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.
O.S. your using the Democrat standby playing the race card
**hskiprob 1, October 17, 2013 at 2:42 pm **
I agreed hsk
Mike the know it all. So you think the Democrat party didn’t take a huge turn to the left after J.F.K. with L.B.J. and the great society? That’s why Kennedy today would be equal to a moderate Republican
“So you think the Democrat party didn’t take a huge turn to the left after J.F.K. with L.B.J. and the great society?”
Bruce,
As a matter of historical fact the Democratic Party turned to the Right after JFK and LBJ, in 1972 with George McGovern’s loss. That you don’t know this says much about your political acuity.
“DIMOCK: We’ve seen a drop in favorable opinions of the Tea Party just within the last few months. In June, 37 percent said they had a favorable impression generally of the Tea Party. That’s down to 30 percent – it’s the lowest that we’ve measured. We’re seeing the unfavorable opinions of the Tea Party even reaching 49 percent – the highest that we’ve measured.” Dimock is director of the conservative Pew Research Center
Gallup’s poll released on 9/26 showed Tea Party support had fallen to 22% … it will be interesting to see how much lower it went during the shutdown.
Thus far, no matter what the politicians in Washington tell each other, the polls show that Main Street America doesn’t like conflict over compromise.
RTC,
I am pointing to prohibition because it had an even higher standard of ratification.
We need people in office who will absolutely resist injustice. No one ought to give up that right for any reason, certainly not for being in elected office.
What the Tea Party did was not unlawful. It was done in part as the work of an unscrupulous govt. consisting of powerful, corrupt members of govt. in the Congress and the President. It was also done in part, by a handful of people who both you and I disagree with their principles and methods.
It would be heartening to see congress people go to the mat against the NDAA, massive spying, austerity, abortion rights, etc, things I do agree with. I would hope they would not choose a govt. shut down, or if they did they would make certain people who were laid off could meet their expenses. We will not see this because the number of congressional liberals is about 2.
Elected officials are not standing up for justice. They are caving in. So are liberals in the rest of society. Democrats have become O.K. with murder, torture, mass surveillance, a police state, constant war and austerity–in fact they differ very little with mainstream Republicans on any of those issues. That is a terrible shame because great harm has come to this nation by their assent to all these things in the name of their party.
Elected officials do not stand up for justice. They serve the oligarchy that provides the money to allow them to make a legitimate run at a office and only allow the two major Parties to be legitimately represented . The system has been rigged since 1913, when the Central Bankers took over the monetary policies of the country. Within 16 years, they put us into the greatest depression in world history. Most people do not know that it was a coordinated effort including every Central Bank and Banker of almost every industrialized nation, so the depression was worldwide. Politics is a ploy to make the majority believe that they have a real say in the political arena, when almost every aspect of the system is rigged, from top too bottom. Much like a fake pass, only to hand the ball off to the runner on a draw play up the middle. The draw play is really the judiciary, where all important decisions are given constitutional authority or not. Most people however have never read a supreme court decision or know the multitude of abrogations of the Constitution that the judiciary has decided. The Citizens have been faked out and the Judiciary has scored number decisions for the ruling oligarchy to where today, few inalienable rights exist.
Hskiprob,
I agree. This is why I said that we should boycott the current election process, and start marching or revolting.
David,
Your loyality to the Tea Party and/or the Republican Party (or any of the current elected officials) is either an excuse to use your right to vote, choosing the lesser of 2 evils (in your mind), or complete ignorance of our current oligarchial system. Do you actually think the Tea Party elected officials care about you and I? They are no different, as hskiprob pointed out, than the rest (time will tell. Just look at their voting records. For example, how many tea party elected officials voted against the Monosanto Bill?) This may come as a surprise to everyone, but I have never voted.
Jill,
There was never a govt shutdown as a result of prohibition, In fact, prohibition is a perfect example of how laws can be changed in an orderly, legitimate fashion. The hurdle to repeal Prohibition was much higher than the undoing ACA. All the publicans have to do is campaign on the promise to change the law, and if the voters are truly dissatisfied with the ACA, they’ll win a majority of seats in congress – they don’t even need the presidency, just enough votes to override a veto. If ACA is really all that bad, then gaining the necessary seats shouldn’t be all that tough.
I think once someone takes the oath of office and commits to performing the duties of govt, they’re surrendering any option to Thoreau’s method of civil disobedience. At least, not as long as they’re collecting a salary.
There was a saying at Bechtel, when I worked there, “There is cash in confusion”. There is a sizable portion of the financial sector that is perfectly happy with all the turmoil.
David,
Your last post is a steaming pile of that famous barnyard product. The denial is getting thick in here. The primary motivation of the old southern Democrats to become Republicans was racism, pure and simple. Like your denials, they deny they are bigots. You can put as much lipstick on that stuff as you like but it is still a pile of flyspecked manure.
Mike A., Under what circumstances may anyone resist? Here is your limit of resistance: ” When a political party determines that it will shut down the government rather than recognize the legitimacy of a statute passed by Congress, signed into law by the President and upheld by a conservative Supreme Court against claims of unconstitutionality, I do not regard its position as principled opposition.”
If we hold to your position we would still be under prohibition. There would never be a change allowed, no matter how stupid or unjust or detrimental a law would be. Is there anything, such as the NDAA, that you might wish “liberal” members of Congress would go to the wall for? How about the austerity of cutting Medicare and SS? What about the massive surveillance against our population?
Although I do not believe most Tea Party members are people of principle, if there were such people, what would you do as a liberal who opposed the indefinite detention of American citizens by threatening to shut down the govt.
My own opinion is the shutdown was a way to rule by crisis and it made money for the Financial industry buddies of the president and Congress. I don’t like the shut down because it hurt innocent people who can’t afford that lose of income. However, I really don’t think that suffering mattered either to Obama, other DINOs or RINOS.
However, is there any atrocity that you think might warrant a liberal resistance or is it your contention that on one may resist or change any law once it has been signed and put before the SC? Do you personally plan to resist the NDAA or do you feel it is now settled law and you should not be allowed, nor should anyone else, to oppose it?
David,
Gobbledeegook
The assertion that Ted Cruz and his Tea Party colleagues were taking a principled stand is utter nonsense. When a political party determines that it will shut down the government rather than recognize the legitimacy of a statute passed by Congress, signed into law by the President and upheld by a conservative Supreme Court against claims of unconstitutionality, I do not regard its position as principled opposition. John Boehner surrendered to the philosophical heirs of the 19th century forces who preached nullification to defend slavery and the 20th century forces who preached massive resistance to defend Jim Crow. The government shutdown was not a product of a refusal to negotiate, but of a refusal to capitulate to anarchists. The obligation to submit to the rule of law is never a proper subject for “negotiation.”
Mike Appleton wrote: “The assertion that Ted Cruz and his Tea Party colleagues were taking a principled stand is utter nonsense. When a political party determines that it will shut down the government rather than recognize the legitimacy of a statute passed by Congress, signed into law by the President and upheld by a conservative Supreme Court against claims of unconstitutionality, I do not regard its position as principled opposition.”
Exactly when and where do you expect political corruption to end? If politicians are always expected to vote along party lines and not by what their districts want them to do, what good are they? They simply do the bidding of the President and the rich corporations he is in league with. If you support that, then you express favor toward our government functioning as an Oligarchy.
There are many ways in which the shutdown could have been avoided.
1) If Congress and the President had agreed upon a budget, we would not be here.
2) If Congress had not taken a month off in August and worked out differences back then, the shutdown would not have happened.
3) If Congress did not vote for laws which they could not afford, this would not have happened.
4) If the Senate and President agreed to fund the federal government in one of the several ways that the House had voted it, and then afterward discussed Obamacare funding, it would not have happened.
Keep in mind that Obamacare was passed as a law that would not cost one penny. That’s what Obama said. If he had been right, we would not have been faced with a shutdown.
Mike Appleton wrote: “John Boehner surrendered to the philosophical heirs of the 19th century forces who preached nullification to defend slavery and the 20th century forces who preached massive resistance to defend Jim Crow. The government shutdown was not a product of a refusal to negotiate, but of a refusal to capitulate to anarchists.”
I get so tired of this race card always being played. Now you accuse Boehner of following racist philosophy? Unbelievable. And you label the Tea Party Republicans as anarchists? What laws did they break? None. Their voting in the House was legitimate and Constitutional. The Congress was acting according to the rule of law outlined in Article 1 of the Constitution.
The shutdown happened because our quasi-dictator President refused to negotiate. He made it clear that he did not approve, and every Democrat in the Senate coward to him and worked against the House. Keep in mind that the House more properly represents the PEOPLE being based upon population, while the Senate represents the rich land owners in states without regard to population. At every step of the way, the House voted to fund the federal government, but the Senate rejected the bill to fund the federal government because it did not include funding for Obamacare. These are the facts. Nobody wants the government to default, so the looming debt ceiling deadline was way too much for some House Republicans to hold out, so they capitulated to our non-negotiating President, giving him his funding for a program that was not suppose to cost a penny when it was passed more than 3 years ago. Based upon your standards, I suppose you ought to praise them for caving in to political pressure. I am saddened by it. It represents political corruption. Congress failed to hold the President accountable for his overspending. The system of checks and balances failed.
By todays standard J.F.K. would have came across as a moderate Republican. Todays Democrats are mostly socialists. Next stop Communism
“By todays standard J.F.K. would have came across as a moderate Republican. Todays Democrats are mostly socialists. Next stop Communism”
Bruce,
With your paucity of knowledge of political/economic systems, added to your tendency you use juvenile name calling, you present yourself as clueless. Bravo.
Bruce Said: “By todays standard J.F.K. would have come across as a moderate Republican. Todays Democrats are mostly socialists. Next stop Communism”
Mike said: “Bruce, With your paucity of knowledge of political/economic systems, added to your tendency you use juvenile name calling, you present yourself as clueless. Bravo.”
Actually Mike, as I’ve pointed out to you on this blog before, the U.S. has adopted a number of socialistic and communistic legislative acts over the years, therefore it is perhaps a good idea for you to increase your level of knowledge in the area, before you provide “unconstructive” criticism to some one else. Read the Communist Manifesto Mike. Even an 9th grader can understand it.
Just giving you a little constructive criticism Mike. I know that it is not something the “progressives” like to do or actually can do.
Your Friend Skip
Actually Mike, as I’ve pointed out to you on this blog before, the U.S. has adopted a number of socialistic and communistic legislative acts over the years, therefore it is perhaps a good idea for you to increase your level of knowledge in the area, before you provide “unconstructive” criticism to some one else. Read the Communist Manifesto Mike. Even an 9th grader can understand it.”
hskiprob,
I know much more about communism than you might imagine. I’ve written about my experiences with it here numerous times. I have actually known and have had political battles with real communists/socialists of every variety back in the 60’s and 70’s. As to increasing one’s level of knowledge I would suggest to you that you perhaps are viewing the world through the lens of your own political pre-judgments. You assume, for instance that I am a “progressive”, or a liberal and I am not. I know too much about the origin of the term “progressive” to want to be associated with it. Liberal is a slippery term as well.
While I am a humanist, I believe that all “Isms” are nonsense used by those with power, or with a “will to power”. They are the memes used by those of narcissistic and sociopathic bent to gain followers and meet their selfish goals.
They are also used, as you do in your comment, to demonize those with whom you disagree and as such are as silly as one football fan denigrating another because of the team they root for.
Where your confusion lies stems directly from the mindset that characterizes some programs as socialist/communist, as if that description alone dismisses them from benefiting the public good. From that mindset Social Security becomes socialistic, which is just plain ahistorical and silly as a way of appraising it. Perhaps though, you think Prussian aristocrat Baron Otto Von Bismarck was being a “socialist” when he instituted a social security program in the 19th Century? The labels are absurd to me, fit more for political attack ads, than political discussion.
Now Bruce is a perfect example of this name calling mindset. He is more of a football fan when it comes to politics, than a logician. The others guys are bad and our guys are good. From any objective political science view this country has move “rightward” since 1972. Now, of course it is your view that FDR was a “socialist” than you may see it through different lens filters. If you do, however, I would submit that you are basically blinding yourself to reality based on some rigid belief system you’ve adopted. I’ve done this before and once again I’ll do it.
My root philosophy is based on what Christians would call the “Golden Rule”. I follow the teachings of Rabbi Hillel, the Elder which are summed up in:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.” and ” “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”
That is my guiding principle in life and from it all philosophy stems. I further believe this:
All humans should have adequate air, water, food, shelter, clothing and education. They should be free to think, feel and say as they please. They should have the right to achieve to the best of their ability and reap the benefits from that achievement. They should have an equal say in their governance Finally, they should be protected from the sociopaths and narcissists who would prey upon them. The methodology for best achieving this is open for discussion.
oops! lived
Glad Booker won the general but probably would have voted for the more progressive Rush Holt in the primary if I live in New jersey rather than in the land of the Texas Tea Party. Oh well….only two more weeks
Mike S.,
Peter King used to represent the Congressional District I lived in, so I have followed his career for many years. When he comes across as a Republican “Moderate”, then I know the country is in real trouble.
*****
That’s for sure!
Didn’t finish my thought:
It’s good Booker won, but his “Meet the Press” interview reveals a sad truth about politics: that politicians must reassure Wall St. and the financial sector that they have no intention of disturbing the status quo in order to win. Much of their source of campaign funding comes from those well stuffed wallets.
One way around campaign finance is to eliminate or restrict the amount of money networks can charge for advertising. We, the people, own the airwaves, do we not? Why can’t we commandeer them once in a while in the name of democracy.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/10/cruz-the-dream-of-keeping-poor-people-from-seeing-a-doctor-must-never-die.html “…most expensive civil war re-enactment ever”
It’s good Booker won, but his “Meet the Press” interview reveals a sad truth about politics: that politicians must reassure Wall St. and the financial sector that they have no intention of disturbing the status quo
All of that linkage doesn’t go to the heart of what many folks don’t like about Booker, particularly Elaine. He is for students and against the education industry that hurts families and kids. At least say it for chrissake! He’s a black man who cares more about black families than the education industry. “Got to get his mind right.”
David,
I have a great idea. Get with Ted Cruz and start a third political party. I am sure you will get lots of money for campaigns….and stuff. After all, the 13% of the population that likes the Tea Party is still a lot of wallets. Of course, Mr. Cruz was born in Canada, so he is out as a Presidential candidate–tough luck on that.
OS, Those two guys look downright creepy. Truly sociopaths.
David,
You simply won’t accept facts or face the truth. People like you make dictatorships possible.
RTC wrote: “People like you make dictatorships possible.”
No, establishment politicians like Peter King and John McCain make dictatorships possible. They do not vote on principle, nor by their conscience, nor even as representatives of the people. They vote based on what politically is workable based upon who occupies the White House. This is the kind of politics that enables dictatorship by the President.
The Tea Party Republicans in the House and Ted Cruz and Mike Lee in the Senate are the only ones holding the government responsible for overspending. They are the only ones who actually see the disaster that Obamacare represents for the nation. If they fail, violent revolution will be coming when the economy collapses.