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.
gbk,
Part and parcel of the myth … the native peoples made poor slaves as they were familiar with the country side and could easily escape back to a band or tribe. The West was not built by a bunch of plucky farmers … those farmers wouldn’t have lasted a year if the Army hadn’t wiped out the natives.
Useless people getting in the way of progress and not easily enslaved … annihilate them. That’s the reality. Without that reality, no wealth could have been built.
Just as the wealth built from coal in West Virginia and copper in Montana and Arizona was done on the backs of immigrants kept in their script enforced general store and company housing … no education … no future other than the mine. Keep a ready made pool of cheap labor … enslaved or free makes little difference.
Mike Appleton,
I forgot to say, “I agree,” with “those who argue that education ought to be regarded as a fundamental right . . .”
Let’s get back to substance, please.
Bron,
You are missing the salient point about “need” versus “want” as it relates to greed as desire. A man needs some toys. All work and no play and all that. But no man needs an $80M toy. Conspicuous consumption isn’t about need. It’s about ego which is usually driven by greed as expressed by a sense of entitlement.
Mike Appleton,
“I agree with those who argue that education ought to be regarded as a fundamental right because (a) the equal allocation of educational resources without regard to variations in local tax bases more closely conforms to my notion of Rawlsian justice, and (b) education is a critical element in a healthy democracy.”
I’ve not read Rawls’, “Theory Of Justice”, but I will very soon; thank you for the reference.
I’m curious as to your memory of the Rodriguez case in the sense of how the case progressed through the courts and what your, and your peers, impressions were at the time.
It seems a cultural sidedoor was opened despite the ruling of Brown.
Nick says: No, you will cease and desist. Agreement is irrelevant.
See, that is not a simple declarative sentence, it is a command and a veiled threat. The statement “you will” here is not a prediction, in common parlance this is a command with an implied “or else.” That is why I say a “veiled” threat; the threat is implied if the recipient of your message does not comply; that implication is reinforced by the subsequent line that says you do not care if Mike agrees, his agreement with your demand is irrelevant. The only way that can happen is if you use the force or coercion you implied in your command.
You are using forceful language to imply a willingness to use force or coercion. That is bullying. This is a threat from a bully.
Blouise: introducing a Norwegian plan that does not allow for a continuation of wealth built on the backs of others
Ah. Okay. First, A socialist plan does not have to have a problem with inherited wealth, wherever it came from. And after some generations, and inflation, the provenance of whatever is gained has (to me) lost significance.
In my ancestral line (and I think anybody’s) I am sure I have murderers (and murdered), rapists (and raped), slavers (and slaves). The sins of my ancestors are not my sins, and the pain of my ancestors is not my pain.
————-
But I think the real issue is not how the wealth was gained, but in perpetuating it by continuing the essence of slave labor, and the fact that the wealthy will stand in the way of any such reform that threatens their work force.
Blouise says: It is this reality up against which every progressive movement has eventually bumped and failed.
I think that means it is the same problem we always have, wealth corrupting politics. Once we passed some threshold of corruption in Congress, it became increasingly impossible to pass any legislation that would control the rich, or elect any politician that could fight the corruption.
At some point an infection is unstoppable, even electing a few good apples (like Warren), they can’t do anything against the systemic refusal to pass anything, and the systemic passing of laws that exempt politicians and payoffs from illegality (I don’t know if you watched Colbert’s series on SuperPacs and the entirely legal route of putting millions of anonymous “campaign contributions” into your pocket, but beneath the jokes, it was just sickening).
It has snowballed. The problem you describe is money influencing politics. Correct me if I am wrong.
I did not, nor have I ever, threatened anyone. I am being called a liar repeatedly, and now being told I’m making threats. I will say for the last time, my being called a liar will stop. It is a simple declarative sentence. There is no threat made or implied. Now, let’s return to substance.
The survival instinct is acting in one owns self interest. We vote in our own self interest. Acting in ones own self interest is as Martha Stewart would say, “A good thing.” Greed is bad. It is not the same as acting in your own self interest. Competition is a good thing. It is not the same as winning @ any cost. I’m fairly intelligent.
“I will say for the last time, my being called a liar will stop.”
Now why is that Nick? I’ve called you dishonest and a liar on more than a few occasions. what would make me stop, when I believe that I am right about you?
gbk:
I was a student at UT law in Austin when the Rodriguez case was moving through the courts and was hopeful for a time. I agree with those who argue that education ought to be regarded as a fundamental right because (a) the equal allocation of educational resources without regard to variations in local tax bases more closely conforms to my notion of Rawlsian justice, and (b) education is a critical element in a healthy democracy. For the same reasons I have long criticized the typical diocesan model in the Catholic parochial school system in which elementary school funding is largely parish-based.
Mike, as a lawyer I think I can appeal to your logic although I am amazed how many attorneys are social democrats. You see how the government run court system works. The injustices perpetrated by the system with rampant prosecutorial and judicial corruption. Judges in the 15th Circuit are just flat out ignoring statutory law as well as rules of procedures, especially when dealing with foreclosures. Threating one counselor the other day with contempt for saying anything additional to represent his client. My lawyer and I walked out of the courtroom when told by the Judge the he was entering an agreement to the conditions of the motion on his behave. He adamantly disagreed, so there was nothing else to do but leave.
I the Case We The People vs US. http://www.givemeliberty.org/RTPLawsuit/InfoCenter.htm on the issue of the Right to Petition for Redress of Grievances, the Appellate Court upheld the decision of the lower court, when asking questioned to the IRS and Department of Treasury, that they do not have to answer the questions in a formal petition. A group of constitutional scholars and lawyers got together and wrote a petition (62 questions) and gave it to the IRS, Treasury, Congress and the President.
How many abrogations to the constitution have occurred and how many constitutional rights are now being usurped due to this? Government cannot effectively and efficiently run a single business or entity and yet we place it in dominant control of an entire nation and expect good results??????
You guys just are not willing to except the negative ramifications of government policies that can not be corrected by government or any other entity.
“You see how the government run court system works. The injustices perpetrated by the system with rampant prosecutorial and judicial corruption.
Skip (if I may call you that for brevity’s sake)
I agree that the government run court system is a disgrace and in fact has been since the founding of the country. However, replacing it with a privately run system makes no sense either. Firstly, private industry is by definition interested in one primary goal: Profit. In truth that is how it should be. However, also by definition private enterprise must be amoral. The bottom line should always take precedence and the company’s earnings are the measure of the success of its administration. I’m not using amoral is this sense as wrong, but as the fact that morality should never enter into a business decision. I would personally fire any CEO who worked for me if that CEO’s interests weren’t solely on the bottom line. I am sophisticated enough to understand why some acts of charity by business make good business administration, because other benefits might accrue that would actually add to the bottom line. Nevertheless, good managers always keeps their eyes on the bottom line. Therein lies the problem with private enterprise taking over government functions. A privately run police agency for instance would be subject to more pressures towards acting corruptly, simply because their eye must be towards that bottom line. A public agency doesn’t have to turn a profit and so the general policy would tend to be more in consonance with the rules that govern it.
Corruption in this world has been endemic since the beginnings of organized society. The primary reason is that a certain small percentage of humanity is born with a will to power and will do anything to get it and to maintain it. This small percentage believes themselves immune to the rules that govern society and being immune willfully break them at their leisure. To critique government as corrupt and immoral, without understanding that the private sector is as well seems to be a common misconception of those of a more libertarian bent. I think that reality is actually a shame since I share common beliefs about individual freedom with many of them. Of course some, like Ron Paul are only situational libertarians. Any true libertarian would support a women’s right to choose, for instance and be strongly for maintaining a separation between church and state.
“Government cannot effectively and efficiently run a single business or entity and yet we place it in dominant control of an entire nation and expect good results??????”
Here is the root of our disagreement. I don’t believe that statement is true as a matter of fact and I don’t see it as properly framed. I’ve worked in government and the entities I’ve run were demonstrably more efficient and cost effective than the private entities that ofttimes would bid to run the function. Most of the bids that would come in would actually be more costly and less efficient than the existing programs they proposed to take over. The framing problem I have with that is your assumption is that the “business model” is always the more efficient model and I would point out the economic implosion that blighted this country in 2008. It was brought about by people who were solely interested in the bottom line and who were really immune from the consequences of their actions. Almost all of the main players actually increased their incomes afterwards. Jamie Dimon, for instance, should be in jail for fraud, yet he is earning $20 million a year as base salary, with bonuses to come.
So we agree that fraud abounds in government, but where we differ is in how do we end the fraud and not continue it under a different entity.
tony c:
he does, it is why he doesnt want to live in your world.
Gene H:
what about the ship builders?
Do you have a boat? What is the difference between a guy making 50k per year and a good fishing boat? He doesnt need a boat, is he greedy?
Nick: I do wish I could live in TonyCville, it sounds a lot better than the world in which I reside.
Yup, I am sure it is. We understand things here, and we care about other people. I think that has to be better than your self-centered world viewed through the lens of stereotypes and bullying people. Unfortunately, based only on your words thus far, I don’t think you have the mental capital to live in this neighborhood.
Nick: Sounds like a veiled threat. AGAIN. I vote that you should be banned.
I associate greed with greed, David. It is a desire. The lust for more. It is not the same thing as self interest, rational or otherwise. “Need” and “want” are too very different concepts. “Need” drives rational self-interest. “Want” drives greed. Nobody needs an $80m yacht. They may want one, but nobody needs one. Even if they’ve got $80m to piss away on a big boat. Not every wealthy person is greedy, but then again, wealthy people aren’t the problem with society. It’s greedy people. Those who want to “win” at the exclusion of all others. Those who want it all and will try to get it all no matter the cost to others in society. Being wealthy isn’t a sin in almost every religious, philosophical or ethical tradition. Being greedy is though.
Ask of each and every thing, what is it in itself.
Words have meaning.
Blouise,
. . . . .
“Why in the world do you think our forefathers were so opposed to educating their slaves?”
This is rhetorical, yes?
Let us also not forget the land grabs from the indigenous population and the genocide necessary to accomplish said.
While this is somewhat culturally acknowledged today, the economic springboard of said is utterly ignored.
gbk,
Yes, indeed. Education is the key to removing so much within our collective thought process that is hindering our advancement as a society. It is also why public education is under attack by those who know their power will be threatened and their wealth reduced by an educated populace.
Why in the world do you think our forefathers were so opposed to educating their slaves? 👿
“(First, I admit I haven’t given that question much thought…)” (Tony C) 😉
I have and have also spent a good amount of time studying the matter.
Although what you write regarding the changes to social views on matters such as homosexuality, etc are valid and views with which I would not disagree, I am addressing more deep seated cultural views based on complete misconceptions of the reality upon which this nation was built and continues to prosper. I would suggest that without the slave labor that built this country and contributed to establishment of wealth, there would have been no revolution nor Constitution (keep in mind the Constitution legalized the institution of slave labor) and no United States of anything.
The reliance on the myth of “up by our boot straps” as opposed to the reality of “up on the backs of slave labor” is so deeply seeded into our culture that introducing a Norwegian plan that does not allow for a continuation of wealth built on the backs of others will never fly quite simply because we are a nation that preaches equality but never really practices it and will never admit it.
It is this reality up against which every progressive movement has eventually bumped and failed.
To all:
My quote beginning with:
“[A] school-financing system based on local property taxes was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause . . .” is the opinion of Jonathan Kozol and not the opinion of SCOTUS in 1973.
Though Kozol’s opinion seems to reflect the SCOTUS’ opinion, I had not differentiated this in my posting of today.
See my link above for full, and hopefully, unambiguous reference.
Blouise,
“How do you propose we address this cultural difficulty for, in my opinion, any version of the Norway Model you put forward will not meet with success until that cultural problem is overcome.”
Great question.
The most obvious course (as at least a place to start a conversation) would be to have equitable K-12 funding throughout the country for public schools.
To quote myself from a post last year:
“Everyone knows of the Brown v. Board of Education ruling of 1954, (347 U.S. 483) which stated, in simple paraphrase, that separate schools for white and black children was unconstitutional. Yet, rarely mentioned is the 1973 ruling given in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, (411 U.S. 1) whereby SCOTUS stated that:
‘[A] school-financing system based on local property taxes was not an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause. The majority opinion stated that the appellees did not sufficiently prove that education is a fundamental right, that textually existed within the US Constitution, and could thereby (through the 14th Amendment to the Constitution), be applied to the several States. The Court also found that the financing system was not subject to strict scrutiny.’
“The facts of the matter in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (according to Kozol) are that there were two schools, separated only by a road–one with a 96 percent minority population (whatever that means) which received $37.00 per student while the predominately white school was receiving $543.00 per student (1968 dollar amounts).”
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/10/supreme-court-takes-up-affirmative-action-in-higher-education/#comment-431242
Your question brings attention to the many assumptions of equal opportunity. It would be refreshing to discuss these assumptions.