They already are 
May I mutter my usual imprecation that, other than Shodan (whose constitutional theory, though intriguing and internally logical, is rather unique), almost no one believes the Tenth Amendment has anything to do with rights, but rather addresses the delegation and retention of powers. It’s the Ninth Amendment that speaks of unenumerated rights.
To be honest, I’ve never heard of Marbury v. Madison.
Momentaty lapse of American judicial knowhow Guin
I forgot that the supremes could grant constitutional rights through interpretation of the constitution.
Given you need a licence to get married, I wondered how different that was from a driving licence which is not regarded as a right,. but a privilege.
That settles it. My Honduran girfriend and I just cancelled our plans to get married in East Dipshit, Louisiana.
Yes, your first paragraph is exactly what I’m saying. It’s by way of pointing out that progress in civil rights was made by black people who also happened to adhere to the more polite, civil and well-dressed mores of that time, behavior that gets excoriated around here because people seem either unwilling or unable to separate it from racism (which by the way was not limited to the fifties and sixties, but existed for all the country’s history to that time) and not by the counter-culture revolution which had virtually nothing to do with race. For example, take a look at any magazine article or film or rock concert of that time with hippiedom as the focus and note how many blacks you see. The counter-culture revolution was about long hair, drugs, nonconformist modes of dress, the “freedom” to be profane and vulgar (as illustrated by the lionizing of such as Lenny Bruce), and to cohabit without being married. Young people of the time wanted to indulge in these things without suffering societal sanction, and so society had to be changed in order to make that possible – hence the counter-culture revolution.
Regarding your second paragraph, thanks for the clarification. I have certainly been aware that anytime I speak of the “good old days,” people invariably react to it with accusations of racism. But since I never, as far as I can recall, post anything about that time in a racial context or in the midst of a racial discussion, I’ve always regarded the bringing up of racism as a dodge – a way of obfuscating and derailing the points I’m trying to make about how things were better then. It truly never occurred to me that people were being honest when they did that. 
For the record, I first began to make those types of posts in order to counter the meme that was taking hold around here during the run up to the election that anyone who was conservative or Republican simply had to be evil, as there was no other excuse for thinking differently about the issues than from the liberal viewpoint. So I began to list the ills that I believe liberalism has inflicted on society since the late sixties, which is when liberal ideology truly began to assert itself and influence American society, including a sizable number of deaths due to drugs, crime, etc., that are directly and indirectly traceable to the influence of liberalism upon society since that time.
As you can see, in that context there was no mention of race, and, in my opinion, no justifiable reason to think I had race in mind when I was making those assertions. And yet virtually every time anything good about fifties and sixties America comes up it is automatically hand-waved away as characteristic of a racist society. So again, given that race previously had no role in the discussion, and given that people being polite, well-dressed and civil with each other obviously has nothing to do with racism, it has appeared to me even moreso that those kinds of accustions were merely a dodge used to defend against or minimize the ills I had been laying at the feet of liberalism.
With regard to your third paragraph I’m not quite sure what you are saying. It looks like you might be saying that you agree that people should be polite and civil, but that these should be an individual’s responsiblity and not one that should be imposed by society. If I am correct in that this is what you are saying, I’d have to respectfully disagree as it largely to benefit society and keep us all from each others’ throats that civil modes of behavior came into existence in the first place. No man is an island, and all that.
Well, I certainly wasn’t expecting that. 
Thank you. Your apology is very happily accepted.
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
George Bernard Shaw.
And that’s all I’m going to say about that. Seriously, folks, don’t let SA hijack this thread.
The way they actin’ lately make me doubt.
I haven’t been in on all the previous threads, so I’m asking here: are you of the opinion that discourtesy and incivility have been embraced as the acceptable norm by the majority of our society, and if so, how do you define that?
For my own part, when I encounter people who appear to believe that we were better off pre-60’s/70’s, I don’t go to racism as the example of the suckage, I go to the secrecy and fear and shame and dishonesty and “politeness” and general level of denial that permitted millions of families and individuals and children to be destroyed by familial battery, rape, and sexual abuse. I go to the McCarthy hearings. I go to the suicidal misery of homosexuals.
Stuff like that.
Oh, for the love of god. Another decent interesting thread down the drain.
And just heading off at the pass any arguments about whether those things exist today - of course they do. But back when MY mother (who was a brilliant, unconventional woman with an excellent education who mostly didn’t give a shit what other people thought) found her husband performing oral sex on her 9 year old daughter (1950), she first thought she had gone insane. When she realized she hadn’t, she was absolutely certain she was the only woman in the world who had ever been in her position, because she had, of course, never even heard of such insanity. Because people didn’t talk about things like that, it was uncivilized. So it didn’t exist. So she couldn’t TELL people that her admired, powerful, Army Captain war hero husband was a pedophile…(scuse me, child rapist, pedophile was not a word that was much used or even known by the general populace)! He’d call her crazy and take her children!
Without going into the rest, my mother’s silence and the general reality of society back then led to her husband re-marrying, having another daughter and destroying HER, and one of the two daughters from his first marriage killed herself, and so on and so on and it’s not a story that is even slightly unusual. In fact, we now know, 60 years later, that it was depressingly, bizarrely common. And because we know that, and talk about it, and confront it, and shine a light on it…there’s a whole lot less of it, we find it and stop it and fix it and fix the people who are damaged by it and with every generation we will reduce it, because we are breaking the cycle by helping the abused to heal so they don’t become abusers.
Openness is good. The truth is good. Honesty is good. And the price you pay for a society that tells the truth and shines the light and isn’t afraid to confront the ugliness in it is that some people are going to be very uncomfortable and find it all very tasteless. And a society that open and that honest and that truthful is going to find that a lot of the little niceties also fall away. I think it’s a price very much worth paying. I think the gains in mental health and safety, even though we havent’ wiped out all the damaged families, far outweigh any losses. After all, it’s hardly like crime and drugs didn’t exist prior to the sixties, and I’m sure you know that.
The civility and the past stuff needs to go find another thread.
I’m too lazy to dig up cites, but this actually has been written about at some length. It’s particularly bad for college-educated black women.
I’ve said it before;
Black men marry white women.
White men marry Asian women.
Therefore, Asian men should be marrying Black women. Just to balance the equation.
Yeah, talking about your Uncle the Pedo is better than keeping under wraps.
I aint no Starving Artist fan, but there IS a difference between never exposing/talking about the crap that goes on and the bad things people do and being so open that all society does is go “meh” when it happens.
The latter part of that is what IMO Starving Artist is talking about.
Back in the day, bad shit happened. Yeah, it wasnt dinner conversation. However, IF it got out, people were mortified about it.
Back in the day, you got caught doing something bad , you and anyone associated with it would about die of embarrassement. These days, "whats the big deal ? " seems to be the normal reaction.
Having a pedophile in the family would not engender a “so what” response.
No, in the past as Stoid points out the reaction was for the people finding out and for the victims to be embarrassed. and for the predator in question to keep doing what he wanted. It was tailor made for the predators among us, which is one reason why the Right loves the idea of going back to the good old days; most of them are predators, or predator wannabees.
As for now; far from "whats the big deal ? ", the reaction I see from people is “KILL! TORTURE! DESTROY!!”.
For some things like rape and pedophiles yeah, you are right.
For “minor” things like drug dealing, some murders, criminal activity and general irresponsibility its still “meh” IMO.
And IMO its the latter that is leading society down the crapper, not the former. Not that the former isnt bad, but the vast BULK of shit that goes down is the latter.
And for anybody bitching about Starving Artist making an appearance, don’t bring his name up and say things about him in the first damn place then.
No, that doesn’t work either, but thanks.
Jesus, who do hang out with??
I knew about the prostitute and the tax collectors.