What Do Our Laws Stand For...
Through our class' discussion on the Progressive Era, I started thinking about the 1st amendment in new ways. More specifically, I was interested in concepts such as Expressive Action, Incitement, and other maneuvers that bend the limitations, power, and reach of an amendment or law. These little loopholes or legislative add-ons are the ways in which law-makers in cases use their power and manipulation of the law to better pertain to their case of argument. We saw this especially with the curving of the 14th Amendment to help the railroad corporation in the Santa Clara Railroad case where a "person" under the 14th Amendment can be applied to a corporation.
A recent case I was reading about in the news regarded the settlement between the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) and the University of North Carolina. The case revolved around the Silent Sam monument, a confederate soldier, and its being removed from the campus. After protesters came and stormed the site, brining down and removing the monument on the grounds that it symbolized hate and white-centric ideology, the school and the SCV came to a settlement of 2.5 million dollars. However, protesters and students challenged the settlement deal which reopened the debate. The judge dealing with the case asserted that the Sons of Confederate Veterans had no right initially to bring the lawsuit about. A group of the school's students rallied together, partnering with the Lawyer's Committee For Civil Rights Under Law to intervene in the dealings. The sentiment seemed to be the restoration of normalcy on the campus as well as to "protect public safety of the university community". Evidently, the student body was angered by the symbolism the monument stood for and used their democratic voice to bring at least a sliver of justice to the case. Many were unsatisfied by the settlement amount, which prompted the Judge to void the initial agreement.
I agree with the students and question why there was a settlement to begin with. If a physical monument represents old ideologies, there is no point in keeping it up. If anything, this is implicative of the still racial animosity between demographics. For in a different context, this would be synonymous to Germany still giving tribute to Hitler or any other Nazi symbolism through a monument, which would just be absurd. I like how different committees used their agency and ability to reject a ruling. However, quite unlike the 14th Amendment debacle and the many ways to manipulate and take advantage of our legislative assertions, this case demonstrates a more justified challenging of the law.
No comments:
Post a Comment