It amazes me how so many people have become legal beagles. Suddenly everyone is hiding behind the rulings of Judge Greer as if it’s ultimate gospel and not to be tampered with.

Maybe we should have tried harder to just “accept” the law, and judges rulings in the past, because judges are always right…

In 1890, Louisiana passed a statue providing “that all railway companies carrying passengers in their coaches in this state shall provide equal but separate accommodations for the white and colored races, by providing two or more passenger coaches for each passenger train, or by dividing the passenger coaches by a partition so as to secure separate accommodations. . . ” The penalty for sitting in the wrong compartment was either a fine of $25 or 20 days in jail. Homer Plessy, a 30-year old shoemaker, was jailed for sitting in the “White’s” car of the East Louisiana Railroad. Plessy was a mix of seven-eighths white and one-eighths black. The Louisiana law still considered him black and, therefore, required him to sit in the “colored” car.

Plessy went to court and argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution. The judge, a Massachusetts lawyer, was John Howard Ferguson. He had previously declared the Separate Car Act “unconstitutional on trains that traveled through several states.” However, in regards to the Plessy trial, he stated that Louisiana could regulate railroad companies that only operated within its state. Ferguson found Plessy guilty of refusing to leave the white car.

Plessy decided to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, but that court upheld Ferguson’s opinion. Plessy then decided to take his case to the United States Supreme Court. In 1896, The Supreme Court of the United States found Homer Plessy guilty once again. Justice Henry Brown, the speaker for the eight-person majority, wrote: “That [the Separate Car Act] does not conflict with the Thirteenth Amendment, which abolished slavery…is too clear for argument…A statute which implies merely a legal distinction between the white and colored races — a distinction which is founded in the color of the two races and which must always exist so long as white men are distinguished from the other race by color — has no tendency to destroy the legal equality of the two races…The object of the [Fourteenth Amendment] was undoubtedly to enforce the absolute equality of the two races before the law, but in the nature of things it could not have been intended to abolish distinctions based upon color, or to enforce social, as distinguished from political equality, or a commingling of the two races upon terms unsatisfactory to either.”

Nah. We shouldn’t have stood up against that. Stupid Brown v. Board of Ed. How dare they appeal! The courts are always right! It’s the law! The law, I tell you! There are other instances where we should have just let the law of the land stand. Ironically enough, Plessy v. Ferguson is only one, and usually liberals cite that as a dark point in american history. Good thing that ruling was ignored and stood up to later on, huh?

Of course there are many examples of times when the law was right all along… Like the numerous Chinese Exclusion Acts passed in the late 19th and early 20th century…

During the 1800’s, many Chinese immigrants had settled in California. In the 1860’s their labor was used on the first transcontinental railroad. In fact, two-thirds of the railroad’s laborers were Chinese. Although Chinese labor on the railroad was a big success and greatly appreciated by many Americans. Others, particularly in California where the largest concentration of Chinese immigrants was located, felt that the Chinese “coolies” (the name given to laborers from Asia) were stifling job opportunities for Americans. However, most of these “Americans” had also immigrated to the US years earlier.

Chinese immigrants had become victims of criticism and racism because of their way of life. Asian culture is one in which families are close-knit and members have a great bond and loyalty to one another. Chinese food, dress, religion, etc. was very different from the European-American cultures that surrounded them. The Chinese in California stayed very close together in large communities to preserve this culture. It upset many Californians that the Chinese did not seem to assimilate, or integrate, into American culture upon becoming American citizens. Some complained that because of this, the Chinese were tainting American purity and did not have the country’s best interests in mind.

Based on these prejudices and the fear of Chinese domination of labor, Californians and other American laborers urged the government to take action. They pushed legislation through Congress. The first time through, the Chinese Exclusion bill was vetoed by President Chester A. Arthur due to the length of the exclusion. Congress decided to shorten the exclusion period from twenty to ten years and on May 6, 1882, after being passed in the House and the Senate, President Arthur signed the Chinese Exclusion Act.

This Act was the first of its kind. Never before had the US restricted immigration for a specific ethnic group. Much more legislation of this kind was to come and would include other immigrants of Asian descent (Japanese and Korean). In 1882, the United States began closing its doors and would continue to do so for a long time.

Stupid chinks. Who needs them anyway, right? Keep ‘em out! And don’t let them fight back. They shouldn’t fight. Why should people have a right to come to the us legally and work? Keep ‘em out! Great law! We should always have kept it. It is the law, and the law is always right!

Like the above pictured kids. The law said they should be detained. Not because they did anything wrong. Just because they were of Japanese descent. The law said it. The law is always right and is not to be questioned.

Throughout the history of the United States, our future was shaped by people realizing that something bad was going on and working their asses off to change things. From the Boston Tea Party to the American Revolution, to Harriet Tubman forming the underground railroad to the Civil Rights movement of the late fifties and early sixties, America was built on the backs of people not just seeing something wrong and acquiescing to the law.

If we had taken the route suggested by many in regards to the Terri Schiavo case, we’d still have slavery, Jim Crow, and so on. They didn’t just accept what they didn’t like. I refuse to do the same. If you have a problem with me advocating for Terri Schiavo’s life, here’s a suggestion. Hit the back button on your browser, delete me from your favorites, remove me from your blogroll, and move on.

America was never based on people just throwing their hands up in the air and saying, “That’s the law; so it is written so it shall be done.”

Choose life.