Congress, Politics, Society, Supreme Court

Massive Resistance and the Government Shutdown

 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.

1,677 thoughts on “Massive Resistance and the Government Shutdown”

  1. Bron,

    If you would have fire protection by subscription, then what happens when you have insurance and your neighbor doesn’t? Oftentimes, your house goes up too. Even if your house avoids catching fire, you’ve still got a burned out shell next door, across the street, down the block. Any idea what that does to property values? Protecting the community from recalcitrant property owners who wouldn’t or couldn’t pay subscription fees was one of the main reasons Ben Franklin advocated for municipal fire departments.

    Nobody is comfortable in poverty unless they are religious zealots, mentally ill, or jazz musicians, and not even them so much.

    Fact is, you don’t have a magic wand. Or a magic button.

    So you would be just fine making the mentally ill do menial labor? Pick up scraps and sweep streets? Wouldn’t that take jobs away from people who have families to feed and mortgages to pay?

    1. My property insurance pays from fire protection. In a true free market It would be prudent for the insurance companies to participate to maintaining fire protection and rescue. It would probably depend on the productivity/reliability level of the fire departments in addition to individuals. Here in So. Florida for instance, not many fires, because of CBS construction and electric heating and cooking. Not many use natural gas or propane so participation by insurance companies would be cheap. With conscription it lets the insurance companies off the hook for this. The poor are always less served by what ever political mechanism exists. There are always free riders and it can be said that statism overall produces more. Just look at the numbers on food stamps. People would have more money, their would be less wars and there would be greater competition between produce and services providers if conscription was eliminated, which reduces prices. There are only really two systems. One seldom works and one most of the time works. You have to figure out, based on the last 40 years of high levels of conscription which one doesn’t and support the other. It’s pretty obvious and why so many are tired of the excessive government created by our current system. Thinking that two systems that are antithetic to one another can work in unison has been the mantra of the educational system over the last 40 years, and it is being proven, right in front of our eyes, to be an erroneous proposition. The mixed economic model being taught in so many universities today is just another name for Keynesian economics which failed us in the 1st half of the 20th century, causing the greatest depression in world history. You can only stop a failed system if there are enough people on board and there will always be those who are well off under the current system, that will be in opposition. The main stream media is control by the ruling oligarchy, so be careful who you listen to.

      1. “There are only really two systems. One seldom works and one most of the time works. You have to figure out, based on the last 40 years of high levels of conscription which one doesn’t and support the other. It’s pretty obvious and why so many are tired of the excessive government created by our current system.”

        hskiprob,

        If you actually understood what you were talking about, as opposed to proposing a utopian system that has never worked anywhere, we might have a basis for discussion. Even the inventor of the term “free market” Adam Smith believed that a government was necessary in order for the system to work. Frauds like Ayn Rand and Von Mises have proposed the type of system you want and it always comes down to the same human problem. Sociopaths like power and will immediately skew any pretense of a “free market” anywhere to gain advantage. No strong government oversight, no “free market”. In historical terms those two words together create an oxymoron in action. A business will always try to control whatever market it is in too maximize profit and market share. Left unfettered any business person who wouldn’t do so would be an idiot. What you can’t seem to absorb is that businesses do not like competition, nor should they by definition. A business is formed with the object of profit maximization, in whatever manner they can achieve it.

  2. RTC:

    RTC wrote: “You might have heard of an era called the 19th century. Back then, people were allowed to die starving on the streets. That’s where the impetus for social causes came about…”

    I think you might want to do a little more research about the 19th century. Charity was the 8th biggest “industry” in terms of revenue generated. There were also mutual aid societies and other things people belonged to to help themselves over a tough spot.

    The government was late to that party and it wasnt about helping people but getting votes.

    1. “I think you might want to do a little more research about the 19th century. Charity was the 8th biggest “industry” in terms of revenue generated.”

      Bron,

      Um….Ahem…..Do you know how the social work profession began its’ growth.
      After the Civil War there were a lot of young widows with children. Congress discussed giving them something akin to welfare but decided that would kill their “work ethic”. So in tandem with groups from different religions they established “orphanages” where they could take the children away from their widowed mothers, to allow the mothers to work. They also sent some of the children on trains to the West to be “adopted” by farm family’s looking for cheap, slave labor. I’m sure to you this seems a great idea to you and that you’ve read Dickens’ work as a paean to rugged individualism.

  4. Elaine. OK, got it, he doesn’t qualify. The language is clear. He’s been disabled for some time and never got the SS credits either. Obviously, I’m just going to have to start a caffeine drip when I get up, just drinking coffee a cup at a time doesn’t work when I have real stuff I need to know and and try to look it up! Thank’s a bunch, that was very helpful. I apologize for bothering you, I should have gone back to fundamentals on their site. Your indulgence of poor work methods is substantial.

  5. RTC:

    “It’s going to the health care industry because of the law requiring emergency rooms to administer treatment regardless of persons ability to pay.”

    How does it do that since welfare pays a very small amount. Most of that cost is from private insurance, not tax payer money.

    Medicare is why my insurance company paid 15,000 for a 3,500 piece of equipment.

  7. Bron,

    I wrote that I paid approximately $100 a month. My husband has his Medicare payment deducted from his SS check. We also have a supplemental insurance plan. Payment for that plan is deducted from my pension check. Still, we pay much less than we did before we were covered by Medicare.

  8. lotta, ALWAYS appeal SS. I have anecdotes that might be helpful involving my mom and wife, and advice I have been given by a college roommate who has worked for SS for 36 years. But, I’ve been called a liar enough today. So, just NEVER accept their rejection, ALWAYS appeal.

  9. $100/month for health insurance? For you and your husband or just your husband?

    That doesnt seem like nearly enough.

  10. lotta,

    I pay about $100 a month. That’s much less than what I was paying per month before I was covered under Medicare. I had no trouble signing up for Medicare at our local Social Security office. The people there were very helpful. The reason it may be different for you and your husband is that you don’t qualify for Social Security. My husband did.

    *****

    How to qualify for Medicare
    What are the qualifications to receive Medicare benefits?
    http://ssa-custhelp.ssa.gov/app/answers/detail/a_id/400/~/how-to-qualify-for-medicare

  11. Elaine, Something you said upthread caught my eye regarding Medicare. You said that you got it through your husband. I qualify for Medicare but not SS. I called the SS people since they administer Medicare and asked them if I choose to take Medicare can I bring my husband into the program since he did not qualify. (At one tome someone told me that this could be done but one paid a Medicare insurance premium monthly that was competitive with a good insurance policy). They said no, he must qualify on his own. Hmmmm, Should I be calling them back and inquiring further?

    RWL re offsets: For a retired federal worker there is a SS offset called a Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) to reduce the SS benefit. Characterizing the full SS benefit as a windfall is pretty insulting, as if an ex federal employee was paying the SS tax with some kind of magic money that really didn’t have the same value as another workers.

    That was not always the case, it was changed when the CSRS was ended and defined contributions became the norm. It was done because it could be, it was political, there is no reason for it. No private industry has a similar requirement nor does the military. States seem to have their own offsets according to Elaine’s document.

  12. Bron, Yes. People helping people is much better than bureaucrats “helping” people. Who would you rather have handle rescue funds in a disaster area, FEMA or the Salvation Army. I would be happy to have my tax dollars go to the Salvation Army and eliminate FEMA.

  13. hskiprob, You can see TAXES are a very touchy subject here. “You must be a tea bagger” is usually the line you get when you say anything negative about taxes.

  14. RTC:

    the point is that it is your money and you should decide how it is spent.

    I would say defense, police, fire [it could be private and in fact used to be funded by insurance companies to protect their assets but they figured out how to get government to do it to put more money in their pockets] are legitimate functions of government, so are the courts.

    You cant have a hundred police forces, armies and court systems, that wont work but helping the poor? That isnt so hard and maybe if there were conditions put on the money, people would not get comfortable in “poverty”.

    Personally, if I could wave a magic wand, I would make people clean up, volunteer at the local hospitals, museums, help the elderly around their house, something so they are contributing to the society that is helping them get through a tough time.

    Why should it be only a one way street? Arent they members of society too?
    Shouldnt they contribute too?

  15. That should have read:
    You seem to blind top the fact that the ACA operates on the premise that, “There is no free lunch”. Participants have to pay to play.

  16. hskiprob: “Anytime that you “take” by force or coercion money from somebody it rightfully belongs to and give it to somebody it doesn’t rightfully belong to”

    Look skippy, nobody’s stopping you from leaving. Don’t want pay taxes? I hear property in Somalia is dirt cheap. Good luck protecting it though. No taxes means no law enforcement; you’ll have to pay some warlord for protection, sort of like the subscription services for fire departments you No tax libertarians are so fond of. In case you’re unclear on the concept: municipal fire dept.’s are a form of socialism. Know who was the earliest proponent of municipal fire dept.’s as we know them? Ben Franklin. Clearly, a communist in the woodpile of American history.

    Ok, so let’s suppose you not opposed to paying for municipal police and fire protection. You just don’t want any of your tax money going to people who don’t work, which brings me to …
    ———————————-
    “If we stopped the first unethical action, people would actually have more money to help the less advantaged.”

    Sure they would, because tax money spent on the poorest Americans is the only thing preventing the Trickle Down Effect from taking place. Of course, you’ve been told that your taxes are high because they go to help the poor. The wealthiest and the corporationiest among us are squeezing the economy as long as do-gooders insist on helping the unfortunate. Truth is, your taxes are going to stay right where they are. Any reductions are going straight into the pockets of the 1%, and make no mistake, that ain’t you, Mr. Marching Orders.

    The biggest flaw in your proposition is that if people are so willing to help the needy, what difference does it make who allocates the assistance? If you’re willing to take money out of your pocket to help the poor, why not pool the resources of many contributions. Actually, the govt frees up your time and energy by identifying needs and ensuring the effective use of funds. I’ll bet you want to be the one to decide who get help and who doesn’t, in other words, attach conditions to assistance; if people worship or vote or dress the way you want them to, then you’ll help, right?

    That whole reliance on charity thing doesn’t work anyways. You might have heard of an era called the 19th century. Back then, people were allowed to die starving on the streets. That’s where the impetus for social causes came about, but people like who, who’ve grown soft and spoiled, are completely unaware of that.
    ————————————–
    “Remember, the bureaucracy eats up a lot of the money in administration.”

    No it doesn’t. Government is a great value for the money, especially compared to private enterprise. Remember, executive compensation eats up a lot of the money in private business. Business is structured around providing a cushy life for the people in charge. Government is structured around providing a service – frequently a service nobody else is willing to provide. In other words, if gubbimint don’t do it, it don’t get did, sparky.
    —————————————-
    “Health Insurance is not a Constitutional or inalienable right and I’m not sure we even want the government telling us how we should care for ourselves.”

    First off, health care should be a constitutional right, and George Washington actually proposed making government funded health care a right for all those who sacrificed for the Revolution. However, because treatment usually involved bleeding, nobody was too keen about the idea.. Nevertheless, considering that you’ve already made it clear that you despise Thomas Jefferson idea of free (read publicly funded) education in this country, that makes the third proposal by a Founding Father that you spit upon.

    Health care should be a Constitutional right because it’s an unnatural monopoly; if you, your wife or partner, or kids are sick, you’ll give anything for treatment. ANYTHING. And the history of modern medicine is proof that people will sell the roof out from under them (?) to get life saving medical care. They’ll sell everything they have until they are at the mercy of whatever fate has in store for them.

    The ACA isn’t the best we could’ve done, I’ll give you that. But one the good things about the law is this: if you don’t want to participate, you don’t have to. No jack-booted thugs are going to put a gun to your soft little head and force you into buying health insurance. Just pay the tax.

    And that, you’ll claim, is how your money is being stolen to pay for the luxury of the lazy in society. As if now those premiums are subsidized for the needy, no one will go to work. You seem to blind top the fact that the ACA operates on the premise that, “There is no free lunch”.

    Let’s just be clear about what health care under the ACA is going to be like. It’s going to be like flying coach or eating in the food court at the mall. Maybe some else envisions trips to the DMV, but the really great part about it all is, you don’t have to participate. Just pay the tax.

    I know, you’re being ripped off so that generations of welfare queens can breed their way to riches. I’m going to explain why your money isn’t going to any fraudulently fornicating free-loaders. It’s going to the health care industry because of the law requiring emergency rooms to administer treatment regardless of persons ability to pay. The taxpayer already covers the costs of the uninsured that don’t pay their bills for medical treatment. What the ACA does is reduce the number of uninsured, thus the number of unpaid bills for medical care.

    The rest of your post was confusing: something about the AMA and the unlicensed practice of law. Please clarify. No wait, on second thought.

    1. RTC wrote: “Look skippy, nobody’s stopping you from leaving.”

      Sometimes it is hard to tell if you embrace democracy or tyranny. Telling another citizen to leave the country if they disagree with your social policies is not helpful in making democracy actually work.

      RTC wrote: “No taxes means…”

      Strawman. I did not hear Skip talk about no taxes. The issue is what are reasonable taxes. The issue is about not wasting tax dollars. The issue is about what exactly is the role of government. Not everybody thinks government should pay for murdering unborn babies or pay for the drug habits of those deemed disabled because of their illicit drug use.

      RTC wrote: “…what difference does it make who allocates the assistance?”

      When a person receives assistance directly from their neighbor, it works in a much less wasteful way because the neighbor see exactly where the money is going. If the recipient wants to buy drugs, he might not get the assistance. The recipient is cognizant that he is being a burden to his neighbor and makes greater efforts to receive it thankfully and to work toward becoming self sufficient. In contrast, the recipient of a government program believes he is owed the benefit from the government which seemingly has unlimited resources because he qualifies for the assistance. They call it, “my check” as in, “my check comes on the 3rd every month.” This is what leads to welfare dependence. I personally know people on disability whose full time job actually is working the system. They constantly work the bureaucracy to get all the benefits they can, and it becomes a full time job for them, making sure they can get the free surgeries they believe they are owed, the free food they are owed, the free rent they are owed, the free cash every month that they are owed for being disabled. They regularly receive letters in the mail from different law firms working angles for them, law firms who get paid our tax dollars for helping them secure the benefits.

      RTC wrote: “You might have heard of an era called the 19th century. Back then, people were allowed to die starving on the streets. That’s where the impetus for social causes came about…”

      You mean social causes like the Salvation Army? Or did you have a particular government response in mind?

      RTC wrote: “if you don’t want to participate, you don’t have to. No jack-booted thugs are going to put a gun to your soft little head and force you into buying health insurance. Just pay the tax.”

      We will see what happens when people do not pay the penalty. We are told nobody will go to jail, but if it really is a tax, they will go to jail. We were told a lot of things about ACA that turned out not to be true.

      RTC wrote: “It’s going to the health care industry because of the law requiring emergency rooms to administer treatment regardless of persons ability to pay. The taxpayer already covers the costs of the uninsured that don’t pay their bills for medical treatment.”

      We already had this in Florida before the ACA. We didn’t need the federal government to increase our taxes in order to have this.

      One good aspect of ACA is not rejecting coverage for someone because of prior conditions. We don’t need to entire ACA to have this. And a Republican idea that is not in ACA is allowing competition between states for insurance coverage.

  17. Hagel is a buffoon idiot. He’s Obama’s lap dog and poster boy to say, “See I’m bipartisan.” Clinton did the same thing. Phony and transparent.

  18. hskiprob, You are a breath of fresh air, I hop you stick around. Much of The Boston Post Road, sorta America’s Appian Way, was built w/ private money. Our founders were libertarians.

  19. DavidM:

    bitcoin has no real value, it isnt much better than the fake money printed in DC.

Comments are closed.