For many football fans (including this one) coach Tony Dungy is a legend. Even though his career is marred by beating my beloved Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI as head coach for the Indianapolis Colts, I am one of millions who tune into NBC to hear his insights on games. He was the first African-American to win the Super Bowl as head coach and coached for 13 seasons. Now, however, this Hall of Fame inductee is a marked man after a flash mob has formed to force his termination. Why? Because Dungy is a religious conservative who has publicly shared his views against abortion and homosexuality, including a speech at the March for Life this week.
Even before he spoke at the rally, advocates called for Dungy to be fired. He was undeterred. He spoke at the rally and, to the outrage of some, referenced the recent emergency involving Damar Hamlin.
“An unbelievable thing happened that night. A professional football game with millions of dollars of ticket money and advertising money on the line, that game was canceled. Why? Because a life was at stake, and people wanted to see that life saved. Even people who are not necessarily religious got together and called on God… that’s exactly why we’re here today. Because every day in this country, innocent lives are at stake. The only difference is they don’t belong to a famous athlete and they’re not seen on national TV. But those lives are still important to God in God’s eyes.”
That triggered a round of outrage that Dungy would refer to the incident, including openly racist comments from the left. For example, Ameshia Cross a political analyst with SiriusXM tweeted: “This is vile, disrespectful to Damar Hamlin/ his family and quite frankly wildly out of order. @TonyDungy crossed the line repeatedly, but this might be the grossest attempt at flying into the culture wars. I’ll give it to the Repubs they always find a Black man to carry the water.”
There was no call for Cross to be fired, of course, despite using Dungy’s race against him. Whenever a black individual espouses opposing views, it is increasingly common for liberal commentators and writers to attack them for their race. We have seen such attacks in the New York Times, MSNBC, and other outlets without any response from their parent companies.
Moreover, there is a huge pro-life movement in the black community. While a 2020 poll showed growing support among African Americans for abortion, it was still less than a majority of those polled. Indeed, the New York Times recently wrote that “While Black voters remain overwhelmingly allied with the Democratic Party, some, especially older churchgoers, have a conservative streak when it comes to social issues like abortion.” The vast majority of black Americans support limits on abortion.
However, Dungy had the temerity to speak publicly about his faith and his pro-life values.
The response was fast and furious. Former MSNBC host Keith Olbermann tweeted “Dear @nbcsports – if you have any remaining concern for your operational reputation, fire Tony Dungy now. He is using you.” At least Olbermann is an equal opportunity cancel campaigner. He previously called for the entire Supreme Court to be disbanded because he disagreed with their abortion ruling.
Dungy has also been criticized for his faith-based opposition to homosexuality. Recently, he tweeted out that “some school districts are putting litter boxes in the school bathrooms for the students who identify as cats.” While he deleted that tweet, it was dumb and offensive.
Dungy has also said that he would not want Michael Sam on his team “Not because I don’t believe Michael Sam should have a chance to play, but I wouldn’t want to deal with all of it.” That is simply wrong. We have to deal with “it” when the “it” is discrimination against players for their sexual orientation.
So, I happen to disagree with some of Dungy’s past statements. Yet, those statements have been made as an individual without tying them to NBC. Many coaches and commentators on the left have made controversial comments without the mob forming against them. There is, however, an absolute intolerance for those who hold religious or political views that they oppose. Conservative coaches just remain silent rather than openly support causes as do their liberal colleagues.
It is admittedly a difficult line to draw in some cases. When do personal views become so racist or discriminatory to justify a firing? If a commentator is out spewing hate, they can damage a corporate image or brand. They could become (as Dungy said about Sam) a distraction. However, there is also room for controversy outside of the game in the expression of unpopular views. Dungy shares deep-seated faith-based objections to abortion and to homosexuality with many Americans.
However, tolerance is hardly a popular value in an age of rage. The left often treats any controversial comments on the right as hate speech and therefore terminal.
Previously, there was a campaign to fire University of Michigan football head coach Jim Harbaugh because he stated publicly that he is pro-life. Liberals were apoplectic when he said “I believe in having the courage to let the unborn be born.” That is all that it took. His distinguished career as a quarterback (including his stint with the Bears), a NFL coach, and college coach became immaterial. He said that he was pro-life. Of course, if he spoke out for pro-choice causes, he would be celebrated rather than condemned.
The same mob formed around Washington Commanders defensive coordinator Jack Del Rio after he expressed concerns over the bias in the media coverage of the January 6th riot. After he asked why the media was not looking with the same intensity at violent protests on the left, he was relentlessly attacked until he withdrew his comment.
It was not the deleted cat box tweet that has led to the campaign to fire Dungy. He failed to yield to the demands of the left that he either support abortion or remain silent. Critics know that the NFL and NBC are notoriously fearful of such campaigns.
In the end, this is not about litter boxes or even pro-life views. It is about free speech. While the First Amendment protects us against the “Big Brother” dangers of government censorship and speech controls, free speech can be lost to a host of “Little Brothers” in the private sector.
Dungy knows football. He is not making the calls on the Pro Bowl for its pro-life plays. He will back on the air when the Chiefs face the Jaguars. The closest he will get to religion is a possible Hail Mary play and that is fine with most of us.
102 thoughts on ““Fire Dungy Now”: The Left Demands that NBC Sack Legendary Coach After Speaking at the March for Life”
Don’t cave to the meatheads.
Reading again “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich.” In Chapter 7, the Nazification of Germany, specifically the Nazification of German culture, there are so many parallels with what we are experiencing now.
I don’t doubt it for a minute.
I have read it through once. My wife has read it numerous time. Extraordinary book. You are right. The parallels are striking!
“The lunatics have taken over the asylum.”
– Richard A. Rowland
Before unconstitutional Lincoln’s unconstitutional acts, State legislatures restricted the vote by any criteria they chose.
Turnout was 11.6% in 1788 and vote criteria were male, European, 21, 50 lbs. Sterling/50 acres.
For a republic that expects to persist, those criteria sound eminently necessary and reasonable to me.
“the people are nothing but a great beast…
I have learned to hold popular opinion of no value.”
– Alexander Hamilton
“The true reason (says Blackstone) of requiring any qualification, with regard to property in voters, is to exclude such persons, as are in so mean a situation, that they are esteemed to have no will of their own.”
“If it were probable that every man would give his vote freely, and without influence of any kind, then, upon the true theory and genuine principles of liberty, every member of the community, however poor, should have a vote… But since that can hardly be expected, in persons of indigent fortunes, or such as are under the immediate dominion of others, all popular states have been obliged to establish certain qualifications, whereby, some who are suspected to have no will of their own, are excluded from voting; in order to set other individuals, whose wills may be supposed independent, more thoroughly upon a level with each other.”
– Alexander Hamilton, The Farmer Refuted, 1775
“[We gave you] a [restricted-vote] republic, if you can keep it.”
– Ben Franklin, 1787
In 21st century America, when an NFL player suffers cardiac arrest and nearly dies on the field, it is horrific. However, when a doctor is hired to kill a potential NFL player in his mother’s womb, it is just fine.
American women want to be men and just hate making Americans – and nurturing them sufficiently.
The American fertility rate is in a “death spiral.”
More Americans die than are born.
Americans are down to 76% of the population in America.
“UNIFORM STRUCTURE OR COMPOSITION THROUGHOUT”
The American Founders understood that homogeneity would render a rational, coherent and effective society through self-governance under the dominion of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
1: the quality or state of being of a similar kind or of having a uniform structure or composition throughout : the quality or state of being homogeneous
“The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all-important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”
– Alexander Hamilton
The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1798 and 1802 (four iterations)
United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” March 26, 1790
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof…
Karl Marx, through Abraham Lincoln, forcibly imposed the impossible mixing of political “oil and water” and the chaos of one man, one vote democracy, unrestrained by the Constitution.
Immigration law of the Founders required Americans to be “free white persons” in order to maintain the “harmony of the ingredients.”
The Naturalization Act of 1802 was in full force and effect on January 1, 1863, requiring compassionate repatriation of abductees whose greatest desire is always to return home.
Affirmative action is an illicit, illegal, unconstitutional and forcible bias; is it one of the requisite political emulsifiers that enables the impossible mixture.
Illicit and unconstitutional affirmative action is absolutely imperative for the implementation of the “Reconstruction” and 19th Amendments.
America could not and cannot adhere to the Constitution and legislation, and implement the “Reconstruction” and 19th Amendments.
Understanding the imperative of unconstitutional financial assistance, affirmative action, etc., the “Reconstruction” and 19th Amendments are illicit, illegitimate and unconstitutional.
The America of its Founders and its Constitution needs a massive amount of corrective action.
The Supreme Court recently acted retroactively by 50 years to correct the constitutional status of abortion.
The Supreme Court must now act retroactively by 150 years to correct the constitutional status of financial assistance, affirmative action, etc., which are required to facilitate and support the “Reconstruction” and 19th Amendments, and to correct the constitutional status of the “Reconstruction” and 19th Amendments itself.
Frankenstein’s monster was compelled to kill himself.
Whatever will happen to Lincoln’s?
I am never surprised to learn how hateful the pro-ABORTION forces are! Now, they attempt to do professional and economic harm to a successful, well-spoken person of African-American heritage simply because he dares to speak of his deeply felt view that murdering babies is wrong. (I say this about pro-ABORTION forces and decline to say “pro-choice.” The latter term is nothing more than an attempt to conceal their belief that murdering babies in the womb is merely “reprorductive health.”) I saw a clip of Coach’s speech and was so proud of his participation and his speech. Way to go, Coach.
Dungy woke from a secular ethical religion that normalized a climate of denying human dignity, human agency, and taking a knee to human life as negotiable commodities for social, redistributive, clinical, political, criminal, and fair weather progress.
One should not be surprised at Ameshia Cross’ statements. She is the Director of Strategic and External Affairs, an NGO in Washington, D.C. Its mission statement taken from its web site: “The Education Trust is committed to advancing policies and practices to dismantle the racial and economic barriers embedded in the American education system. Through our research and advocacy, Ed Trust improves equity in education from preschool through college, engages diverse communities dedicated to education equity and justice, and increases political and public will to build an education system where students will thrive.”
Translated in to plain English, they are committed to equality of outcomes, not opportunity. Is her animus toward Tony Dungee a surprise to anyone?
Equity, not equality, inclusion, not reconciliation, social/ethical justice, not justice. Diverse as in the dogmatic belief (i.e. color judgments, class-based bigotry) that denies individual dignity, individual conscience, intrinsic value, and normalizes color blocs (e.g. “people of color”), color quotas, and affirmative discrimination (in contrast to affirmative action).
There is a much better way to frame this. Ameshia Cross has crossed the line.
The question is why Ameshia Cross is speaking with such overt racism, hatred and intolerance. Tony Dungy has done more in his lifetime, and earned more respect from Americans of all stripes, then Ameshia Cross ever would if she were to live three lifetimes. Most of us could care less about Tony Dungy’s race. Whether or not we always agree with him, he has earned our respect as a human being. Period. Full stop.
First. Unlike the progressive dogma, most free speech advocates support Ms. Cross’ right to speak. Americans, even the most racist, intolerant, and ill-informed among us, have the right to express their opinions. But not all opinions are worth listening to. Ms. Cross is Exhibit A.
Second. What does SiriusXM, Ms. Cross’ employer, have to say about this? Does Ms. Cross’ racist attack, directed at an accomplished African-American man, represent the values of SiriusXM? Really, that’s a fair question. We’d like to know, especially since so many companies in the public sphere are so vocal in condemning racism in all its forms. We would hope that SiriusXM would be out front on this. It’s an easy win for the company.
Jessica Casano-Antonellis is Sirius’ director of investor and media relations. Perhaps she could confer with CEO Jennifer Witz and let us know. Ms. Witz will be hosting Sirius’ online investor call on February 2 at 8am. Will Ms. Witz be taking questions about Sirius’ values on the call?
Third. Ms. Cross lists herself on her Twitter profile as a strategist for the Democratic party. This is who the Democrats hire for strategic thinking? Do Ms. Cross’ views represent the views of the Democratic party? Does the Democratic party support Ms. Cross’ racist attack on an accomplished African-American man because he advocates respect for a human’s right to life? Remember, this is a question that has been returned to democratic debate by the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs. Does the Democratic Party agree that Americans like Tony Dungy should be attacked for their sincerely held religious beliefs? One’s opinion on things like abortion and religion are besides the point. This is about Americans’ right to speak. To participate in the Democratic process. To practice their religion. That’s a core Democratic value, right?
The Democratic party supports diversity of political though across all members of the African-American community, right? To criticize someone as a Black man carrying water for the Republicans because you happen to disagree with him? Isn’t that abhorrent, no matter one’s political viewpoint?
Perhaps Karine Jean-Pierre could confer with her bosses Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. If they support Ms. Cross, that’s fine. That’s their right as Americans. Just say it out loud so we understand exactly what Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, and the rest of Democratic party stand for.
Epstein Didn’t Kill Himself,
Dear Prof Turley,
If only politics were a sporting event. Red team, Blue team on an even playing field and Bears need a lot of work.
Unfortunately, the game of political life in this country is rigged rotten and I don’t trust the referees. It’s not in the same ballpark, it’s not even the same game.
Breaking: While President Biden was taking a nap, and with full support from the WH, the DoJ, all by itself, conducted an exhaustive search @ there, there and found additional classified material and extraneous notes dating back to the Senate and the beginning of time.
*the FBI is investigating ™
Cancel culture fairly silly, but popular strategy on both political extremes.
The most revolutionary act is times of chaos is to tell the truth. Carry on, Dr. Stockmann. Oh an here’s a quote from my favorite Ibsen play that encapsulates our times:
“The majority is never right. Never, I tell you! That’s one of these lies in society that no free and intelligent man can help rebelling against. Who are the people that make up the biggest proportion of the population — the intelligent ones or the fools?”
“You see, the point is that the strongest man in the world is he who stands most alone.”
~ Henrik Ibsen, An Enemy of the People
mespo727272: I was just about to make a general comment when I read yours, and it’s good! As I read your comment, the back of my brain kept repeating the word “duck” in association with Henrik Ibsen. So I search-engined the two,- and now my memory is refreshed–it was something impressive of his that I read 2-3 decades ago-“The Wild Duck.” That story adds even more substance to your good comment, and for convenience, I quote from “Cliffs Notes,” (which I admit to using just once in my life, and we all got caught, ha ha):
Respectfully, if I may:
“Always concerned with ‘the claim of the ideal’ and proselytizing this claim to others, Ibsen, on the other hand, found in himself qualities of material indulgence and a weakness for worldly recognition. He suspected that he himself, like Gregers, substituted a missionary zeal to reform others for a failure to actively fight for the reforms he desired.
“…Ibsen confronted the logical outcome of a situation where an idealist carries his message as an intrusion on the normal world of mediocrity and hollowness of soul…With a pragmatic, anti-romantic viewpoint, this drama presents a continuum between the opposing values of the Ideal and the Real.”
@ 130+ years later, I would substitute the CliffNotes words, “where an idealist carries his message as an intrusion on the normal world of mediocrity and hollowness of soul, to these words, “.. where an idealist carries his message as an intrusion upon the normal world of controlled messaging and suffocation of opposing ideals..”
I too noticed Lin has been a great addition to Prof Turley’s Blog, best wishes.
Thanks, Lin. We’re all smarter after reading your fine thoughts.
mespo…………your knowlege and recall of Classics, and other great literary works, inform and delight, always.
Thanks,Cindy. Just trying to keep up with Honest Lawyer Mostly.
What happens when the majority believes that they are never right?
Anyone who subscribes to cancel culture suffers from emotional incontinence. Herewith is the 12-step program for treating it:
(1) Don’t believe everything you hear from any media source.
(2) Beware of eggheads bearing certainty (the truth is usually more complicated).
(3) Power corrupts even the most-sincere motives.
(4) Accept that even on your side, some people will lie to you…
(5) Others will use you…
(6) And a few will try to hurt you.
(7) Anticipate countervailing arguments; don’t just mock them.
(8) Question your own assumptions from time to time because…
(9) It actually takes decades to build a BS detector.
(10) Caring for a small child concentrates the mind beautifully…
(11) So does paying a mortgage.
(12) And finally–and perhaps most importantly–nothing in excess!
I would add:
ALWAYS be highly suspicious of those who claim they are not acting in their own interests.
There are very very very few Mother Theresa’s in the world. And frankly even they are horribly ineffective.
99% of those trying to save the world are acting for their own benefit.
You can trust people who OPENLY act in their own benefit. You know what they are up to.
You can not trust people who claim to be working for the greater good.
Almost no one works for the greater good. Almost everyone is driven by their own self interest.
There is nothing wrong with that.
Everything is wrong with lying about it.
Works for me 🙂
Dave Chappelle stated it most clearly. “If you can kill em why can’t we abandon em.” One coach stands up for his beliefs and another coach wears a rainbow horse on his sweatshirt. I’ll take the guy who stands on principle who is unfortunately among the few these days.
So Dungy is now made a demon by the left but a drug addict who tried to pass a fake twenty dollar bill is a hero. It appears that one was a black guy they love and the other was just another Uncle Tom house servant black guy. Remember, if your black and you didn’t vote for Biden you ain’t black and your just a shoe polisher for the white man. I prefer to make the language as plain as it can be. Doing so more succinctly tells us of who they are so that we can be more properly prepared.
Tony Dungy is the epitome of a decent human being. Furthermore, he has accomplished much in his life and has suffered personal tragedy. Anyone who would dare to criticize him for expressing his personal views on his own time, simply because they don’t agree with those views, represents the lowest of society.
Responding to James:
Respectfully disagree. There are more than 330 million opinions in the United States and those 330+ million opinions don’t fit neatly into half-dozen “Labels”.
For example: Eisenhower was largely fiscally-liberal but socially-conservative. JFK was largely fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal. Reagan voted for 11 tax increases, never vetoing any of that spending.
Bill Clinton (the last president to leave office with a balanced budget) was fiscally-conservative but socially-liberal. George W. Bush was fiscally-liberal (even if you deduct wartime spending) but socially-conservative.
Since this article is about Dungy. The Catholic faith also prohibits the death penalty, divorce and optional war, but not all Catholics favor those parts.
“Labels” are simply not always accurate, you can’t fit 330+ million people into half-a-dozen labels. As for your labels, I’ve not a single Democrat that has any knowledge of Marxist ideology. You confuse that with 14th Amendment law passed in the 1800’s (which most Democrats do support). What is curious is that Bush Republicans adopted the “communist/fascist” tactics of East Germany during the Cold War in it’s “War on a Tactic” after 9/11 and creating a “Preemptive Stasi” (communist style secret police) is contrary to all American or Christian values.
“The Catholic faith also prohibits the death penalty, divorce and optional war, but not all Catholics favor those parts. ”
If you are a Catholic, go seek some remedial CCD (or find one of the few remaining nuns in the country and rap her knuckles with a ruler).
If you are not a Catholic, best stick whatever your own religion/irreligion teaches
The Catholic faith does not “prohibit” any of those things (whatever “optional war” even means?).
And people who do not follow the Catholic faith, but claim to be Catholic, aren’t (we real Catholics don’t care what they claim but to we real Catholics such people ar like that white woman in the news a few years ago claiming to be black)
From Catholic Catcechism 1997
Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm – without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself – the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”
From Catholic Catcechism 2018
Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.
Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.
Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, and the Catholic Church works with determination for its abolition worldwide.
Catholic Catechism on divorce
1650 Today there are numerous Catholics in many countries who have recourse to civil divorce and contract new civil unions. In fidelity to the words of Jesus Christ – “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” [Mk 10:11-12] the Church maintains that a new union cannot be recognized as valid, if the first marriage was. If the divorced are remarried civilly, they find themselves in a situation that objectively contravenes God’s law. Consequently, they cannot receive Eucharistic communion as long as this situation persists. For the same reason, they cannot exercise certain ecclesial responsibilities. Reconciliation through the sacrament of Penance can be granted only to those who have repented for having violated the sign of the covenant and of fidelity to Christ, and who are committed to living in complete continence.
Catholic catechism on War – typically known as the “Just War Doctrine”
2307 The fifth commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war.
2308 All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
However, “as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed.”
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
– the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
– all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
– there must be serious prospects of success;
– the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
Imagine the size of the balls on a guy that cares what olbermann says and would capitulate to his demands.
The leading cause of death in the African American community is abortion. It kills more blacks than AIDS, violent crime, accidents, cancer and heart disease combined. African Americans represent 13% of the population in the U.S., but black women account for 35% of the nation’s abortions, nearly three times their proportion of the population.
Thanks for saving me from having to go find those statistics (for the abortion leaders Guttermacher I think). They are telling, no?
Yes, and it’s telling that abortion providers such as PP set up shop in poor and minority neighborhoods. Starting at page 5, this cert petition has some relevant info:
Another viewpoint to consider that few in either party seem to grasp:
If you are a “Constitutional-Conservative” – you believe in “constitutional due process”. In other words you believe in the constitutional “means” determines what the end result is. Not the other way around.
For example: In 1920, allowing women to vote would have been considered part of a “woke” agenda, from a religious-theocratic point of view.
If you were a “Constitutional-Conservative” in 1920 America, women’s voting rights would be considered “Conservative”. The “end result” was arrived at using “constitutional due process” based on past constitutional precedent.
Constitutional rulings, like women’s voting rights, were later used to legalize interracial-marriages (“Loving v. Virginia” ruling). Decades later equal marriage rights for LGBT couples was legalized using the “Loving v. Virginia” ruling.
This “Constitutional-Conservatism” benefits Republicans also. When gun owners were alarmed about losing gun rights under Obama, gun rights actually expanded following the “District of Columbia v. Heller” case in 2008 – using the very same conservative “constitutional due process”.
This is not to justify some of the radical ideas today that may be unconstitutional and were not tested in the Judicial Branch courts, but the constitutional process is designed to EXPAND individual liberties and that is very “Conservative”. The few times in American history where the courts took away rights, it was a national disaster (ie: alcohol prohibition, illegally gutting the 4th Amendment with rulings like “Terry v. Ohio” – skipping the constitutional amendment process).
No, it would not have been considered ‘woke’. ‘Woke’ very specifically includes the element of (mainly Marxist) ideology. The problem with modern liberals is that they seem to have lost their ability to think critically and conflate wokism with human rights that the Constitution *already addresses*. You have it exactly backward. Woke is repressive ideology, not human rights, though at times it is in the wrapper of human rights.
Trust me: it’s no coincidence that every issue facing humanity has been very publicly interlinked with identity politics over the past couple decades thereby enabling privileged ideologues, autocrats, and statists to simply accuse their opponents of racism/phobia. It is transparent as ****, and nothing good will result from it.
They do it because they know they can’t win on ideas alone in a country with a 1st Amendment, and because they would lose a fight in a country with a 2nd Amendment.
People nowadays think that it’s more important that the 13th Amendment gave slaves their freedom than that it diminished the property rights of slaveowners. Someday it will be regarded as more important to guarantee the lives of unborn people than to guarantee a “freedom” of women to kill them.
Womens voting and abortion are both 10th amendment issues, thus requiring a Constitutional Amendment, The Second Amendment, simply says “The rightt…Shall, NOT be infringed…” The 1st amendment says, “Congress shall NOT pass a law…”
Prohibition followed the Constitutional proccess.
“If you are a “Constitutional-Conservative” – you believe in “constitutional due process”. In other words you believe in the constitutional “means” determines what the end result is. Not the other way around.”
It is not clear what you are arging, but it appears likely false.
Due process is a constitutional right. It is nto the entirety of the constitution.
Free speech is a constitutional right.
No real constitutionalist would sacrifice free speech to due process.
This is a fundimental dissagreement between libertarians, libertarian conservatives, and burkean or borkean conservatives.
Due process is A RIGHT, not THE RIGHT.
Just because you have had due process, does not mean we throw up our hands and go “oh, well, you had due process, F you if you are actually innocent or your rights are violated.”
The constitution has a process by which it can be changed. We have done so 27 times. Once so badly we had to undo it.
That process is a big deal today – primarily because it is NOT being followed – and has not for almost a century.
But that failure is ONE of many constitutional failures of the left – and sometimes the right.