Rosa Parks, dead at 92

tinytim wrote,

I have already addressed this particular question in this particular thread.

 

This question has already been addressed several times in this thread.

 

Filmproducer,

You don't know very much about law, do you? State and local laws are legal and binding UNTIL a court rules that the particular law is unconstitutional or not binding for some other cause. The law that Rosa Parks was convicted of was a legally binding law at the time and she knew that very well.

 

You don't know very much about law, do you? State and local laws are legal and binding UNTIL a court rules that the particular law is unconstitutional or not binding for some other cause. The law that Rosa Parks was convicted of was a legally binding law at the time and she knew that very well.

</font>[/QUOTE]Once again, the SCOTUS had ALREADY ruled that judicial enforcement of restricted covenants constituted state action, which violates the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The restrictive covenant, in and of itself, had already been deemed in previous cases, to be a legally binding private agreement, which does not necessarily constitute action by the state. However, when the officer arrested Rosa Parks he violated federal law. It had already been ruled that a state CANNOT enforce restricted covenants.In Fact, have you ever heard of the state-action theory? It was this theory that the courts followed as rule during this time. The state-action theory of the 14th amendment, protected civil rights infringement by states, not private organizations. There is no way around it, the state violated federal law when Rosa Parks was arrested.

 

For the record the law did not need to be declared unconstitutional in this case. States were prohibited from infringing on civil rights of its citizens. The case would have been thrown out and remanded back to the lower state court to enforce the binding federal law. The bus company could demand as much segregation as they wanted, but the state in no way could enforce these demands without violating existing federal law.

 

Some ultraliberal activist judges probably would agree with some of what you have written (have you ever read the 14th Amendment), but the fact remains that Rosa Parks willfully violated a law that the courts had not yet overturned. And in addition to that, she violated an express order by a police officer in the State of Alabama, and that in and of itself was a violation of the law, a law that has NOT been overturned.

 

Amendment XIV.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section. 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section. 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section. 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

 

As of Dec. 1, 1955, no federal judge had yet ruled that Alabama’s bus laws violated anyone’s civil rights. Therefore, the laws were legally binding at that time and Rosa Parks was convicted of violating one of the laws.

 

First of all, let’s get the facts straight! Rosa Parks was not arrested for sitting in a seat in the front portion of the bus; she was arrested for violating an Alabama law requiring African American passengers to surrender their seats to white passengers when the bus that they are riding becomes so full that there are not enough seats for everyone. If you question the historical accuracy of the hundreds of accounts that have been published regarding this event, perhaps you yourself should look up this particular law and post it for us on this message board.

</font>[/QUOTE]I posted the only law code I could find. Could you post the law that specifically required a black person to move when requested by a white person please? The only law I have been able to find is one requiring separate but equal seating.

 

I think that Rosa Parks was a true American hero. Our nation is better today because of her courageous stand. I wish that we had many, many more people like her in our nation who are willing to stand up and use peaceful means to point out wrongdoing by our various levels of government.

 

She was a tired woman at the end of a long work day who had finally had it. God used her in that condition to start change in a nation. I don't think she considered herself a hero.

 

Those that don't consider themselves to be heroes are the best kind.

 

Craigbythesea,

First of all there is no need to question my ability to read, or my understanding of the law. I can read and understand the law quite well, thank you. The fact of the matter is that the law was unconstitutional. This very case was denied certiorari on November 13, 1956. The US District Court had already declared the law unconstitutional in June of 1956. Alabama tried to challenge this decision by claiming that the court had yet to overturn Plessy v. Fergusen. The SCOTUS denied cert and remanded the case back to the US District Court to carry out the decision. Brown v. The Board of Education, (1954) coupled with earlier cases, such as Shelley v. Kramer, (1948), and Hurd v. Hodge, (1948), already addressed the issue of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment, and the inability of states to enact or enforce laws which violated ANY citizen's civil rights. Plessy need not be specifically overturned because of the language of the Brown case, particularly Warren's claim that "In approaching this problem, we cannot turn the clock back to 1868, when the Amendment was adopted, or even to 1896, when Plessy v. Fergusen was written. We must consider public education in the light of its full development and its present place in American life throughout the nation."

Legal semantics aside, the issue was never whether a state had the right to enact discriminatory laws, they did not, that much was clear. The issue was how far the federal government could go in implementing civil equality without infringing on the state "police" power. Early cases claimed that the Constitution prohibited the state and the nation from infringing the civil rights of its citizens. The constitution, however, did not prohibit private individuals from violating civil rights. With that being said, the court ruled the state did not have the power or the "right", under the constitution, to enforce private restrictive covenants. In addition, C4K is correct. The only law/city ordinance at the time, called for separate but equal seating. It was common practice, not law, that when the front of the bus filled, the bus driver would make African Americans move from their designated seating, so that the white person would not have to sit with a black person. Rosa Parks, therefore did not "break" the law. She was originally in the middle of the bus, which was the designated seating, as layed out by the city ordinance to ensure "separate but equal". What she did do is violate the "common practice" at the time of forcing black people to move if the designated area for whites was too full. A practice, which we all know, was not inherently "separate but equal". The court agreed with her also, not just the SCOTUS, but the US District Court. To actually believe that the Jim Crow laws were "separate but equal", someone would seriously be fooling themselves. Besides, if you actually read the majority opinion of Plessy, you would find that the laws actually must be equal in treatment to all citizens. What the court actually ruled is that separate facilities, schools, and seating, etc., were not inherently unequal just because they were separate. Big difference.

Once again, I contend that Rosa Parks did not violate Romans 13. The state was in the wrong, and they were well aware of it, especially in light of the cases I previously mentioned. The petty legal semantics you have brought up are of no consequence. It took the courts less than a year to declare the law unconstitutional. It only took that long because the case had to "flow" through the system. She may not consider herself a hero, but she is, and she will remain a hero to the American people (or at least the majority of them).

Just in case you decide to question the constitution, yet again...

Art.I,sec.8,cl.18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause)

[Congress shall have the power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Art.VI,cl.2 (The Supremacy Clause)

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Amendment 10 (limits how far Federal Powers may extend)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Amendment V (The Due Process Clause)

…nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment XIV, sec.1 (Equal Protection Clause)

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

Thank you, Filmproducer!!! Your post is exactly what I was looking for and waiting on!!

 

Filmproducer is my hero!!

 

I am baaaaack.


All this haggling about whether or not the law in 'Bama was Constitutional; is neither here nor there.

The ISSUE is that this lady claimed to be a "christian" woman. As such she is obligated to obey magistrates (Law enforcement officers).

Did you guys lose yer Bibles?

Romans 13 is a good place to start. Bear in mind that NERO was Emperor of Rome at the time Paul wrote many of his epistles, (if not this one).

Try Titus 3. Tit 3:1
¶ Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work,
Tit 3:2
To speak evil of no man, to be no brawlers, but gentle, shewing all meekness unto all men.

I do not read anywhere in which Paul says;
"Except if thou dislikest thine laws or magistrates then thou shalt takest thine oath and standest up for the rights of thine household and thine peoples".

Biblically there is but ONE exception. If the magistrates command you to disobey God or to blaspheme God or to worship idols, THEN you disobey them.

I fear there are many who are victims of the times and are themselves perveyors of the following:

2Ti 4:3
For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4
And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.


"Ya seen it here first folks! You know who you are."


RosaParks was no hero. She was a rebel whose actions brought untold harm to this nation. Because of rebels like her yellin' for their "rights" (as IF a christian HAS any; remember Whom ye serve!!!) we now have 40 million babies DEAD because after all "I got MY RIGHTS!!!"


Have a good and godly day. For what good is a good day else it also be a GODLY day?

 

There are more passages that speak of this issue besides Romans 13 or Titus three. I like to see if Jesus Himself said anything about an issue, and in this case He did.
We all know how He felt about the religious leaders of His day, but yet He had this to say.
"Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to His disciples, Saying 'The scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works; for they say and do not. For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.'"
Although they were "heavy burdens and grievous to be borne" the Master said, "that observe and do."
Truly, this law was a "grievous" law indeed, But, until it is actually struck down by a higher authority, it is on the books, and that was the case when this happened.
While I am writing a dissent that goes against the opinions of some people I respect here, and while I am also fully sympathetic with Rosa Parks, I cannot let sympathy stand in the way of what the Word of God has to say.

 

Why is it that some of you are unable to admit that the state was WRONG? They were well aware that the law was unconstitutional. They were well aware that the law was not separate but equal. Rosa Parks did not violate Federal law, which, since the constitution was written, has ALWAYS TRUMPED STATE LAWS. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Secondly, how dare you question the Christianity of Rosa Parks? You are not God, and therefore unable to question the Christianity of anyone. For you to assume that abortion was born out of the civil rights movement shows great ignorance. The civil rights movement was over the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade was over the definition of liberty. There is a big difference. It is very sad that you do not believe that the civil rights movement did any good for this country, and imo, also very telling.

With that being said, have you actually read Titus? Paul is instructing Titus in appointing leaders for the church of Crete. The Cretians were being deceived by false prophets, who were preaching and teaching that all Christians were subject to Jewish law. Paul denies their teaching and is properly instructing Titus, who is himself a Gentile. See Titus 1:12-14.

1:12
One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.

1:13
This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith;

1:14
Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth.

Church leaders are different from civil governments. I have also read Romans, and if you read the whole book in context with Paul's message, he was once again talking to the Christians at Rome about the Jewish law and church leaders. It is not logical for him to break the course of the whole book with one chapter on civil government. Even if you believe he was talking about civil government, the fact is that Rosa Parks was in accordance with federal law. The state KNEW they were in the wrong. Southern states were fighting the Federal government tooth and nail over desegregation. Even before Brown the SCOTUS declared the state COULD NOT enforce ANY LAW that violated another citizens civil rights. The states were in fact violating the law.

 

AV1611 Jim,

How do you feel about the fact that Woodrow Kroll (the closing line you used, quoted above) isn't KJVO?