Racial Integration

History Of Major Social And Economic Change And Presidential Reelections

Ronald Leave a comment

When one examines American history, in times of major social and economic change, often very controversial, the American people have chosen every time to endorse those changes, no matter how divisive, by reelecting the President who brought about the reforms.

Witness Abraham Lincoln and the Emancipation Proclamation, followed by a reelection victory in the midst of the Civil War in 1864.

Witness Woodrow Wilson, and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act, Clayton Anti Trust Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, and several labor reforms, and being reelected in 1916.

Witness Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal, and the passage of the National Labor Relations Act and Social Security Act, leading to reelection in 1936.

Witness Harry Truman vetoing the Taft Hartley Labor Act and promoting integration of the the military and Washington, DC, and then winning election in 1948.

Witness Lyndon B. Johnson promoting the Civil Rights Act in 1964, and then winning election to a full term the same year.

Witness Republican Richard Nixon, going along with Democrats, and signing into law the Environmental Protection Agency, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Occupational Safety And Health Administration, and Affirmative Action, and being reelected in 1972.

Now Barack Obama has accomplished major reform on health care, ObamaCare, something millions of Americans already benefit from, so to imagine the American people rejecting it this November, would defy American history, that when major change comes about, it becomes permanent!

50th Anniversary Of University Of Mississippi Integration By James Meredith: One Of Ugliest Moments In American History!

Ronald 1 Comment

Fifty years ago, one of the ugliest moments of American history occurred, when the University of Mississippi was integrated by James Meredith, its first African American student, but with a cost initially of two killed, hundreds wounded, due to a racist mob that descended on the university campus, and battled with the National Guard mobilized by order of President John F. Kennedy to enforce federal court orders allowing Meredith to be enrolled.

Mississippi Governor Ross Barnett refused to enforce the court order, requiring Kennedy to do what President Dwight D. Eisenhower did five years earlier at Little Rock Central High School, the use of the National Guard under Presidential control, taken away from the state government’s authority.

What a terrible message this violent riot sent to the world, and the propaganda given to the Soviet Union about American “democracy”!

The incident etched in the memories of millions of Americans a terrible image about Mississippi and the deep South which still has not left us, and while the situation in that state has improved somewhat, it still is seen as a backward, regressive state in the minds of many, and has led to lack of economic growth even in recent times, and the loss of a Congressional seat, rare for a “Sun Belt” state, after the Census of 2000.

Has racism nationally declined from its peak fifty years ago? The answer is YES, but the fact that we have an African American President does not mean the end of it by any means, and has actually made for a new racism. The reality that many whites refuse to see Barack Obama as a legitimate President shows just how much work we need to do to overcome it in the long term, and how much of that racism is still taught at home by parents!

Presidential Courage And Human Rights: From John Quincy Adams To Barack Obama

Ronald 3 Comments

One of the most important roles of a President is to be a moral leader, a person who sets the standard for what is moral and ethical in public affairs,

And nothing is more important than to have the courage to take leadership on human rights matters, whether in the United States or in other nations.

In that regard, Barack Obama will always stand out for what he did on Wednesday, speaking up for gay rights, including the right to marry.

Who else among our Presidents can be seen as a moral leader on human rights issues?

John Quincy Adams, as President and in his post Presidential career in the House of Representatives, campaigned against slavery and the slave trade, and was censured by the House of Representatives for fighting the gag rule (forbidding discussion of slavery in the House chamber) over and over again. He also represented the slaves aboard the slave ship Amistad, and won the court case for their freedom in 1841.

Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, a move many thought was unwise and might undermine the Union effort during the Civil War. But he believed that African Americans should be given freedom.

Harry Truman took the earliest steps in promoting civil rights for African Americans in the 1940s when segregation reigned in the South, and he went ahead anyway and promoted integration of the military and of the nation’s capital, Washington, DC.

Dwight D. Eisenhower alienated the white South when he sent in National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce integration of a public high school.

John F. Kennedy followed Eisenhower’s lead, in promoting National Guard intervention at the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama, to bring about integration, and also proposed a civil rights law that he had to know would be extremely difficult to accomplish.

Lyndon B. Johnson, despite his Southern heritage, became the great proponent of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, knowing it would turn the white South over to the Republican Party, as it did.

Richard Nixon signed affirmative action into law, which became one of the great advancements in civil rights for women and minorities.

Jimmy Carter became the advocate of promoting human rights overseas, instead of accepting violations by so called “friendly” nations, as part of the business of diplomacy. He was bitterly criticized as naive, but his human rights beliefs remain one of his great legacies.

And now Barack Obama joins this group on Presidential courage in relation to the advancement of human rights! Kudos to him!

The Supreme Court And Public Opinion: Not The Job Of The Judiciary!

Ronald Leave a comment

A new poll, commissioned by the New York Times, shows that 38 percent want the 2010 Health Care law overturned entirely; 29 percent want the requirement that nearly all Americans obtain health insurance overturned; and only 26 percent want to keep the entire law in place.

At the same time, when it comes down to specifics, the American people support the law. 85 percent approve the requirement that health insurance companies cover those with existing medical conditions or illnesses; 68 percent support allowing children to stay on their parents’ policies until age 26; and 77 percent support offering discounts to reduce the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap, called the “donut hole”.

At the same time, 48 percent say they find confusing how the law will affect them and their families, while 47 percent say they understand the law.

What does this tell us? It tells us that the American people, as a whole, have no clue as to what this law does, and this is partially the fault of the Obama Administration and the Democrats, but it is also the fault of the opposition Republicans, conservative talk radio, Fox News Channel, and the powerful corporate interests that want the law defeated, and really don’t care about the fact that 50 million Americans have no health care except the emergency room, if they end up there. And if they die because of lack of health care, so be it, is the attitude of these special interest groups.

And now there is discussion of the fact that the United States Supreme Court should overturn the law because of the uneducated and confused public opinion.

But that is NOT the job of the Supreme Court, to listen to public opinion, but instead to LEAD public opinion in the proper direction!

If the John Roberts led Supreme Court overturns the law, they will be condemned in history for having kept us the ONLY major industrial democracy in the world to refuse to cover all citizens on a question of life and death!

The Supreme Court is not designed to be popular, and neither are the circuit courts below them. Their job is to interpret the Constitution, and do what is right for the American people, whether popular or not..

If one had polled public opinion, and in some cases it was actually done, the following would not have occurred:

End of racial segregation in public schools in 1954
Provide for privacy rights for couples to use contraceptives in 1965
End of ban on interracial marriage in 1967
Allowance of abortion rights in 1973
Provision to advance women and minorities because of past discrimination in 1977
Giving of privacy rights to gays and lesbians, not just straight people in 2003

These are an issue of social justice and what is right morally, and the same situation applies to the issue of health care.

Popularity should NEVER be a factor in court decisions, and if the Court is unpopular, so be it!

That is why the courts are not elected, as the ignorance and emotion of the masses should never be a basis of constitutional interpretation or human rights.

The Supreme Court has made America a better place, precisely because it has done what the American people may not have appreciated at the time, but was a necessary action, over and over again!

The Republican Attack On The Constitution: A Threat To American Democracy!

Ronald 5 Comments

The Republican Party loves to assert that the Democrats, and progressives in particular, are attacking the Constitution, and that they are the experts on the Constitution.

So therefore, in this Presidential primary season, and in the party membership in Congress, there are statements constantly attacking the court system, anytime that a federal judge or court issues a decision against the conservative view of the Constitution. There are condemnations and calls to change the court system on a regular basis.

One would think that the Democrats and their progressive friends have dominated the courts in recent decades, which, of course, is the exact opposite of the truth!

One forgets that from 1969-2011, there have been only 15 years of Democratic control of the Presidency, as compared to 28 years of Republican control.

The vast majority of federal judges have been Republican appointments, as a result, and Republican Presidents have made a total of 13 Supreme Court appointments over those years, and Democrats have made only 4, two by Bill Clinton and two by Barack Obama!

But now,. Newt Gingrich calls for judges to be required to testify before partisan Congressional committees, a violation of the separation of powers, and a danger to an independent judiciary!

What it comes down to is that Newt Gingrich and all of the Republican opponents, with maybe the exception of Mitt Romney and Jon Huntsman, wish to create a court system that would move away from the path breaking changes that the Supreme Court brought about during the years of the Warren Court, Burger Court, and Rehnquist Court including:

Brown V. Board Of Education
Miranda V Arizona
Roe V Wade
University Of California V. Bakke
Lawrence V Texas

As it is, there are threats presented by the Republican growth of dominance on the federal courts to all of these issues–racial integration, rights of criminal suspects, abortion rights, affirmative action, and gay rights.

The Republicans will not be contented until there are reversals on all of these issues, and a return to the “good old days”, when minorities “knew their place”; police had unlimited rights over those they questioned or arrested; women had no control over their reproductive rights; minorities and women had disadvantages, as compared to white males, on educational and job opportunities; and gays were forced to remain “in the closet” and face open discrimination and hate without recourse!

So when the Republicans claim to understand what the Founding Fathers meant at the Constitutional Convention, they are forgetting that those esteemed leaders put into the Constitution the “Elastic Clause” to allow for expansion of the Constitution beyond the original document, in order to make the Constitution a “living document” adaptable to changing times.

The real threat is not what the federal courts have done in the past sixty years! It is the attempt of conservatives and the Republican Party to negate the great progress brought about the Supreme Court and lower courts in the past sixty years, and revert back to the years after World War II, when all of these great changes started slowly to evolve through courageous judges and Supreme Court Justices, including Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black, William O. Douglas, Thurgood Marshall, Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

Human Rights Vs. Popular Vote, Religion, And Constitutional Amendments

Ronald Leave a comment

With the passage of gay marriage rights in the New York State legislature, the debate is again beginning about the opposition of religious groups, the call for a vote of the people on the issue, and talk of a federal constitutional amendment to prevent gay marriage nationally, and in the states.

Only once has a constitutional amendment been passed to limit human rights–the 18th Amendment ban on the manufacture and sale of intoxicating beverages–and it was repealed by the 21st Amendment fourteen years later.

The purpose of amendments has always been to improve on human rights, not restrict human rights, and gay marriage is a human right!

Organized religion has often been opposed to human rights internationally, as well as in this country, as witness the religious groups which supported slavery, racial segregation, and denial of equality for women. Of course, not all religious groups promoted denial of human rights, and there are glorious crusades on the opposite end of these issues that dignify America’s history as a country improving its human rights record over time. But should any religious group or individual views on gay marriage be determinant of such a human right existing? The answer is clearly NO!

Should the American people be able to vote on the issue of human rights, and deny unpopular groups their basic human rights? Again, the answer is NO, as it is clear that if one had had a vote on interracial marriage in the 1960s, the vast majority would have opposed it, but so what? It is none of anyone’s business what other adults do in their personal lives and for their personal happiness!

It is likely that large percentages of Americans today do not like interracial marriage, do not like racial integration, do not like that women have become so equal with men, but that is a personal thought, and should not rule on the issue of human rights!

Human rights should be inviolable, not subject to anyone’s whims or prejudices! No one should be able to deny or take away anyone’s human rights under any circumstances, as this is democracy and human freedom on its grandest scale!