Symbols of American freedom matter. Don’t sell shoes with a Betsy Ross flag? Why? Because African-American Kaepernick finds the Ross flag symbol offensive and associated with slavery. Get real.
Does Kaepernick know anything about Betsy Ross? Anything about early American history?
Betsy Ross is a woman to admire not spurn.
Let’s compare 2019 ex- football player Colin Kaepernick with 1776 seamstress Betsy Ross:
Personal commitments to family? Kaepernick has a girl friend [Nessa Diag] since 2015. He’s not married and no children. Betsy Ross was soon widowed after marrying at age 21 outside her Quaker faith which caused her to be ‘read out of the Quaker church’ for doing so. She later married again and had children.
Professional skills? Colin Kaepernick was a second string quarter back who turned down a contract with the San Francico 49ers. He is a rich, civil rights agitator.
Betsy Ross was child number 8 of 17 children. Betsy attended a Quaker school 8 hours a day to learn sewing, reading and writing. She became a skilled seamstress. Fairly soon after marriage to John Ross at age 21, Betsy’s husband died while he was guarding ammunition.
A few months after her husband’s death, Betsy met with the Committee of Three which included George Washington. This meeting lead to Betsy Ross’ sewing of the first American flag.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Friday called her criticism of National Football League player Colin Kaepernick “inappropriately dismissive and harsh” and said she should not have commented on his protest against racism and police brutality in the United States.
Ginsburg, a liberal justice, told Yahoo News on Monday that Kaepernick was “dumb and disrespectful” for refusing to stand during the national anthem before games.
“Barely aware of the incident or its purpose, my comments were inappropriately dismissive and harsh. I should have declined to respond,” Ginsburg said in her statement on Friday.
In the Yahoo News interview, Ginsburg equated Kaepernick’s actions to burning the American flag. “I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it,” she said.
Ginsburg on the constitution:
Conservatives are often ridiculed for criticizing activist judges who fail to respect the Constitution. We are told that it is not conservative originalists (labeled ignorant and extremist) but rather enlightened liberal judges—with their nuanced understanding of constitutional penumbras—who truly respect the spirit of the Constitution.
The problem, you see, is that the U.S. Constitution is “a rather old constitution.” Ginsburg suggested that Egyptians should look instead to the Constitution of South Africa or perhaps the European Convention on Human Rights. All these are “much more recent than the U.S. Constitution.”
Ginsburg’s comments echo those by Washington University professor David Law, who published a study with Mila Versteeg on the U.S. Constitution’s declining influence worldwide. In an interview, Law unfavorably compared the Constitution to “Windows 3.1”—outdated and unattractive in a world of sleek and sexy modern constitutions. Such obsession with the age of the Constitution is both absurd and irrelevant.
For one, the Constitution is still among the shortest and most elegantly written constitutions in the world. By contrast, South Africa’s constitution is well over 100 pages long, filled with tables, schedules, and such stirring passages as detailed provisions for a Financial and Fiscal Commission: “A. National legislation referred to in subsection (1) must provide for the participation of – a. the Premiers in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (b); and b. organized local government in the compilation of a list envisaged in subsection (1) (c).” And you thought the U.S. Constitution was hard to read.
Equally ridiculous is the claim that the Constitution is too antiquated to apply to the modern world. The principles of the Constitution, although first articulated centuries ago, are not tied to the material conditions of a bygone age. They rest on that most solid and enduring of all foundations: human nature. The Constitution itself contains no policy prescriptions. Rather, it is a short, elegantly written document that create a framework for a free people to confront the political questions of their times.
Of course, the real reason progressives swoon over South Africa’s constitution is that it goes far beyond merely establishing a framework for government and guarantees progressive policies—for example, by requiring legislation that prevents pollution and ecological degradation. In other words, the left’s real discontent with the U.S. Constitution is that it does not require Americans to adopt a progressive government and expansive welfare state that provides for every “right” social scientists can justify.
Firenze Sage: Not as bad as one of Ginsburg’s previous comments favoring the South African constitution to our own — which she ignores frequently.