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.
Handel Act I “Ombra Mai Fu. Wow, that is great.
Gene H:
“Consider this analogy: it is in the best interest of a cancer cell to replicate uncontrollably, but it will kill the body in which it lives if allowed to do so. Just so with the unchecked individual who goes against the good of the body of society.”
First of all a cancer cell is not a human being, it cannot think, it has no free will nor self awareness.
Who determines who is a cancer to be cut out?
Is the man who invented the means of producing low cost electricity at odds with society? Of course, he caused massive disruptions in labor in the gas, coal and oil business, put many people out of work. Same for the inventor of the automobile.
Human society is not a beehive or an ant hill. A society needs to fashion itself based on the nature of man, not conform man to what it believes to be in the interest of society. You would not force a dog to be a cat.
Man has a very good brain, that is what we use to make our living. The better able we are to take daily decisions about what is best for us, the better our life will be. Government control distorts reality and causes disruption. As a Buddhist, I would have thought you would understand harmony. Why do you and tony c always want to ignore man’s nature and try and remake it rather than create a society in harmony with it?
Bron,
Democracy is democracy whether direct or representative. I have no issue with representative democracy so long as the ability of monied interests to corrupt the legislative process are eliminated. In fact, representative democracy offers some operational efficiencies that make it inherently more attractive than direct democracy simply as a matter of social, political and legal engineering. That does not change that our current situation of a malfeasing representative democracy is a self-inflicted wound by the creation of the formalized graft systems they call “campaign finance” and “lobbying” which are in reality something far more sinister and anti-democratic.
As for the opium story, it was something like 15 or 20 years ago and I couldn’t track it down either. I was surprised to see how damn many Chinese restaurants are named “Opium” though. Good grief. But the details I recall are thus: it came to the attention of authorities because it wasn’t in a great part of town and yet it always had lines going around the block regardless of the weather. Someone at the Health Dept. got curious and had the food tested. They in turn referred the matter to the police.
Also, Rand is still nuts. That lip service she does is gibberish. Rights not only refer to actions but to restraint from actions and they come with reciprocal duties and obligations. Her foundation is built upon a dual false premise: 1) that all individuals are good actors and 2) that they share uniform notions of rights across a given society. The first falsehood is simply patently Pollyanna. Bad people are real. The second is simply ridiculous and partly due to her failure to recognize the collective nature of society as a real thing. Sociopaths don’t value others, only themselves. Individuals at the individual scale have a great many perceptions about what constitutes their rights. The father of a rape victim may feel he has the right to kill his daughter’s rapist, but as a society we have said he does not. At a societal scale, we have to find the commonalities and defend those notions as rights instead of each individual notion or the result would be anarchy where every man is a law unto himself. Society exists, but it is fractal in nature and its order appears at different scales that may differ in structure from individual components considered in isolation. That just a mathematical truth. Society is real, but it cannot cater to every individual’s whim. It has to do what is best for the most individuals within the collective to survive long term. Consider this analogy: it is in the best interest of a cancer cell to replicate uncontrollably, but it will kill the body in which it lives if allowed to do so. Just so with the unchecked individual who goes against the good of the body of society.
David,
Thanks for illustrating that you don’t understand yet another term of Art. “Legitimacy” has a very specific meaning at law and in political science. As a matter of fact, the Third Reich when they came to power was a legitimate government. They came in to office by the vote that was in accordance with the law and established legal forms and requirements. What they did once in office though was to essentially destroy democracy by creating a permanent majority and installing a dictator for life was despicable and what they did was evil without question, but they were initially a legitimate government. Whether they retained that legitimacy given their post-electoral actions is debatable. The legitimacy of any form of dictatorship is always questionable at best.
In contrast, consider the PRC. There is a strong argument that their government is illegitimate and always has been. They seized power via coup. However, this points to “legitimate” as used in political science. Regardless of how they came in to power, the PRC is arguably legitimate because they are recognized as a nation-state by other members of the international community. They are an organized body of sufficient scale to perform “stately” actions like raise an army and build common infrastructure and promulgate and enforce laws and maintain some form of social order (even if it isn’t free). “Legitimate”, however, does not mean “meets with your personal approval”. At poli sci it is a much more nebulous term that factors in more than just the method of the assumption of power.
But such things are to be expected given your track record of using words you don’t really understand.
Tony C:
I dont worship money, money has nothing to do with what I want.
I want to build a shed in my backyard without having to get a building permit and complying with the Corps of Engineers.
And do many other things without government watching me and forcing me to do things which are not in my best interest.
“The concept of a “right” pertains only to action—specifically, to freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men.
Thus, for every individual, a right is the moral sanction of a positive—of his freedom to act on his own judgment, for his own goals, by his own voluntary, uncoerced choice. As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.”
Ayn Rand
There are obvious reasons why the socialist/fascist model doesn’t work, so we are at best arguing over which system has the most potential.
Any form of slavery is still slavery. If I must get permission form somebody then I’m still beholden to them. I’m already beholden to the various cultural norms and natural law. So let place additional arbitrarily determined, through political means, malum probitum laws, which end up benefiting those that can best manipulate the system.
Show me something I’m missing? Is there not enough obvious and constant politically corruption to warrant a discussion on why we cannot stop it and why it ends up destroying the very ethical fabric of society?
DavidM:
Exactly! Madison knew these guys before any of them were born. The founders did try and protect us from them but unfortunately they underestimated the depths of corruption a human soul/mind can reach.
Helping people is a virtue but forcing others to help people is a vice.
This is not a rhetorical question, why do you think they wish to force their brand of “morality” on the rest of us? Why cant they leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit?
They cry for the poor and decry big government fascism in the same breath, yet fail to realize the former gives rise to the latter; that the mechanism to take from one to give to another is tyranny per se.
Bron wrote: ” why do you think they wish to force their brand of “morality” on the rest of us? Why cant they leave us alone to live our lives as we see fit?”
It seems to be a commonality of their psyche to hijack what belongs to others and appropriate it for themselves and in their own way. They use government as the vehicle by which to do that. They seem to desire to be on top and in control with everybody else under their feet.
DavidM says: This is the philosophy of tyranny.
No, this is the philosophy of reality. I don’t know what you think a Right is, and sincerely do not care what your misconception may be, but it isn’t a Right, or is a Right in name only, if it is not honored and not protected by the Society in which you reside.
My Right to free speech does not exist if I am to be punished for it. I don’t have any Right to make a terroristic threat if I can be put in prison for simply voicing it. I don’t have a Right to pay less than minimum wage if I can be punished for doing that. I don’t even have a Right to take my own life if attempting to exercise that Right would end up costing me my freedom, committed against my will to an asylum, fined, or otherwise punished.
Society grants Rights, it is Society that comes to a formal agreement that a Right exists, will be honored in the law and not punished, and any deprivation of that Right shall be considered a crime TO be punished.
Concomitantly, Society denies some things are Rights, it refuses to agree, to honor the proposed Right, or to punish deprivations of the supposed Right.
This is not tyranny, this is reality and Democracy. Your dumb idea that you should be allowed to bind all of Society to honor and protect your personal idea of what you think should be your Rights: That is tyranny, that is you, the tyrant, demanding everybody listen to you, and the minority that agree with you. That is you, the tyrant, demanding we accept your dysfunctional and flawed logic without argument and let you do what you want, which is always and ultimately to cause both financial and emotional harm to others without consequence.
As is usual for your philosophy, you continually falsely accuse me and others of committing the very crimes you guys want to commit and defend. The only “freedom” you want is the freedom to oppress, harm and cheat others without us getting in your way.
Tony C. “To secure these [inalienable] rights [to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed… Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” –Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429
But it takes real men to do this instead of total and complete acquiescence. I starting to think of you like I think of Gene. Passive resistance as prescribed by Gandhi just so happens to have worked the best throughout history.
Almost everything you believe and say is wrong even when we point it out logically to you. .
Bron says: that is why I am in favor of a flat tax of between 2% and 20%. 20% being the maximum.
You think backwards, Bron. What is magical about 20%? or 20.5%? Nothing at all, those are just arbitrary numbers you throw out without any meaning whatsoever, and no justification whatsoever. They just sound good to you, as some sort of compromise on what you see as waste.
The proper way to think about a system is to understand what you want from the system; the proper way to compromise is to be informed enough to balance two good goals that happen to conflict with each other. Like protecting a person from predation without destroying their right to self determination.
Government shouldn’t have a limit on size or a fixed budget, Government should have a job to do, and should be precisely large enough to accomplish that job. That will determine its budget. And that includes your “libertarian” government, my Socialist government, any kind of government.
Your problem is you are so obsessed with costs, you are willing to destroy freedom in order to reduce them.
I am the one that wants a huge, thriving economy. The Socialist economies are bigger, better, and richer than ours, per capita. YOU are the one that wants a few anointed ones to be rich, the ones with the power to coerce others financially when you take away all the rules that prevent them from doing that. YOU are the one that wants to let companies bribe politicians, compete unfairly, lie in their advertising and keep secret the dangers of their products (and be allowed to threaten those harmed and those that want to publicize their suspicions of those dangers with lawsuits, using their financial leverage to get away with frauds and lies).
And you are the one that is worried if everybody had an equal chance in life to reach their potential, your selfish, self-obsessed, money-is-god philosophy will be proven the pile of crap it is.
Tony C:
I am willing to have some socialism, that is why I am in favor of a flat tax of between 2% and 20%. 20% being the maximum. Get rid of a few regulations and let business make some ecessive profits and I think you will have enough money to cover a safety net for the few people who would need it in a really good economy.
I have read that our economy could be 50 trillion vs the 15 trillion plus we have now.
Why dont you want to have a huge, thriving economy? Why do you want everyone, except for the few anointed ones, just over broke? Do you want to keep your power?
Worried that in a huge economy no one would listen to you? You are probably right.
Bron: Churchill wasn’t talking about modern Socialism mixed with Capitalism; he was talking about Communism called Socialism in Russia. Modern Socialism mixed with Capitalism is not, and can not ever become, Communism. It is impossible by formulation.
Skip says: Historically, fascism doesn’t work at that way
Except Socialism is not Fascism and never will be no matter how many times you claim it, so the rest of your statement is immaterial. I am not talking about Fascism, I hate Fascism, Fascism is what we are falling into, and it is despicable. It is not Socialism which is nearly the polar opposite of Fascism.
Skip says: You won’t even acknowledge the current ills affect that fascism is currently causing.
On the contrary, I just did.
Skip says: You can’t even acknowledge that taxation is theft
You are right, because it isn’t theft at all.
Skip says: most people would not pay for what government does unless under the threat of imprisonment.
On the contrary, most people have always been willing to pay for what a good government does, which is to protect people from predation, exploitation and subjugation. They cannot do that without funds and the funds are provided through taxation, in order to be fair, and most people understand that.
Skip says: You and your colleagues are blind and ignorant of what government really is and those who seek the power to rule over others through political means.
That is a bald assertion and I will answer it with one: No we aren’t.
Skip says: It a scam that you have fallen for hook, line and sinker.
Bullshit.
Skip says: Government has never worked very well at providing what is in the best interest of the majority
More bullshit. The fact that you even have the free speech to say that, or any freedoms at all, is proof that government is working in your interest.
Skip says: You can make fun of libertarianism all you want but one day you will believe with enough knowledge and experience, that it’s the only valid and most importantly the only ethical system there is.
Not unless I have a stroke and am brain damaged to the point that the mind of the person typing this post is effectively dead. I am just not that selfish and cruel; I am not that angry or spiteful toward those that need help.
Fortunately, your pronouncements are all wishful thinking, because most people naturally feel as I do, and your brand of selfish, cruel libertarianism will never prevail. Whether our government survives or not, people will pass laws to prevent predation and the exploitation of desperation. I think Socialism will prevail as well, because it is not just morally better, but economically better, and measurably better for citizens and the economy.
Gene H:
“And yet Madison was primary drafter of the Constitution which creates a representative democracy as our form of government. I wonder why he did that? Perhaps he was channeling the yet to be born Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.””
Yes, both England and America have representative democracies which is what Churchill was praising. They do not have direct democracy which is what Madison was calling vile.
Churchill also said this:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
Such a brilliant man.
Gene H:
“You seem to be under the delusion that free markets are capable of just solutions with any kind of predictability or logic or capable of making decisions that are for the common good rather than the individual profit motive, Skipper.”
And you are under the delusion that some, highly intelligent, supermen can do so. I think we are seeing how that works out.
Forgive me if I trust the thoughts and actions of 300 million people working in their self interest over the self interest of a handful of people who think they are smarter than the thoughts and actions of 300 million individuals.
it is like a Cray vs a Dell.
The predictability is the law of supply and demand, Say’s Law and others.
Gene H:
that is an interesting story. Please furnish link to it. I cant find it but it doesnt sound unreasonable.
Pretty ingenious actually, I wouldnt do it for obvious reasons, well 2 actually, I would not want to be responsible for addicting someone to opium and it would not be in my self interest to do so.
The man was caught, probably from a tip by a suspicious customer or one of the employees or the cops doing their job. Isnt that how it should be? I am sure there are hundreds if not thousands of regulations against opium in the dim sum, lot of good they did, eh?
Bron says: The delusion is that government can provide all things to all people.
Not at all. Nor do we want to control the market for oranges or tractors, or prevent people from farming, or making chocolate bunnies for Easter. All we progressives want to do is something that is eminently achievable; which is to level the playing field, and prevent predators from exploiting others. That doesn’t destroy markets, it makes them thrive by minimizing the risk of being cheated.
Tony C.
Two things. Historically, fascism doesn’t work at that way and instead the oligarchs use government to manipulate the markets. Your willingness to ignore this historic fact or understand how they do it is part of your naivety. You and the progressive movements unwillingness to understand that only free market solutions can cure free market problems appears to be the problem.
You won’t even acknowledge the current ills affect that fascism is currently causing. You can’t even acknowledge that taxation is theft and that most people would not pay for what government does unless under the threat of imprisonment.
You and your colleagues are blind and ignorant of what government really is and those who seek the power to rule over others through political means. It a scam that you have fallen for hook, line and sinker. Government has never worked very well at providing what is in the best interest of the majority and yet each new generation of young ignorant people, think they are going to be the chosen ones that figure out how what to do and how to do it. Dream on kids.
You can make fun of libertarianism all you want but one day you will believe with enough knowledge and experience, that it’s the only valid and most importantly the only ethical system there is. Government on it’s foundation is unethical and you nor anyone else can change that and the history of the Untied States clearly show this.
Juliet: I’m sure either Bron or Skipper Rob will do just that, presently.
[insert joke about libertarians here]
Bron,
And yet Madison was primary drafter of the Constitution which creates a representative democracy as our form of government. I wonder why he did that? Perhaps he was channeling the yet to be born Winston Churchill: “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” To expect perfection, let alone perfection from complex systems, is to lead a life destined for frustration.
Bron says: So now you are saying that a smart person who gets the better end of a contract negotiation because he is better prepared is taking advantage of someone who is less prepared?
That depends, but in the circumstance you describe with the Tiffany window, I think … Yes. They would have taken advantage of your ignorance. And that could have been easily prevented by having an appraisal of the market value of your house include its historical or art value; because apparently you were lied to when you were told the house was worth $300K instead of $800K; and that is the source of the fraud perpetrated upon you; an incompetent appraisal.
I believe there can and should be a distinction between the market value of the house and the taxable value of a house; something like art (in a stained glass window) or historical or cultural value (like in, say, a desk owned by Abraham Lincoln, or a dress worn by Marilyn Monroe) can have a very subjective monetary value, which I think should be rightly separated from property taxation. But I see no problem with requiring, by law, certain transactions likely to include such “hidden values” to be correctly valuated by insured appraisers so you would know the true value of your house before you sold it. THEN if you decide to sell it for half a million less than you know it is worth, that is your decision.
I also think such insured appraisal (with a right to recover damages if screwed up) could be provided at cost as a public service by the government, with experts trained to recognize such hidden value.
As a general rule, you are right and we just disagree: I do not believe it is moral or fair to steal value from somebody because they do not know they have it. I do not believe in “caveat emptor” (buyer beware). Those that would make a profit on the ignorance of others should be stopped, I consider it theft and fraud; an offer far below actual market value is, to me, the equivalent of an assertion of “true value” to the seller, and in the case of your Tiffany window, the equivalent of fraud.
Profit, if profit is to be made, should be the result of honest negotiation. If I know you have a Tiffany window, and I tell you (with honesty) “Your house is worth $300K, but that window is rare, and would probably be appraised at $500K. Now I think I know where to sell it for that, but I want to make a profit on my resources and contacts. So I am willing to pay you $400K for the house and window.”
That deal is up to you. I am not exploiting you if I am not lying to you or misleading you (like with a low ball price) and with full knowledge you still have the option of walking away or doing business with somebody else, or trying to find your own buyer. Or negotiating a better price.
As I have proven in my own life, there is plenty of profit to be made with full disclosure by and for all sides. I see no good reason to allow windfall profits to be made by deceiving somebody as to the true market value of their property, whatever it may be; including jewelry, art, gemstones, antiques, artifacts, or even knowledge.
My philosophy is that the fully informed decision (to the best we can figure it out) is still up to the owner. I just do not see a significant difference between purposely misleading somebody as to the value of their property and outright fraud.
“Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
― James Madison
I wonder why he said that?
Bron wrote: ““Democracy is the most vile form of government.”
― James Madison
I wonder why he said that?”
Not that hard to understand when reading the comments of Democrats here. 🙂
Bron,
Simply ridiculous. Even for you.