By Mike Appleton, Guest Blogger
“We pledge ourselves to use all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation.
-The Southern Manifesto, Cong. Rec., 84th Cong. 2d Session, Vol. 102, part 4 (March 12, 1956)
‘This was an activist court that you saw today. Anytime the Supreme Court renders something constitutional that is clearly unconstitutional, that undermines the credibility of the Supreme Court. I do believe the court’s credibility was undermined severely today.”
-Michele Bachmann (R. Minn.), June 26 2012
Most people are familiar with the opinion in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, et al., 349 U.S. 483 (1954), in which a unanimous Supreme Court summarily outlawed public school segregation by tersely declaring, “Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” 349 U.S. at 495. But many people do not know that Brown involved a consolidation of cases from four states. The “et al.” in the style refers to decisions on similar facts in Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia. And the response of Virginia to the ruling in Brown provides an interesting comparison with the actions leading to the current government shutdown.
In 1951 the population of Prince Edward County, Virginia was approximately 15,000, more than half of whom were African-American. The county maintained two high schools to accommodate 386 black students and 346 white students. Robert R. Moton High School lacked adequate science facilities and offered a more restricted curriculum than the high school reserved for white students. It had no gym, showers or dressing rooms, no cafeteria and no restrooms for teachers. Students at Moton High were even required to ride in older school buses.
Suit was filed in federal district court challenging the Virginia constitutional and statutory provisions mandating segregated public schools. Although the trial court agreed that the school board had failed to provide a substantially equal education for African-American students, it declined to invalidate the Virginia laws, concluding that segregation was not based “upon prejudice, on caprice, nor upon any other measureless foundation,” but reflected “ways of life in Virginia” which “has for generations been a part of the mores of the people.” Davis v. County School Board of Prince Edward County, 103 F. Supp. 337, 339 (E.D. Va. 1952). Instead, the court ordered the school board to proceed with the completion of existing plans to upgrade the curriculum, physical plant and buses at Moton High School. When the plaintiffs took an appeal from the decision, the Democratic machine that had for many years controlled Virginia politics under the firm hand of Sen. Harry Byrd had little reason to believe that “ways of life” that had prevailed since the end of the Reconstruction era would soon be declared illegal.
When the Brown decision was announced, the reaction in Virginia was shock, disbelief and anger. Reflecting the prevailing attitudes, the Richmond News Leader railed against “the encroachment of the Federal government, through judicial legislation, upon the reserved powers of the States.” The Virginia legislature adopted a resolution of “interposition” asserting its right to “interpose” between unconstitutional federal mandates and local authorities under principles of state sovereignty. And Sen. Byrd organized a campaign of opposition that came to be known as “Massive Resistance.”
In August of 1954 a commission was appointed to formulate a plan to preserve segregated schools. Late in 1955, it presented its recommendations, including eliminating mandatory school attendance, empowering local school boards to assign students to schools and creating special tuition grants to enable white students to attend private schools. Enabling legislation was quickly adopted and “segregation academies” began forming around the state. Subsequent legislation went even further by prohibiting state funding of schools that chose to integrate.
In March of 1956, 19 senators and 77 house members from 11 southern states signed what is popularly known as “The Southern Manifesto,” in which they declared, “Even though we constitute a minority in the present Congress, we have full faith that a majority of the American people believe in the dual system of government which has enabled us to achieve our greatness and will in time demand that the reserved rights of the States and of the people be made secure against judicial usurpation.”
Throughout this period the Prince Edward County schools remained segregated, but when various court rulings invalidated Virginia’s various attempts to avoid integration, the school board took its final stand. It refused to authorize funds to operate any schools in the district, and all public schools in the county were simply closed, and remained closed from 1959 to 1964.
There are striking similarities between Sen. Byrd’s failed plan of Massive Resistance and Republican efforts to prevent implementation of the Affordable Care Act. There was widespread confidence among conservatives that the Supreme Court would declare the Act unconstitutional. When that did not occur, legislators such as Michele Bachmann, quoted above, attempted to deny the legitimacy of the Court’s ruling. Brent Bozell went further, denouncing Chief Justice Roberts as “a traitor to his own philosophy,” hearkening back to the days when southern roadsides were replete with billboards demanding the impeachment of Chief Justice Earl Warren.
The House of Representatives has taken over 40 votes to repeal the ACA, quixotic efforts pursued for reasons known only to John Boehner and his colleagues. And in accordance with the Virginia legislative model, the House has attempted to starve the ACA by eliminating it from funding bills. Following the failure of these efforts, Republicans have elected to pursue the path ultimately taken by the school board of Prince Edward County and have shut down the government.
Even the strategy followed by Republicans is largely a southern effort. Approximately 60% of the Tea Party Caucus is from the South. Nineteen of the 32 Republican members of the House who have been instrumental in orchestrating the shutdown are from southern states. It is hardly surprising therefore, that the current impasse is characterized by the time-honored southern belief in nullification theory as a proper antidote to disfavored decisions by a congressional majority.
In reflecting upon the experience of Virginia many years later, former Gov. Linwood Holton noted, “Massive resistance … served mostly to exacerbate emotions arrayed in a lost cause.” Republicans would do well to ponder the wisdom in that observation.
most of the tax revenue goes to social welfare spending of all types. Only about 25% is used for Constitutionaly legitimate expenditures.
davidm,
Some people complain about raising taxes–then they bitch when their local, state, or federal government doesn’t have the money for the projects they want done/deem necessary. Certain members of Congress inveigh against raising taxes/demand tax cuts–then, behind the scenes, they negotiate for pork projects in their districts.
David:
Only congress can authorize money to be spent. During the shutdown, government employees were ordered to do no work because that would be illegal and punishable with both civil and criminal penalties. For example, they were told that even checking official email or voicemail messages would be illegal work under the law and there would be consequences. If an executive order could override a law passed by congress, or in this case not passed, don’t you think the President would have done so himself? By the way, I got this information from a furloughed government employee named Gabriel Bernstein. His first person story is at the link.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/10/19/1248924/-Not-a-Paid-Vacation-One-Worker-s-Experience-of-the-2013-Government-Shutdown?detail=hide
OS wrote: “Only congress can authorize money to be spent.”
Obviously so, but we had 83% of the federal government still operating because they had voted already for such funding. In addition, there is discretionary funding within the Cabinet Departments and agencies already appropriated.
OS wrote: “If an executive order could override a law passed by congress, or in this case not passed, don’t you think the President would have done so himself?”
No. But it would not be overriding a law. It would simply be making the payments from another fund already allocated by Congress previously. The reason the President’s administration didn’t do it is because they were trying to create the most pain possible in their political ploy to blame Republicans for the shutdown, and so they could come out afterward and say, “see how much we need government? See how much your government does for you?” This is an anti-Republican message, and so they had to make sure people saw the hurt from a shutdown as much as possible, and then spin the facts to claim that the Republicans caused it, despite the fact that the Republicans time and time again passed bills to keep the federal government open. The President’s attitude was, if you are not going to fund Obamacare, we don’t want you funding anything. This was his leverage to force Obamacare funding through. He lies to us about how Obamacare won’t cost anything and that everybody’s insurance premiums would go down and they can keep what they have already, then after it passes, he comes back years later and asks for the money to pay for it. When the House doesn’t go along, he shuts down the government until they capitulate and fund his pet project.
Elaine,
Don’t you know that government can’t do anything right. Leave it up to the corporations.
Come on, the government is great at protecting government welfare and protectionism. Just ask Monsanto.
hskiprob,
Right. The governement shouldn’t spend money on building bridges, roads, infrastructure, schools, water and sewage treatment plants, libraries, etc. Let’s leave the responsibilty for all such things up to the private sector.
Elaine M wrote: “The governement shouldn’t spend money on building bridges, roads, infrastructure, schools, water and sewage treatment plants, libraries, etc. Let’s leave the responsibilty for all such things up to the private sector.”
You mean like this:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/09/hawaii.volunteers.repair/
Or like this:
http://www.hebdenbridgeselfbuild.co.uk/about-us.html
I don’t think anybody is saying that local government should not take responsibility for public works and projects for the public good, but the federal government is not an efficient way to do these things. Furthermore, the community can do many of these things without being dependent upon any government.
Elaine,
the residents of Upstartville don’t pay taxes because their earnings are all in dividend income form or they are sheltering it in the Caymans. 🙂
Bron,
Let’s say the town of Upstartville decides it needs a new high school. It hires an architectural firm to design the new facility, a contracting company to build it, and a company to do landscaping around the building. Where does the money come from to pay for the architects, builders, landscapers, plumbers, electricians, etc.? Doesn’t it comes from taxes paid to the town of Upstartville by its residents?
Elaine, like roads, the private sector builds many of them when they build their shopping centers, industrial parks, subdivisions, etc. than are forced to turn them over to the government for long term maintenance. Many of the turnpikes of early New England were built without the aid of taxation. The wealthy recognized the benefits of increased commerce that roads would provide between towns, even though they knew they may not get a direct return on their investment. It doesn’t take long however for the wealthy to recognize that they can get the middle class to pay for such things, via taxation. They start redistribution the wealth, until the lower and middle classes are nearly insolvent. 48 million on food stamps is the result of horrible central planning. Excuse Me For Not Trusting Politicians would make a good tee-shirt.
Bron,
So…if people stop spending money our economy will not be affected?
What is the said engineer being paid to do? Is he/she being paid to design a product that his employer hopes to sell? If no one spends money to buy the product produced by the employer’s company, how much surplus will the employer have? Will he go into debt because the product he invested his money in didn’t sell? Will the engineer then be laid off? Doesn’t the employer depend on making a profit by selling his product in order to have money to invest in his company?
Elaine:
Spending does not stimulate an economy, that is a fallacy.
The surplus I am talking about is the money that an employer makes due to the employe’s labor. An engineer makes about 80k per year which is about $40/hour, they are billed out at around $100/hour. They generate [best case] $200k/year. After SS and other payrol taxes are paid and after benefits are paid and overhead is paid, there is a little left over for the owner.
That left over is the surplus which the owner uses to purchase new equipment, expand, hire new workers, etc.
That surplus is what grows the economy.
I have read that capitalism ought to be called laborism instead because about 75% of every dollar earned goes to labor.
Government spending is like standing in a bucket and trying to pick yourself up by the handle. Government is an expense. You cannot increase expenses and expect prosperity. You have to increase sales/productivity. Simple math and accounting. Maybe we should make all the folks in Congress, take an accounting class. Oh that’s right, they have special interests that they must serve.
Bron,
I didn’t throw money at .coms–and I wasn’t responsible for the financial meltdown in 2008.
“they produce no surplus. Not that they arent producing.”
What “surplus” are you talking about?
Even if you are paid by a local, state, or the federal government, you have money to spend. You buy things that private companies produce. That’s good for the economy. The spending money of government workers is just as good as the spending money of people who work in the private sector. All the money both groups spend to buy things stimulates the economy.
Bron,
All of us have the opportunity to invest in the stock market using IRA’s and Roth accounts. However, as Elaine correctly stated, those who had all or most of their retirement accounts in the market got killed when the recession hit in December 2007. To state that we would all be millionaires if our social security money was invested in the market is not only factually incorrect, but preposterous. Especially when the Banksters are gambling Trillions on derivatives at a rate even greater than prior to the start of the crash.
Our society has so many bad laws that the once free market policies originally intended are nullified, allowing the Central Bankers and monied class to control nearly all the means of production and economic activities in this country and in most others. They can literally start and control boom and bust cycles, like the recent real estate cycle, making it very difficult for the majority to plan and prepare for their lives. The real estate crash was no fluke. It was as premeditated as the stock market crash in 1929. That’s what central bankers do. It a scam of the highest degree and it’s almost impossible to beat them at the game they control. Do you not see how folks are like Ron Paul, who wants to abolish the Fed. He and others have gone into great detail as to rationally explain why it needs to be abolished. The world has been on a asset based currency for 6,000 to 8,000 years and all of a sudden in 1913, that wasn’t good enough anymore. They wanted the ability to print money and borrow it between their banks to create indebtedness and it has worked beautifully; for them and at the majorities expense.
hskiprob wrote: “The world has been on a asset based currency for 6,000 to 8,000 years and all of a sudden in 1913, that wasn’t good enough anymore. They wanted the ability to print money and borrow it between their banks to create indebtedness and it has worked beautifully; for them and at the majorities expense.”
Yup. Right again, Skip. In 1913, they also amended the Constitution to allow for a federal income tax on individuals. How could the States have fallen for that? One day I would like to research the details there.
What do you think about Bitcoin? It is interesting to see the online community creating their own currency to throw a wrench into what these bankers and governments are doing to us.
Elaine:
they produce no surplus. Not that they arent producing.
And the market is at 15,000. And your point is?
I dont know about you but trying to hit a home run in the stock market is not a good idea. Slow steady growth which pays a dividend is the way to go.
I threw some money at dot coms but only what I was willing to lose. It is why I dont invest in mutual funds. I would rather invest in McDonalds or some other doudy stock than something I could lose my a$$ over.
Bron,
Where does the money come from?
Let’s see. I was a teacher. I got paid by the tax payers of the town where I worked. When I was a sales clerk, I got paid by the department store where I worked. I’m not sure where that money originated. When I worked for a private university, I was paid by the private university. I suppose my salary may have been paid by student tuition.
Are you suggesting that no government workers or government contract workers produce…and therefore aren’t able to spend?
I invested in a private retirement fund. I lost a ton of money–after the .com bubble burst…and again because of the financial meltdown in 2008. Lots of private/public pension plans lost money because of the greedy pigs on Wall Street–some of whom should be wearing orange jumpsuits and not designer suits while drinking Dom Perignon. The deck is stacked against the little guy/gal when it comes to investing their hard-earned money. It’s a good thing I’m not dependent upon my private retirement plan. Thankfully, I have a decent pension.
Elaine:
that is an interesting article. But where does the money come from?
The 3 examples they use, health care, insurance and defense are interesting as well.
Defense is a constitutional function of government, so spending in that sector is part of the legitimate functions of government, so are the courts and police.
The question I have is if health care and auto insurance are funded by taxes, where is the money going to be made to make up for the lost revenue not created by health care and auto insurance in the private sector when they become government funded?
Insurance companies invest in many other companies which provide capital for their expansion which leads to job creation which increases the tax revenue. Will the government do the same? Look at Social Security, had that been truly invested in stocks and bonds and treated like a well- managed private pension fund, we would all be retiring as millionaires. And it would have led to an economic expansion due to the huge amount of savings providing need capital for expansion and creation of industry.
You have to produce to be able to spend.
“there”
Is their going to be a quiz?
Bron,
Did you read the CEPR article that I posted?
We have the “sky is falling” crowd on espresso this morning. But THE SKY DIDN’T FALL! This is crazy talk.
Elaine:
“Lots of private businesses lost money because of the government shutdown. It was like a domino effect. Hotels, motels, restaurants, etc., near National Parks lost l money. A lot of private businesses that do contract work for the government lost money. The government does help to create jobs in private industry.”
Ok, where does that money come from? It comes from other private business and individuals who would have spent that money somewhere else. How many people dont have jobs because of taxes?
We dont cry for them because we dont see them.
You should read Bastiat too.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/today-s-budget-brinksmanship-takes-cues-from-1879-s-ku-klux-klan