Mediaboss Marketing

Bruce Kleinschmidt, Opinion contributor Published 12:57 p.m. ET Oct. 20, 2020

Whether it is the debate over the grand jury findings regarding the killing of Breonna Taylor or the confirmation battlefor Amy Coney Barrett, one thing is apparent. A great many people, on both sides, are unhappy with legal precedent.

In the Taylor case, there is a call for a grand juror to be able to share his views with the public. The attorney general strongly opposes that. With Judge Barrett, there is a widespread wish (or fear) that her attitude will change the courts Roe v. Wade decision. As Bob Heleringer wisely noted, legal precedent includes an abundant trove of shipwrecks.

I want to look back to English common law for a minute.On June 22,1772, four years before the Declaration of Independence was signed, an English case, Somerset v. Stewart decided that a Black man named James Somerset, bought as a slave in Boston, Massachusetts,by Mr. Stewart, became free when he was relocated to England. Specifically, Stewart could NOT sell Somerset to a planter in Jamaica.The court acknowledged that Massachusetts colonial law allowed slavery, but asserted that since neither Parliament or English common law recognized it,Somerset was freed.The judge made the narrowest decision he couldand avoided dealing with the morality of slavery generally and certainly avoided the question of human bondage in the American colonies or Jamaica.

The case was widely known in the U.S.During the American Revolution, at least four states decided that slavery was inherently incompatible with the natural rights of men.In the Southern states where slaveholding was more widespread, there was a decided pushback to make sure that slavery continued to be legal. School children are drilled with ideas of the Boston Tea Party and the Stamp Act or No taxation without representation as the reasons the American colonies rebelled against England.Yet it is equally fair to say that one reason many in the American colonies wanted independence from England was to ensure that the ownership of other humans continued to be lawful.Slavery was specifically permitted under the United States Constitution.Curiously, King George III, whom Americansmock, was concerned about slavery.In 1788, ONE YEAR AFTER THE ADOPTION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, he personally forbade slavery from ever being introduced into Australia. Maybe he wasnt as mad as we were taught?

Opinion: We all are responsible for Breonna Taylor's death

So where does that leave us?Frankly, we are stuck because forcenturies people have ducked the issue. And as with any form of cancer, it has metastasized.It gets harder to cure as time passes.The bodies continue to pile up, and the anger grows.

Of course, some people are going to pretend there is nothing wrong, just keep moving, the status quo is fine. And usually someone blamesthe victim.Well, if you werent so lazy, your life would be better.Other voices think the answer is in financialreparations.You stole the labor of our ancestors and we want it back.To which some say, hey, no one alive caused that problem.How do you prove who is descended from someone listed in a census slave roll by only their age and gender?Slaves were counted like livestock.First names got recorded for some of them.

The truth is, we cant even agree on a starting point for this conversation, much less on an outcome. The excuses come in sweeping generalizations.We avoid personal responsibility. I dont want any of my grandchildren dealing with it.I wantus to deal with it.The divisive language and the death threats have got to stop.We literally need a national time of repentance, prayer and healing.We need to say, I KNOW WEVE DONE WRONG AND I BELIEVE WE MUST DO BETTER.No matter if your ancestors owned slaves or were slaves.No matter if your ancestors just got here.The stain of slavery and the false ideology that whites are inherently superior has got to be faced and we all have to repent for the sake of our country.The division from this issue truly affects everyone.

There are many examples throughout Scripture where repentance requires both the rejection of the wrongdoingand the reparation and restoration of the wronged party. The Civil War didnt solve this problem. Reconstruction didnt solve this problem.Jim Crow didnt solve this problem.Marching with Dr. King didnt solve this problem. Simply throwing money will not solve this problem.It seems like we have tried everything but listening and responding in love.We need an effort at reconciliation.And hopefully from that will come collective approaches leading to healing and restitution. The answer is not going to come from the law, but out of a moral response that reflects the greatness of this country.

Bruce Kleinschmidt is an attorney and advocate for diversity and inclusion.

Read or Share this story: https://www.courier-journal.com/story/opinion/2020/10/20/breonna-taylor-case-law-cant-fix-racism-we-need-listen-love/5983079002/

Follow this link:
The law can't fix racism. We need a moral response that reflects this country's greatness - Courier Journal