when the teacher tells him. “But I didn’t put it there!” It isn’t about punishment, it’s about cleaning the mess. Don’t get caught up in this idea of Affirmative Action being some sort of revenge against White people. Ain’t about that.

Slarti,
Seeing as my kids are half Asian and not at all Caucasian (did I say kids? heh, well kid and a half) I suppose we have that in common. Thing is, when you have colleges on the West Coast nicknamed University of Asians and you have Asian Americans joking about naming their children Stanford and Berkley, I don’t see how your statement holds water.

How are Latinos disadvantaged by Affirmative Action when this is one ethnicity that clearly benefits from Affirmative Action programs? Do we not understand that Affirmative Action is not simply for Black folks only? Do we not understand that White women have always been the greatest beneficiaries of Affirmative Action?

Finally, the absolute most egregious argument, that Affirmative Action is bad (holding back minorities, it was said) because it gives the perception that Black pros are “substandard” and only present because of AA. What bollocks.

I guess if you use Clarence Thomas as an example, then well maybe so. Actually, Thomas did make it through law school and the bar and though he may not be the brightest of legal minds he did put in the work. He is clueless in his suggestion that AA “stamps minorities with a badge of inferiority,” not seeing that his own rapid rise through the GOP ranks stinks of race based promotion. That’s his defense mechanisms at work.

We professionals of color (and White women) who make it through the system understand that. You get in the door, you still have to push through. Once you get to law school there’s no Affirmative Action program for taking tests. Once you get the subcontract there’s no Affirmative Action program for building a wall. The work still has to be done, and you do it well or you go home.

We don’t really give a s*** what anyone else thinks about whether or not we deserve to be there. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.

And I’m not really shedding a tear for the kid who has to go to Harvard instead of Yale because of Affirmative Action. Or maybe that kid should be complaining about his or her spot going to the daughter of an alumni who gave a ton of money to the library.

Wright mentioned the interment of Japanese-Americans during WWII and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. He could also have mentioned the murders of Chinese railroad workers if he’d so desired. He mentioned the shameful treatment of Native Americans in his speech. Yes. But . . .

Why are we still talking about him? Will he, as a topic, be like OJ, where years later he’s still mentioned as if he’s relevant, the scary man who will get you if you don’t say your prayers and eat all your vegetables?

One more ting about the practical matters of hiring and AA. I’ve been in on some hiring decisions and I know that sometimes silly HR people make silly statements to people who don’t get a job. Sometimes these silly statements leave people with the impression that they didn’t get their job because of race. These silly statements should stop

Gandalf Mantooth:

Well said.

As a nation we can act like Turkey does about their dealings with Armenians after WWI (or, more recently, the Kurds) or the Japanese in their refusal to own up to the atrocities committed in China and Korea during WWII. Or, we could be like Germany and try to make some sort of reparations for the excesses of previous generations.

I heard about a book, just out, by a Mr. Blackmon (sp) called “Slavery By Another Name”. It is an examination of the systemic use of oppression and coercion of non-White Americans (and some eastern european immigrants) in the American South in the period between 1864 and 1940. Fascinating topic to discuss, here and elsewhere.

Affirmative Action is, like Title IX, very unpopular with a lot of folks. In my experience, the largest number of people I talk to who are opposed to both programs are White Americans. They dislike the former because of its inherent “reverse discrimination” (their characterization, not mine) and the latter because it drains funds from other more deserving sports programs such as FOOTBALL and MEN’S BASKETBALL (the use of all caps,btw, does not make me right, just more strident!!).

I have heard the stories (apocryphal in virtually every case) about undeserving non-Whites being given jobs that should have gone to Whites. I don’t know about the veracity of those, unverified accounts. I do know that a few years back a couple of guys who are as pink as I am, tried to be “black” to get on the Boston FD–that story is amply documented. I also know that in the last 50+ years I have met a lot of none too bright civil servants, military personnel and public safety officers (plus hundreds–if not thousands–of private sector employees) who were blessed with fair hair and complexions. I think it’s safe to say that intelligence is not a racial attribute; so, I don’t believe ALL White people are stupid because I have met so many of them that are. Conversely, I don’t believe ALL non-Whites to be geniuses just because I’ve worked with a number of very intelligent non-Whites.

I don’t know what the statistics are for who benefits the most from Affirmative Action (the nation as a whole, I would think) but I am aware that it is not a “race based” program.

It is interesting to me that Ned Williams has been able to segue so neatly–from talking about Mr. Obama’s unwillingness to do the “right thing” vis-a-vis the Reverend Wright situation–into a discussion of how Affirmative Action is the wrong thing to do.

Ned Williams:

Yes, even the penniless among us get to take vacations. And while I don’t got no money, I got some friends who are willing to sustain me.

LBJ? He was that guy that was president before I was born, right? The guy who died when I was 3?

In Atlanta, a city with a majority black population and a government comprised almost exclusively of black folks, there is still AA contracting of exclusively “black-owned” businesses.
Why? Because blacks are a minority? Because they are oppressed? Huh?

We people just have so many foibles. And we have always had them. Racial Discrimination is just one of them How we act on them is what matters most. Do we take to murdering people different from us? Or do we take to overcoming our differences? Which would be the better, more ethical and moral path?

GM,
Yes, in “discussions” people sometimes say things you disagree with. And Wright is relevant because Obama’s beliefs are relevant. And as far as it being a “segue” to a discussion about Affirmative Action, it sure is related, if that’s what you mean, democommie.

GM,
I agree with you about any hirers/admissions people lying to a rejected party but to be completely candid, I’m not sure you are in a great position to know what white Americans think about Affirmative Action. And the perception (actually reality) that gov’t is ham handedly discriminating in favor of some Americans over others as a matter of policy is a big factor in my view that it only extends the life of racial division.

Affirmative Action almost always results in quotas; quotas almost always cut against merit; ignoring merit is “unfair,” and two wrongs don’t make a right, especially the farther away you get from the original wrong and if your objective is reconciliation despite past offenses.

And that kindergartener would have a point if he was always picking up the other kids’ trash because the school system had a policy that his racial or gender category (innocently obtained from his parents) had been advantaged.

But you’ve raised a good question about whether Affirmative Action is an albatross for black Americans only and whether that is fair. You’re probably right that blacks–more than any other “suspect class,” have to fend off complaints about Affirmative Action. I don’t think that’s fair (and may reflect racial prejudice), but I also perceive that–at least at this historical juncture, blacks are the class making the claims on it and thereby the class that is perceived to be infringing on others more than any other class. I think that it is only a matter of time (as their percentage of the population increases and as the anti-illegal immigration movement dies down) before hispanics are similarly make similar demands and getting similar “push back.”

I completely disagree with your opinion about Clarence Thomas, but it is interesting to see how convinced you are that he was an Affirmative Action beneficiary. I guess that every black person of his era that has been appointed or selected by Liberal or Democratic administrations was of eminent qualifications?

I didn’t bring up OJ (though you and Obama have), but–like Rev. Wright, his ignominious moment in the spotlight plainly served to bring into the open some serious (am I allowed to use italics for emphasis, democommie?) racial disharmony. I’d love to forget him (them), but that isn’t going to move us forward as a country of different races struggling to get along, is it?

Exador bud, you still miss the point besides it being spelled out here twice now. Please keep up.

The “why” is because of a historical DISADVANTAGE promulgated by the state and federal government (or, as Ned et.al. like to characterise it, “White people.” heh). It has naught to do with how many Black people are living in a city. AA is to redress the effects of historical racial discrimination that the government has decided unfairly excluded or otherwise disadvantaged protected classes. It is not “payback” for oppression.

LBJ? He was that guy that was president before I was born, right? The guy who died when I was 3?

Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it.

Affirmative Action almost always results in quotas; quotas almost always cut against merit; ignoring merit is “unfair,”

That’s not what affirmative action does and it never has been. Statements like that assume that only white men really merit the job. Affirmative action is about winnowing the field down until you have a selection of people, all of whom are reasonably qualified. Then you can see if you have a cross-section of different types of people - races, sexes, national origins, ages, veterans - all the groups traditionally considered as “protected.” Having different peoples provides a wider difference in points of view that results in a competitive advantage to businesses. Diversity pays for itself big time.

Ned,

HA! The hell I’m not! If anyone is in a position to know it’s someone who went to college and law school during the height of the attacks on AA. It is really impossible not to know given that you cannot make it through law school without reading Bakke nor through one of Ansley’s seminars without studying the arguments in depth.

Affirmative Action almost always results in quotas; quotas almost always cut against merit; ignoring merit is “unfair,” and two wrongs don’t make a right, especially the farther away you get from the original wrong and if your objective is reconciliation despite past offenses.

You can’t combat the arguments for Affirmative Action with cliches. Two wrongs make a right every day IF you see one of the two wrongs as a wrong, see? You think it’s “two wrongs,” many people don’t.

You can never ignore merit and trust me it never is ignored. There is a saying one of my old bosses had, “there is no such thing as being ‘more qualified.’” You hear that in discussions about AA all the time, “Well Bob was more qualified than Patel, so, you know . . .” No. Both applicants met the base level of qualifications for the job or spot in grad school. After that, there are all sorts of things that come into play when making the decision. If “merit” were so important, why in the world do you think we do interviews? Merit, then, is apparently very very subjective.

Which opinion about Thomas? That he worked hard to get where he is or that Hatch and the boys clearly wanted to groom him to be an important Black republican? The two are not independent of each other. In terms of Black liberals, I dunno, Thurgood Marshall had a record before being named Justice that ran circles around Thomas’.

Frankly, the only thing talking about Wright ads to the larger conversation about race is that his ministry is the jump off point for this discussion. Seriously, his so called controversial commentary is something you might hear from time to time but is in no way illustrative of any major trend, and there are enough examples of people talking about the pain he expresses that any number of them (from Cornell West to Colin Powell to Skip Gates) could have been the catalyst for discussion. It is only in situations where you have an OJ or Wright “controversy” that some White people feel the need suddenly to engage in a discussion on this topic. So forgetting about Wright is pretty easy as far as I’m concerned.

I really should be working . . . lol

GM,
How much field leveling is needed in Atlanta?

And the jab about gov’t and white people–so now the Black Liberation movement is related to some type of Libertarianism or something? The flesh of the Affirmative Action bite is coming from the hind end of white people, no?

Jim,
Exador’s point (it seems to me) is that there logically has to be an end to the state-sponsored discrimination (assuming the prudence of make-up discrimination in the first place) if we expect to move on.

Jim,
Sure, that’s the intent of Affirmative Action. But like with all kinds of other things in life, the “conservative” (legally speaking) route is to make sure that you set a policy (in this context it is to set and meet a quota of a given class) to avoid litigation.

And that is why I said “ham handed,” because no private or public bureaucrat can omnisciently apply the system of AA.

GM,
You’re assuming that you know the impact of AA on white opinion by reading a legal opinion or its arguments? (And please forgive me for steering clear of Prof. Ansley after having her for “Property”). Similarly, you said, “We don’t really give a s*** what anyone else thinks about whether or not we deserve to be there. Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” Well, certainly you can appreciate that policy–and the ideas manifested in said policy, has an impact on what people think. I guess you think your children will “deserve” a preference over any white kid they may be competing with in the future?

Good point about the “two wrongs” analogy (though cliches aren’t necessarily fallacious just because they’ve become cliche), but I do have trouble with the premise that it is a positive thing for a gov’t to de facto give preference to one class of citizens over another.

GM,
Re. Thomas, nice glib response–you point to Thurgood Marshall in answer to the question of whether every black person nominated/selected by a Democrat or Liberal was eminently qualified.

But what is “clear” to you about Thomas isn’t clear to everyone else, and that reality only highlights the practical problems with a regime of racial preferences.

Gee whiz, I thought,

Now, in terms of Affirmative Action…its simply an administrative way to ensure that racial discrimination is not occurring. Many companies or colleges can’t control the actions of their middle managers, so in order to ensure fairness, they have measures in place to try and make sure that their employment/enrolment matches that of the population at large.

Affirmative action is about leveling the playing field, so that differences in culture don’t exclude people from the business or college world.

But now I’m told that,

AA is to redress the effects of historical racial discrimination that the government has decided unfairly excluded or otherwise disadvantaged protected classes.

Y’all might want to put those goalposts on a truck, for easier moving.

It was a glib statement that received the response it deserved. Pointing out that Black Democrats may have been the beneficiaries of a kind of AA within the party doesn’t exonerate Thomas. You’d have done better to point out how my assertion is incorrect.

There are more people that agree with that view of Thomas, especially legal scholars, than those who do not. I don’t think there is anything wrong with Thomas getting a boost within his party because of his race — his party bloody well needs it even though all their attempts at inclusiveness are for naught.

My kid, if his early performance is any indication, wont need any assistance. ;)Although all scholarship offers will certainly be accepted.

The evidence that White people are “disadvantaged” by AA just isn’t there. It isn’t a zero-sum game, where POC win so Whites therefore lose.

work . . . work . . .

So are we countering the prejudice of the whiteys doing the hiring? Or are we overcoming the historical racism?

Is it both? All whites are racists, due to the historical brainwashing, genetically translated?

Or is it all just bullshit, made possible by crying victimhoded, and playing on white guilt?

I’ll take the latter for a job, Alex.

Ex

the only moving goalposts are in your mind. Those opinions can and do co-exist. They reflect pre-Bakke and post-Bakke views, however both existed in both eras.

No, it was glib because it essentially ignored the question. “Exonerates” for what? For being a recipient of preferential treatment? For taking it?

And, I’d say that the availability of scholarship $ is a zero sum game.

I think, in the interest of making any progress and avoiding talking past one another that we talk through one issue at a time. Here’s my first thesis (actually responding to one of your points):

Good point about the “two wrongs” analogy–not everyone agrees that Affirmative Action is a “wrong,” but I do have trouble with the premise that it is a positive thing for a gov’t to de facto give preference to one class of citizens over another.

Agree or disagree?

Look, whether Clarence Thomas is a Justice that legal historians love is besides the point…he was imminently qualified to do what the Republicans wanted, and that was to be a reliably conservative vote on the Supreme Court. He is one of the most consistent right-leaning judges there is. He may not be the most inquisitive, but he does the job that the people who hired him wanted him to do.

Now, I will say, that with Cabinet positions or the Supreme Court, it does help to have a racial/sex balance so that more people have faith in that institution. Should the need to have their identity reflected? Maybe not…but when old white guys are the ones doing all the deciding, it makes people trust in the system less.

“No, it was glib because it essentially ignored the question. “Exonerates” for what? For being a recipient of preferential treatment? For taking it?”

I reserve the right to ignore any or all rhetorical questions. The “they do it too!” response is another one for the playground.

“And, I’d say that the availability of scholarship $ is a zero sum game.”

Only if your only chance at a college education is at one school with one scholarship. Most students are advised at least to apply to more than one school and to attempt to secure several venues of funding. There’s always State Tech. There are always options. It is not a zero-sum game.

“thing for a gov’t to de facto give preference to one class of citizens over another.”

Your phrasing makes implies assumptions about Affirmative Action with which I disagree, the first being that the program gives an “unfair advantage.” Phrases like “preferential treatment” are the slightly less inaccurate yet still inflammatory version of same. It’s less the government expressing a preference than fulfilling an obligation.

. . . and I reserve the right to completely discount GM’s accusations of being inflammatory.

Affirmative Action is not “giv[ing] preference”? How could I have phrased the question differently or better?

It’s certainly “giving preference,” though it may arguably be worth the cost. So please elaborate on the “obligation” that is being fulfilled and why that is worth the costs of such a policy decision.

Ned Williams:

I’m baaaaack. Too bad all of the souvenir shops were closed.

Gandalf Mantooth:

I don’t know if you’ve looked at this:
http://www.apa.org/pubinfo/affirmaction.html

It supports you (except where it says that “Affirmative Action” has morphed in some ways).

I’ve worked for one of the largest employers in the U.S. and in my time there saw a fair number of non-Whites and women who were hired and promoted for reasons that weren’t readily apparent to me. Of course there were many more White men who suffered the same fate. The majority of the people with whom I worked criticized co-workers and supervisors (out of earshot) as being “one of those…not that I have anything against them-people.” Race/gender were always an issue, not often remarked on, but always an issue.

I don’t like the idea that we, as a nation, are still so hung up on skin hues, gender, sexual orientation, someone’s profession of religion–or the lack of it–and ethnicity. But, it’s a fact of life. We have laws to address those situations where government feels that, left to their own devices and mores, the public will not act in a fair and reasonable manner. Affirmative Action laws are in place to address just such a situation.

dc,
Welcome back. That’s a valuable link/resource and I hope to be able to look it over soon. And I don’t doubt that much of what it may say “supports” GM and other AA advocates. What supports my view is what you have related from your personal experience and what is common sense to most people: despite even the best of intentions, a long-term or never-ending policy of preference/race/gender-based treatment exacerbates rather than alleviates prejudice, don’t you think?

I’m kinda done w/ this portion of the race relations discussion. But . . .

I don’t have to make the argument, it’s all out there in the lit. surrounding the creation of the Exec. Order. I’m not recreating the wheel here, arguments like those we’re expousing have been made ad inf. Though I did get credit for this from Ansley: AA is beneficial to everyone as it is an important goal for the nation to have a portion of it’s citizens become more productive, a state interest which outweighs the minor deleterious effects of the policy. Something like that, it was a long time ago.

AA isn’t concerned with whether it exacerbates or alleviates prejudice. Making an argument against AA on that basis might win a few hearts, but fewer minds.

Seems more logical that anger at AA should be directed towards the situation that got us here in the first place.

That’s fine; I frankly wasn’t expecting you to come up with anything profound, GM (though kudos for your Ansley ribbon). I wanted to have a discussion . . . two persons simply pointing to studies or the literature and talking past each other isn’t a “discussion.” And it usually is based on a premise that people cannot and/or will not change their views.

And for the record, I’m not angry at Affirmative Action. Thankfully I have the resources and advantages to not be affected by it. I do, however, perceive that some folks are unaware of deleterious effects of it. AA’s supporters ought to be concerned with how AA affects prejudice since that is the biggest argument that we still need it (see the APA study). The creation of the exec. order, your law studies, heck, even that APA study, are all way in the past (the study not as much–13 years I think) and at some point we ought to be seeing some progress, don’t you think? If not, we need to change the policy or change expectations or change the objective.

Talk about exador’s shifting goal posts, I thought the reason AA should be abandoned because it has worked and now we don’t need it, not that it isn’t working at all . . . Bust my buffers.

I think at this point you’re arguing for the sake of. You want to have a discussion about policy, I don’t see why introducing white paper is antithetical to said discussion. I don’t see AA as an emotional issue, I don’t find the worries of the affects of prejudice persuasive. A rule set to redress institutional racism and vestiges of slavery won’t concern prejudice. It’s a fine point, surely you can grasp.

Tarheels are on I must get home

Gandalf Mantooth:

I hate to say it, but it’s obvious–even to a dolt like me–that Affirmative Action is old hat. Not as old hat as the Bill of Rights or the rest of the U.S. Constitution, but still…

Ned Williams would never “shift the goalposts”; why, that would be intellectually dishonest.

GM,
Ah, your confusing someone following you and trying to nail you down on a single point as “moving goalposts.”

I’ll stop following you around. And go read all the dispositive literature on the issue.