And here we are today... (without the segregated lunch counters but instead the reality of today's almost exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities). I wish I could format and boldface your closing paragraph! How inadvertently prescient Senator Ted Kennedy was.
"Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”"
Janice: How right you are about Ted Kennedy. I found the following on the internet and it speaks to his beliefs and actions. “U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) took positions on many political issues throughout his career via his public comments and senatorial voting record. He was broadly liberal with regard to social issues. Kennedy favored stricter gun control, supported LGBT rights and abortion rights, advocated for universal health care, and legislated for education initiatives.”
But why, oh why, did he sign on with W’s education initiative. Still thought it was politics as usual. He didn’t live long enough to realize how wrong that was…
This is the one thing that I could never forgive Ted Kennedy for: hastening the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Of course, there wasn't any guarantee that Carter would have prevailed, but Kennedy's splitting the Democratic party in two at that time shows the danger in someone showing up who essentially takes away vital support from the leader of the party. And now, we have ANOTHER Kennedy trying to do the same thing. I like to think Edward Kennedy of the present day is loopy enough that he won't present too much of a danger to Biden, but with similar low approval numbers for Biden as Carter had then, and with The Orange Scourge lurking in the wings, ANYTHING could happen. That greatly concerns me because now the stakes are SO much higher. I greatly admired Ted Kennedy for many things, except for his error in judgement in 1980.
Wholly agree here, Bruce. Encourage every Democratic voter you can to NOT cast a vote for vaccine and epidemiological study skeptic, RFK, Jr. He won't get enough votes to win but he could peel off enough, given the chance, to help Biden lose. Just say no.
Today’s wannabe Kennedy is just a tool with illusions of grandeur. But a spoiler who can drain off Dem votes. Sadly, the Dems who post support are idealists with not a pragmatic bone
Some gop "lite" who can no long abide tfg OR disanctimonious are hopping the fence into into kennedy jr land.... smdh: why CAN"T they do the most basic THINKING???
I went to protests against Bork with my parents. In California, at least, there was a massive resistance to that nomination. I thought about that constantly when that descendant and ideological heir to slaveholders, Mitch McConnell, was busily stealing the first Supreme court seat, and people didn't rise up in mass protest. Because we didn't, McConnell and the Rs and tfg knew they could do whatever the **** they wanted.
Mitch McConnell is an evil man who wants only to win so he and the other cretins in the Republican party can wipe out anything they don't like. They don't care about the people who live here, the people who will be affected by their quest to instill racism, misogyny, and hate into law. Republicans want to rule, not govern. We are doomed if we allow this.
Let’s add some conspiracy theories here. McConnell knew that the Russians were helping Trump. Obama wanted him to let the FBI and CIA go after them, but he wouldn’t do it without bipartisan support. McConnell had no interest in stopping the Russians, or in a fair election. How much did McConnell know, and who was paying him to keep quiet?
Obama should have appointed Garland to the court on a temporary basis and told the Senate they could decide if he should stay when they got around to it. All of the three Trump/McConnell justices were raised and shaped for thirty years by the Federalist Society. Their goal has been to protect business from any limits or restrictions. They added on all this religious crap to keep the crazies in line.
Obama did not need bipartisan support to enforce US election law against foreign (Russian) interference. Essentially allowing McConnell a veto where the partisan ends the Leader sought were more important than our democracy was a serious error.
I recall reading that McConnell threatened to accuse Obama of trying to influence the election if Obama made public that the Russians were working to influence the election.
He had to be very careful--and was--and still our racist culture reacted to his presidency with a massive wave of fear and loathing. Instead of a watershed moment of racial reconciliation (a black president early in the 21st Century? Such would have been unthinkable thirty, forty years prior!), we instead have been treated to a clear view on how divided the country still is on race--and on every question of difference from straight/cis white male Christian ideals.
I really felt for him when he had to address the nation every time another black person was murdered by the police. I have no doubt he was overcome by rage and grief, but letting that any of that show in public would have been political suicide. His self-restraint was extraordinary.
Not that he is different from any other black American in that regard. Their lives depend on exercising extreme diplomacy in public. Most white Americans don't even have to think about such things beyond bare social niceties.
I loved Obama, and still have great respect for him. Nonetheless, I realized during his presidency that he only got as far as he did because he was such a likable and non-threatening black man. Brilliant, funny, compassionate, etc. – just what would make about half of white Americans comfortable with having a black person in the highest office. But that meant that his ability to anger, fight back, and strategize aggressively were compromised.
I have the sam thought about Obama. I also wonder if, during the 2007 - 2009 financial collapse, he didn’t do more for people who lost their homes because so many were Black and didn’t want to appear to be favoring Blacks. Yes, an ugly, awful thought.
McConnell did threaten Obama with that. Obama should’ve acted anyways to protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
An EU official anonymously stated everyone respected Obama, but nobody feared him. Both are needed to be effective, no matter how soft the velvet glove.
OAITW, the religious conservatives, especially Evangelicals, have been giving money to, and receiving money from, the secular Libertarians to support causes in which they have common interests. They are effectively joined at the hip.
Seth - good question. I don't know, exactly. I do think part of it was the utter shock of MM's blatant blocking of Merrick Garland. And I may be totally wrong but by that point it seemed President Obama had been so hammered by racist forces that he didn't feel he could lead a charge against MM. I'd like to hear what others here think.
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Beer O'Kavanagh & Gorsuch should be locked in a room for a month and forced to experience the exact tsunami of death threats and racist filth the Obamas endured. Maybe, just maybe, they'd rethink their "Racism is dead" bull****.
If they had an iota of empathy, they wouldn’t be the cretins they are. Gorsuch learned his entitlement at his mother’s knee. No knowledge about the others, but society has plenty of rewards for greed and “I’ve got mine, screw you.”
Heat … kitchen. Republicans attack any Democratic President with mindless fury. Does anyone think Hillary would have faced something different if she had won in either 2008 or 2016? It’s a mistake to treat McConnell’s (or those of his caucus) machinations as legitimate. Take, for example, the gross abuse of Senate courtesies by Tuberville, please? That stunt deserves no respect at all.
Thanks Alexandra , this comment opens again the ‘where did it all begin’ premise - suggesting all is not black and white/‘it’s complicated’ and ‘by all means ‘ using that pun.
Is it possible with such answers derived ...real solutions can exact a resume of ‘path of good intents’ ie Democracy?
My baseline fears akin to the ‘rats in a cage’ theory in that too many ( crowding) create chaos, barbarism, etc. is the ‘we all just get along’ ( RK “...”) just another hippie delusion?
Many of us were disgusted but at the time, the possibility that Trump could actually be the next president hadn't fully sunk in. Yes, we were complacent in thinking it was just a delaying tactic bY MM before Hillary took over.
You're right. I certainly didn't think Trump would win and ... life hasn't been the same since for most of us. And, have you noticed the proliferation of resources (like Heather) that we are all paying attention to now? Early on when I was trying to discuss things online with "friends" and former connections and classmates, I had no comebacks for the "what-aboutisms" my former classmates in northeastern Ohio were sending my way. I was totally unprepared because I didn't really know much about history, politics, etc. and needed to educate myself. And I hadn't bothered to learn those things before. That still shocks me. I had no idea I had so many racist views and ideas, for example. I was "nice" to people. I knew Reagan was wrong but I didn't know how really, really, really wrong and evil he was until the last decade when I read up on things. I thought George Bush (the younger) was okay because he seemed so well-intentioned. Ugh. Wow. I now realize more about all of this stuff. So, if I had the views I had, it makes it easier to understand why so many others still do. For one thing, since 2015 I finally set everything else aside, and was white privileged enough to take that time and do it, to figure out who I am and what I believe and think. At no other time in my life have I been so intellectually on fire to know what's true, what's happening, why do things happen the ways that they do, etc. And I'm in my 70s. It isn't unusual for people to take so long. And some never take it on for one reason or another. Fear, anger, oppression that leaves them without recourse ...
Anyway, I am glad to be here with all of you. Thank you!
ALL the forces aligned, the racism against Obama, the mysoginy against Hilary, the hatred of the Clintons in general, coupled with McConnell’s sociopathy and Putin’s passion for America’s destruction. The cherry on top was the American Majority’s ignorance (and shocked disbelief!).
The massive ignorance and apathy about racism from those who voted for Trump (including my own family members) burst my idealistic bubble that the US was really moving forward. The election of Trump has caused a lot of pain and set back the country 40 years in my opinion. Now I’m just hoping the country regains its position as a progressive country before the end of my lifetime.
We should have protested Clarence Thomas’s appointment especially after sexually harassing a subordinate. This was while he was head of the EEOC to boot. What a disaster he has been.
There were protests—Republicans weren’t afraid of them. They expected to take the White House in 2016 with their strong bench (pre Trump), and the history that the WH most often changes parties after 8 years.
While I believe Obama was an outstanding president, his greatest failing was not using the bully pulpit and the Courts to challenge Mitch McConnell's unconstitutional usurpation of power.
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Article II does not grant the Senate the *option* to provide Advice and Consent; it mandates the Senate take such action: "...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court."
Based on the foregoing, I personally consider Gorsuch's appointment as unconstitutional and his presence on the Court illegitimate.
The Fourteenth Amendment signalled and jumpstarted the modern-day America with a strong affirmation that "all persons born or naturalized under the United States should enjoy equal protection under the laws." Since its passage, this legislation has delivered landmark cases which include overturning of ruling made in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 case (1857) and allowed everyone to apply and be a citizen of the US without the state preventing them. Native Americans were given US citizenship when Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924 and removed the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that had ruled that Native Americans who gave birth to children were not automatically US citizenship. Similarly, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in.
Upto date, the Constitution is founded on the respect for individual rights, regardless of the state powers.
👋
If you haven't join me in my newsletter (not too late), I welcome you (for free) as I explore different issues.
It would appear that the 24 states which have banned or severely limited abortions have clearly violated the 14th Amendment. And by what right do they ban anyone from being treated by a doctor with respect to their personal decision to trans lifestyle? We must protect them by exercising our right to elect a Congress and President who will do so! It is our constitutional duty!
Jon Tester the dem from MT needs lots of support. Native MT, farmer, supports reasonable gun ownership, veterans. He is running against a well funded R from out of state, whose fb page are Freedom Caucus posts
I respectfully suggest that we all consider and contribute substantial contributions to a brilliant group of Harvard students who are registering tens of thousands of 18 to 25s and 25 to 35 women focused on protecting their abortion rights. Please go today to www.turnup.us/ and it is a tax deductible nonpartisan contribution! Much more meaningful use of your contributions than wasting it on candidates’ political ads on TV that NONE of these young people watch?
"If you know anyone who’s upset about the Supreme Court please feel free to send them this resource document with ways they can help with court reform"
The legislators in states that have "banned or severely limited abortions" believe, or claim to believe, that abortion is murder. Many of them see, or claim to see, abortion as comparable to slavery, as an evil that must be eradicated -- and themselves in the position of the pre-Civil War abolitionists.
They are not opposed to other forms of murder, i.e. capital punishment, guns for all, violating the civil rights of LGBTQi+ that have led to suicides in some cases. Their hypocrisy is flashing mega watts!
They may see themselves that way but they are wrong. And they have learned nothing of our history, of the New Testament, of the Enlightenment and those legislators are mostly men. Their religiosity stops at my nose. Those men should just never have an abortion !
It's often difficult for me to appreciate that with very, very few exceptions, everyone in this discussion is coming from a place of righteousness. And very, very few are willing to be wrong.
Curiously, which of the things do you believe are righteously wrong? Transitioning from one gender to another? Abortion? Native American rights? Women’s equality? Granting same sex marriages?
Righteousness itself is somewhat wrong I find. Are those you disagree with or who have no faith unrighteous? People who have no announced faith can also be moral ethical human beings. Discuss!!
(And Ally, there's no need to pick an argument. Each of those topics is both simple in theory, very complicated in application. Would you like to choose one to discuss?)
The last one I confronted was the notion that pleasure/reward somehow "balances out" pain/punishment. It's taken me a while to realize that they operate quite independently.
What's wrong with righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise? Perhaps you are using the term to call out our smugness or unfounded certainty or ignorance or shallow knowledge in the name of righteousness. Enlightening. Having been married for nearly 60 years, I find I no longer require full knowledge or evidence sufficient to apply my probative skills to change my mind or correct a point of view that lacks legs, so to speak. We may be of similar minds, but I find a lot of growth among the correspondents to the Letter From An American. Sometime growth doesn't require publicly stating having been wrong, but rather see shifts in responses and conversation. I find that civil.
Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that it seems difficult for an individual to recognize the difference, in themselves, between righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise, and self-righteousness, a fear-driven bulwark guarding ignorance and bigotry.
What's hard for many to believe is that it's possible to hold strong, ideally well-informed opinions and still be able to see an issue from different perspectives, including those one disagrees with. This IMO is what distinguishes most of today's Republicans from those of a couple of generations ago: they can't or won't do it. And it's not hard to see the same unwillingness or inability among many in the left of center.
I come from the other side of the big pond Dirk and don’t feel qualified to join this conversation but I can’t help feeling you are right! We do have some similarities in our own UK politics!
My wife is, at this very moment, enjoying the hospitality of relatives on your side of the pond, and I'm beginning to wish I'd joined her. Stratford-upon-Avon, lovely place. Is that near you?
Uh, would you mind finishing your sentence? It's hard to respond when I'm not sure what point you're making. But yes, provide me with sufficiently probative evidence subject to confirmation, and I will happily admit to my error and thank you for the information.
But it's to hide their real agenda, to reinstitute the "traditional family" where women are second class citizens and the man is at the head of the household making all the decisions. It's also to prevent white women from getting abortions, because of the "Replacement Theory" that POC will soon outnumber white people in the country.
I believe that it's no one's business what a person does with her own body. I'm sure I don't want the state to tell me what medical interventions I can and can't have based on their religious beliefs. Abortion is an unfortunate reality, and is for most women a really terrible choice to make and then a terrible procedure to endure. That the public believes they have a right to weigh in on this is tragic.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
'Historian Eric Foner describes the impact of the Fourteenth amendment:'
The whole question of what is citizenship, who is a citizen and what rights come along with it – that was central to the political conflict in Reconstruction. [The Reconstruction amendments] are the effort of the Republican Congress, and indeed of African Americans themselves, to put into the Constitution the basic idea of equality for all Americans. It's important to remember that ideal didn't exist before the Civil War. Remember, the Dred Scott decision, 1857, said no black person can be a citizen. Only white people can be citizens of the United States.
This was a country with strong belief in liberty but with a strong racial barrier excluding nonwhites from enjoyment of many of those liberties. And so Reconstruction is an effort to shatter those boundaries and to create a new…republic. I mean, that's why I call it the "Second Founding." It really transforms the Constitution, not just adding a few things here and there…to try to implement this principle of equal rights for all Americans.
'In 1853, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech that included his vision of birthright citizenship and the rights of African Americans. The birthright citizenship principle would later be enshrined into law with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment:'
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens.” (FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES)
Excellent post Fern. Especially the pointer toward the importance of Frederick Douglas in all events leading to the fourteenth amendment and the role of black Americans in fostering a true Democracy.
Douglass also was the first to suggest to Lincoln the idea that by freeing the slaves he could enlarge his Union Army thereby hastening an end to the war with more victories. Of course, I don't have a quote reference but I read that fact in "The 1619 Book Project" organized and partly written by Nicole Hannah Jones. Before Douglass suggested freeing the slaves to Lincoln, it had never crossed his mind. Also, it took a while for Lincoln to agree.
Thank you for your kind words, Mike S. I believe the quote you mentioned is the one below.
'Confronting a President: Douglass and Lincoln'
'Two years into the American Civil War, Frederick Douglass was not a fan of President Abraham Lincoln. The President’s unwillingness to allow Black men in the United States military frustrated Douglass.' “We are striking the rebels with our soft white hand, when we should be striking them with the iron hand of the black man which we keep chained behind us.”
'Once Black men were permitted in the military, Douglass served as a recruiter – most notably of the 54th & 55th Massachusetts Infantry. Two of his sons – Lewis & Charles – were among the recruits. Unfair treatment of Black soldiers persuaded Mr. Douglass to halt his efforts. “When I plead for recruits, I want to do it with my heart without qualification. I cannot do that now.” White soldiers were paid more. Promotions for Black soldiers were non-existent. Black men did not receive POW protections most white men benefitted from. “I must expose wrongs and plead their cause.” Hoping to fix these wrongs, Mr. Douglass traveled to Washington hoping to meet with President Lincoln.' (NationalParksService)
There were three meetings between Fredrick Douglas and President Lincoln. You may learn about them using the link below..
Lincoln said that it was only upon Frederick Douglass' visit to the White House that he came to believe that Blacks were fully the equal of whites--that they were not an inferior race.
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens."
Thanks for this quote, Fern, and thanks for confirming Mike’s quote. I made it a point to read Douglass’s essay on the 4th of July (although I admit, not until Thursday this year). It is a position to remember.
In 2014, strenght of the Fourteenth Amendment was tested in the Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) case, involving the granting the liberty of an individual to enjoy same-sex marriage just like the opposite-sex marriage. Ohio had state restrictions about same-sex marriage, but Obergefell and Hodges challenged that decision and won.
In the Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ruled that marrying is one the “personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,”. He further stipulated that “same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.”
(I'm a passionate writer and researcher from Kenya, Africa, exploring African affairs and its history with America and the rest. I welcome you to my newsletter and be part of my mission). Thank you for the support that I always get from you.
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
I am greatly indebted to those who contact me through my newsletter. I welcome you to join me as we debate what matter to us all. Africa and America enjoy cordial relations historically and I will showcase with indepth.
Even though I have no time to add another newsletter, want to thank you for what you contribute to this one. As you learn American history, you are both teaching us and giving us your perspective.
I know. And that is controversial. Children of foreign Diplomats born in the US are not granted citizenship. And I don't think that children of foreigners residing legally in the US--such as, say children of visiting professors--are granted citizenship. And I don't think the framers of the 14th amendment ever meant for it to apply to children of people in the country illegally.
Well, my granddaughter, whose Pop is a Canadian in the US working for Microsoft on a green card (30 years), became a US citizen when she was born as well as a citizen of Canada. Dual residency. I am very happy about that.
Can I assume from what you are saying that her mother is American?
I don't blame you for being happy about the dual residency given all the sh*t that's going on in the US. If I could get Canadian or any French/German/Scandinavian dual citizenship I would.
Janice, so now we have government (states and school boards) saying that black history shall not be taught while some running for office want to teach the Bible story alongside evolution. Writers and authors are censored every day as a single parent is able to ban a book in a school library. When will the rest of Bork’s America be reinstated by a vocal minority?
It's not going to happen, Mary. Gen Y and Z are the least religious groups (in an organized way) and they will represent about 45% of eligible voters next year.
Eventually Bible thumping will take its rightful place alongside the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ready for a chuckle? Remember: "He boiled for our sins".
In 2005, when Kansas declared that "intelligent design" must be taught alongside Evolution, Bobby Henderson wrote to the school board suggesting that his religion, Pastafarianism, must be taught as well. After all, the basis for both religions comes from the same place.
Of course, the school board ignored him. But Pastafarianism was born and now we have the fastest growing pasta based religion in the world. International enthusiasm for a religion with no dogma has exploded. And Bobby Henderson is a prophet.
"We need never doubt our Divine Carbohydrate, for even our DNA is shaped like a noodle so we know that pasta is holy"
— Book One: The Holy Book of Lasagna
It's Better If You Do's:
. It's Better If You Find A Thing You Are Good At
. It's Better If You Live in Harmony With the World
Yes! ALL are welcome. You can even maintain your current faith. Many Pastafarians maintain dual memberships. And...there is a 30 day warranty. If you are not happy, we are sure your previous religion will take you back.
Nah. I think it refers to the type of punishment a pirate might get for bring a "lite" beer on board. But seriously, causing pain is not one of the canons.
Someone posted : “A former student of mine went to the DMV and did this a couple days ago.
*His mom posted this message*
‘Well, it finally happened. After several failed attempts, Cade finally got a California ID with a colander on his head. He could wear it for the picture because he claims he is Pastafarian and the colander is a religious garment. Hey, he's only 17 once!’”
Thank you for adding this excellent and edible religion to the list! But I have a question about the donts: objects: when I walk into my kitchen in the morning where many of the objects are gifts of friends, isn’t it ok to value them? It reminds me of the wonderful people I have known who knew that a gift to a friend’s kitchen is forever remembrance. t
I think Bobby would be just fine with that type of "possession". Sounds lovely and healthy. I think he was probably referring to the worship of fancy cars, houses and duomos. But you could ask him yourself. Sometimes he responds to emails.
Here is an example of his attitude:
"That is to say, you do not have to Believe to be part of our Church, but we hope in time you will see the Truth. But skeptics, as well as members of other religions, are always welcome."
Very few "decrees". Eating pasta is like a sacrament. So it is encouraged. There are Facebook pages devoted to FSM type recipes. For me, the second best part of this religion is the food.
The first best part is this: We are encouraged to poke fun about some aspects of organized religion. Noah's ark is a target, as an example. But we are required to be nice. No personal attacks. No buildings, no tithing. Just a whole lot of food, fun and a lot of beer.
The FSM created the universe about 5000 years ago while drunk - in a matter of a few seconds. When he woke up with a hangover, he realized how many mistakes he made. With regret, he flew off into who knows where and has not been seen again. Although some claim sightings, we think he probably won't be back.
The core idea is that ALL religions and faiths should be personal and that the line between church and state must be like a steel wall. I think he just came here to remind us how important our Constitution is and maybe to suggest we lighten up a bit.
Regarding comparing "The Bible" and "Evolution" ......
I have often been struck by the similarity of Genesis, Chapter 1 and the actual event order of what is thought to be the origin of the solar system and subsequent evolution. Next time you read Genesis Chapter 1, think about what scientists know about the order of events of our Solar System formation and then the order of life on the planet.
Whoever wrote Genesis Chapter 1, came pretty close to BINGO where the order of events of the formation of the Universe, the Solar System and planets, and then the order of life on earth as thought to have occurred via evolution.
In particular I like to compare these two sentences, one Scientific and one Biblical:
1) Scientist say that all of the mass in the Universe somehow found its way to a single point in the Universe and then there was a "Big Bang". We all accept this to be true yes?
2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now, is there really much difference between those two sentences? Both of them are literally filled with the unknown.
I never really thought there is much difference between "Big Bang" and "God created".
Both of those statements are the same thing as saying "Who Knows?"
:-)
NOT that I am saying we should be teaching from the Bible in public schools. We should not.
Yes, and who can define what ‘a day’ is for God, or whether God is male, female, etc.. I just wish religious fundamentalists could just start to think in cosmic terms.
I recently received a very sincere letter from one of my fundamentalist sisters in Texas concerned about my own tendency to think for myself. She was seriously worried about me going to hell and sent me an incredibly long sermon by some guy named John MacArthur about people who are sponsoring "Christian Deconstruction".
This lengthy sermon ended up really being a long, one hour, rant by this old guy about young people leaving his church and then posting negative reviews of this guy on social media.
After listening to this guy barely say anything for an hour, I could definitely understand why people were leaving his church for sure.
But, for people who have grown up in the Baptist, fundamentalist ideology which is mostly focused on separating those who are "going to heaven" from those who are obviously "going to hell" it is REALLY hard to break out of that and think for yourself.
I know how hard it is to let go of that feeling that the list of four things the Baptist preacher said will send you to hell, (all of which humans do all the time), and just accept everyone without judgement like Jesus actually said we should do.
That Southern Baptist hard philosophy also supported slavery, discrimination and segregation for 100 years. It is why there is a Northern Baptist Church and a Southern Baptist Church. Baptists in the North were against slavery.
But, in the south, the Southern Baptist Church preachers, since their big donors were slave owners, fully supported slavery as invented by God himself. No joke.
Those religious views alway, always set the tone of because I believe I’m better than you! I’m going to heaven and you are going to hell simply because you won’t believe what I say!
I just wish they would start to think instead of blindly following whatever their pastor says. It's a golden opportunity for people who like to control thoughts and actions of others....then you start to see the hubris. Here in Salem and most likely elsewhere, it's become in your face to others. During the pandemic, the biggest church in our neighborhood became COVID central as well. Following the teachings of Jesus....not so much.
When a person accepts religion they give up their right to think for themselves. Unfortunately many of them were brainwashed as children before they could make up their own minds. It's a form of child abuse.
In some cases, I would agree with you, but not all. I went to church as a child and I did not view it as child abuse. I did disagree with some of my mother's beliefs (my father was not religious although raised in the Methodist church). My fav story about her concerns evolution where I remember her telling me that if we were descended from apes, it was on my father's side.
Read Buddhist cosmology, which discusses the history of what happened before “the big bang”, and also the Big Bang that happened before this last one, and the one before that. Very entertaining, but all to the point that what any individual does or does not do, in the immediate moment, is all we have to work with. Choosing to be the best human you can be, in this moment, improves the moment, maintains and expands your humanity. Anything else just continues the slide down the vector of delusion...
Very interesting. I’m not really up to speed on Buddhism however the “be the best human you can be in the moment” is an appealing message
As for the slide down the vector of illusion, that was kinda my point regarding “something from nothing” logistical dilemma I believe “relegion” is man’s attempt to deal with “the impossible unknowns”
I liked James Michener’s book, “The Source”, an interesting historical fiction that touches on this struggle to understand how the Universe came to be
Michener was an erudite guy. The “Be the best human you can be” is the message for non practitioners. Once you decide to study more, be it Zen or Vajrayana, the goals shift. At some point, what you are studying will cease to be “religion”.
Thanks for the blast of memory, Dave! I read "The Source" as a teen, it was one of the most impactful books in my young life. Most of what I understand about Judaism comes from there, too.
As a person not raised with religion, I’ve always looked at them from an outsiders perspective. I’ve always thought it was very telling about a society when looking at a religion they grew up with and choose to follow as adults.
For example, from the little that I have read about some of the religions of Indigenous Peoples of the North Americans continent, the relationship between humans and the natural world is a part of their religion. The Christian Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to do that. Now look at where we are regarding the climate crisis. The climate’s fate is essentially being decided by this lack in the dominant religions.
The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. Humans make decisions that impact others, and then suffer the consequences. Then the humans will seek to end their suffering by coming back to God.
Generally, the religions of the American indigenous peoples are animistic or polytheistic methods of ordering experiences, which puts humans as another of the many beings having life and more or less agency. Humans must take the well-being of others, all the others, into account, since humans and all the others live in balance, and sometimes human actions throw off the balance, creating unexpected and unwanted changes.
These are two very different world view, for sure.
"The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. "
Exactly. There is no lack of a relationship between man/humanity and nature in the European tradition of Christianity: it is a relationship defined by separation and domination. Man is figured as not even belonging to this world, but to the kingdom of Heaven. He is to subdue the Earth--with corollary that he also rule over woman, who is figured, at best, as dangerously well-acquainted with nature. At worst, she is the agent of original sin, having been first to give into the temptation to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I would be overjoyed to see a renaissance of indigenous values here in the Americas. I sometimes think it is one of our only best chances to heal our relationship with the rest of life on Earth.
Another interesting examination of religion is looking at the different Indigenous Peoples origin stories. I think that wherever you look, religion attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The NW Indigenous stories & how & where they were told are great! Bill Reid's writings about them as well as his art. They are full of the duality of man's character & the universe. Another interesting read is Frank Waters BOOK OF the HOPI
Mike S., while there are many surface correlations between parts of Genesis and the the overall drift of current cosmology, the primary difference is that the physics model is based on observation and is subject to endless revision as new observations come in. Genesis, on the other hand, is touted as the Word of God, revealed to Moses, completely true and unchangeable.
Besides, having plants arise before the Sun makes a mockery of the Asparagus Law, by which the Plant King gave the power of photosynthesis to is leafy subjects.
It is certainly up to us, today, to vote in a super majority in 2024. It then will require hard work and constant vigil so the correct laws are enacted protecting and amplifying what the framers meant while writing the Constitution.
Janice, isn’t it painfully ironic that instead of Bork we got Thomas? He stands for stopping all the things Senator Kennedy listed, as do the other Christo fascists on the bench. The Buddhist image of our democracy being on the blade of a very sharp sword with a sheen of oil on the blade comes to mind.
Who is today’s Ted Kennedy? We desperately need someone with the moral conviction and the personal courage to call out these blatant attempts to roll back progress and disguise them in double-speak and fake news! HEATHER FOR PRESIDENT👍
Elizabeth Warren. And I might add even though a great fan of Senator Whitehouse who people in the state I live in put in office and even though I agree with the others mentioned here I find it interesting that people listed men first. Or maybe I’m not as well educated on American history as I could be ( which is why I’m reading HCR) or strengths of many Senators to hazard an opinion. Anyway it doesn’t seem to be a debate or popularity contest. Mostly highlighting people with conviction integrity and vision to be grateful for their membership and actions in the Senate.
Just for clarification, my two nominees are in the House. Raskin announced this week he won't be running for the Senate. Schiff is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.
I listened to the latest Lincoln Project podcast last night. Rick Wilson said Kennedy Jr was recruited by Steve Bannon to run. It seems plausible to me.
I have been waiting to see if the latest round of Supreme Court decisions, allowing discrimination, is going to lead to segregated lunch counters again. Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t it now legal for somebody owning a restaurant or a store to refuse service to anyone they don’t want to serve?
I'm waiting for the case to arise where a plaintiff argues that allowing women to exercise authority over men is against his religion, so he and his business should be allowed to promote only men to positions of management.
Robert Bork served as an advisor to the student formed Federalist Society. The students wanted a conservative response to the failure of Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Look where we are today.
Kennedy wasn’t prescient. He grew up in one of the uppermost levels of the socioeconomic hierarchy.
He grew up listening to other people of his class openly share their often low and dismissive opinions regarding the common people, of women, of persons of color, and discuss how to control society for their best advantage by ridding laws and regulations which protect the rights of minorities, workers, consumers, etc.
"exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities" reflects the broader failure for America to have dealt with the social/economic consequences of uplifting huge social populations out of profound poverty outcomes. Not just for blacks, either. America's social vision of individualism and self reliance is radically incomplete.
Correct, and I did consider stating "BIPOC" but it seems that Black Americans have suffered the most in terms of redlining and other discriminatory practices.
Dammit! Will there ever be a nation where leaders know/remember/understand the job they are hired to do: and that is to protect and uphold the benefit of the people they are hired to represent? The Bork justice sounds like what many of today's Justices, and so many Repubs, are trying bring in. Keep fighting and keep informing, HCR... please!
Lets write job desdriptions for president, vice president, senators, representatives, and justices of the SC. That would begin to brovide a factual basis for evaluating their performance. Of course, the process of establishing those job descriptions would be arduous...
And getting anyone of them to adhere to any agreement would be impossible, remember they are politicians. And don't overlook at the comments made by a couple candidates for jobs on the Supreme Court... "For a long time the Court has accepted the law on abortion and I will uphold that law!" Yeah, sure..........
The Fourteenth Amendment, a fortress of freedom and equality for all, is a mere irritant for this Supreme Court majority. To our great peril, these justices will keep ruling as if it doesn’t exist.
The 14th Amendment exists; and yet it is as though it did not exist; or existed only as fine principles to be stated, recited and admired, but systematically circumvented.
It is like clouds that cross the sky but bring earth no rain.
Some Spanish adventurer in the New World expressed the practicalities well:
"His Majesty's orders were obeyed but not carried out..."
It sometimes feels just as though Central America -- those forever conquistador-dominated statelets in which rulers oppress and murder peones freely under cover of fine words -- extended all the way to the Mason-Dixon line.
These 6 judges rule by their religion and then try to come up with bizarre ways to show it's constitutional. In other words, the constitution doesn't mean anything to them.
“These 6 judges rule by their religion and then try to come up with bizarre ways to show it's constitutional. In other words, the constitution doesn't mean anything to them.”
And their religion? What about their religion?
That too is bizarre, albeit sadly commonplace, for these laymen are manifestly guided by imperatives neither religious nor intrinsically moral but political, imperatives exclusively to do with social control and the preservation and strengthening of hierarchies. Whoever is pulling their strings shows every sign of having been inspired by concerns proper to Mammon rather than arising from the Gospel of Jesus Christ…
Despite so many saints, so much good work, so many reforms and reformers, churches and churchmen have for so many centuries buried Christ and his gospel under layer upon layer upon layer of irrelevant accretions, transforming the Temple from which Jesus drove the moneymen into something more like the Augean Stables.
Christian churches owe it to God, to mankind, to themselves, to clean up their act and seek first the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit, not external influences and influencers, irrelevant however expert, however high, however powerful. The times are too demanding for business as usual, for religion as usual, for anything "as usual". Salvation cries out for urgent salvage, for jury rig, cutting away smashed spars and rigging, jettisoning all that stands in the way of bringing our storm-damaged vessel safe to port.
Using the pulpit to further ambition... it appears that where people gather, there is networking and the building of coalitions hiding behind the advertised purpose... the Master’s Open, for instance...
True it may be but I am sorry to bring up such irksome truths.
It is just that our very survival, and more so, that of our children and theirs -- even of life on Earth's surface, with all the variations mankind has known -- is now threatened by sweet-talking false friends. So it is time to speak inconvenient truths. And to do all we can -- and more, because our best will not be good enough -- to live those awkward truths. Not just to proclaim them. Unless we can gradually become the Truth we proclaim, it will just be words spoken to the wind.
We need to find ourselves and live accordingly. And to find one another. As drops find the ocean.
The false friends make use of our sense of separation and powerlessness. But it is they, not we, who are alone; they, not we, who have separated themselves from all that truly is.
They are like the severed head of which Marcus Aurelius speaks in Book 8:34... lying separated from the body.
[Sorry, I keep coming back to that passage. It is well worth reading.]
If I understand your question as you intend, yes, elect a Democratic Congress and re-elect President Biden. The Senate votes to end the filibuster, and Congress expands the Supreme Court.
All 6 of the “originalist” justices in SCOTUS believe in Robert Bork. They will, if allowed, recast America into what Senator Kennedy described as Bork’s America. There’s no time to waste: SCOTUS needs to be reformed to prevent a Borkian society.
For an approach to original intent that allows for flexibility, I like James Madison's summary of the Declaration of Independence in "The Federalist" #43, stating that "the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."
This is reinforced by Chief Justice Marshall's words at the beginning of the decision section in Marbury v. Madison, stating: "That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected."
In other words, to look into the minds of the Founders, we must understand their understanding of "happiness," which meant what we mean today by "well being." Congress's actual definition of happiness appears in the original May 1776 independence resolution: "Internal peace, virtue and good order."
The problem with Originalists is that they are stating an opinion of the Founding Fathers/Mother intents. The opinions do not equal truth or an understanding of the context they were in. The general principles they espoused were "liberal" of their time. They were children of the enlightenment. General principles evolve as society evolves. The power is in their generality. This is why the 14th amendment is so relevant for today. Thanks Heather for taking your weekend to illuminate us.
Certainly our understanding of useful principles evolves over time, as they have in the sciences. Informative as the biographies and character of the frames might be, the power of the Constitution rests in the verity and usefulness of the prescriptions it espouses, not in the infallibility of those who devised it . People will inevitably interpret those prescriptions differently, even with due diligence and good faith, and unlike the boiling point of water at a given air pressure, it is simply hubris to declare you can get the precise meaning exactly right, at least not when a balancing of interests is involved. But I think we can identify obvious concordance and discord between the Constitutional instructions and some of the the things they are claimed to say. For example"Citizen's United" strikes me as preposterous, especially in light of motto carved into the SCOTUS HQ; "Equal Justice Under Law". Where does equality fit into that one?
There is a book that sheds some light on the process of writing our founding documents, "Our Declaration, A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality" by Danielle Allen. Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft, but the book shows images of subsequent drafts, extensively marked up and revised. It is plausible to believe that there was much argument among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, over specific wording of each clause and sentence. They hammered out compromises. It was far from "Holy Writ" inscribed on stone tablets.
As ordinary citizens we are free to dream up rights that were not enumerated in the original wording of the Constitution, nor in the Amendments thus far. There is a nascent movement to establish the rights of Nature, for example. Many of us would enjoy the right to live in a pollution-free environment, as another example.
We want to be able to stand on the rock that is the foundation of our Constitution, but we also want to be able to incorporate improvements as our understanding of phenomena evolves, to establish rights that we have not yet acknowledged or formalized.
And we should also remember that when the Supreme Court finds that a provision in a law is unconstitutional, the Congress can work to find a different wording which does comport with the Constitution and still achieves the original intent of the law. The recent SCOTUS ruling that makes it more difficult to protect our nation's wetlands begs for law-making by Congress to restore our ability to protect our natural systems. And if this Congress is unable to achieve that goal, then we must work to elect a Congress that can get that job done.
Many of us have been acting as though the Supremes can lay down their trump cards, and it's game over. That is not how our system should work, and it will only work that way if we allow it. The Court can say that Nature has no rights, but we can argue that Nature should have rights, and we will work to establish those rights, and whatever else needs to be done, as the law of the land.
As always, the Court should not be making the law of the land. That is the job of Congress. We've been talking about changing the court because it's so difficult to get anything done in Congress. But the Congress is where the fight belongs.
"Many of us would enjoy the right to live in a pollution-free environment, as another example."
Substantive pollution has already been demonstrated to be life-shortening, not to mention the emerging hazards of climate impacts, Freedom to cannot be separated from freedom from. Freedom to walk safely down a street requires substantive freedom from depredation by thieves, rapists, or aggressive hate mongers. Air and water should be kept free of poisons. Democracy implies a share of responsibilities as well as choice.
"As ordinary citizens we are free to dream up rights that were not enumerated in the original wording of the Constitution, nor in the Amendments thus far."
There has been a tendency for some manifestations of government to treat electronic communication as less protected by the 4th Amendment that written or hard wired communication. It all seems a matter of what can we get away with? Are the products of using ball point pens any less Constitutionally protected than goose quills? The framers never saw a ball point pen, let alone a pocket computer.
Author Barbara Cline quotes Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli as saying “There will be no heavy duties,” Wolfgang Pauli told the physicist who was to serve as his assistant. “Your job is, every time I say something, contradict me with the strongest arguments.” I assume "strongest' would be mandatory, as I have read that Pauli did not suffer fools gladly, but it illustrates a creative way to welcome controversy.
We need debate to keep from drifting into circular thinking and/or dishonestly self-serving agendas. Controversy improves justice (our court system is based in it) so long as we aim for and cultivate negotiation is good faith. So long as we are reasonably earnest and keep our own narcissism at bay. Cheating is tempting but fundamentally corrosive of "liberty and justice for all".
Today’s letter is a history lesson every person and court needs to know or remember: “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” Fourteenth Amendment. What did “any person” mean? American Indians and Women gained citizenship privileges and rights much later. The Civil War was not enough to fully address inequality, Racism and poverty. And this must also be recognized: “On June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act, which marked the end of a long debate and struggle, at a federal level, over full birthright citizenship for American Indians.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens
Irenie, my wish is to see all women of every ethnicity and diverse cultural background, rule our nation. We will not allow ourselves to be influenced by outside forces or dictators. We will, however, take a strong stance and continue to be united with iron fists. Sounds like a good Marvel film, doesn’t it? Gawwwwd...one can dream...
That would only work if we close our eyes to the fact that women are just as likely to act in cruel, regressive and oppressive ways, given half the chance. The problem is humans, power and historical structures of inequality.
Rayya, it is simply not statistically true in any way that "women are just as likely to act in cruel, regressive and oppressive ways." And any decent law enforcement official will tell you that. What in the world would you be basing that assertion on?
Well there was a recent report from a US women’s prison that showed that women prison guards were MORE likely to assault the prisoners than male ones and if you work in DV you see plenty of F on F violence. Women soldiers are not ‘nicer’ than males in e.g. Israel. And let’s not get started on the violence enacted by white women on black people… If you work in a female majority profession you see those in power being uncompassionate, callous and backstabbing. Margaret Thatcher wasn’t ‘nice’ nor was Theresa May and Liz Truss nearly destroyed the UK economy with her rank arrogance. Suella Braverman is an outright fascist who would happily let refugees drown. So sorry if I don’t hold some illusion about women being naturally better in power. I loved Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern but there are also admirable male politicians. Feminism is about equality and non-discrimination but not about ‘women are better’.
I'd like to see that report from "a" US women's prison, because that is completely contrary to overall prison statistics.Do you have a name for it or any other details?
I have worked in DV and I can't imagine you're actually trying to say that women commit DV at a higher or remotely equal level to men. If so, again, please link directly to sources you're using. Have you really not looked at statistics of male violence vs. female?
Certainly some women in power have bought into patriarchal/religious sociopathy lock stock and barrel, but naming a handful of those in comparison to millennia of hundreds of thousands of male sociopathic political leaders is hardly a convincing argument.
are “just as likely to act cruel…” etc. it’s that they were not treated or considered equal in the constitution, including in the Fourteenth Amendment. Not until much later in the Indian Citizen Act and for women the 19th Amendment were they granted equality under the law.
It's patently clear that women and people of color are still being "deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law." But still no Equal Rights Amendment to underline those rights.
Susan B. Anthony and other suffragists across the land went to the polls to vote after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that they were "persons". Many pollmasters saw the clear logic of that and allowed them to vote. Courts subsequently fined and sentenced these women in highly publicized cases.
Black communities camped out in groups, in forests and secluded areas outside voting stations, the night before elections so they could approach the polls in relative safety.
Thank you for reminding us that the 14th Amendment is the Holy Writ for those of us who are progressive, inclusive, and fair minded patriotic Americans.
That is just the trouble, Kerry, it... and the entire Constitution... is Holy Writ. And treated accordingly.
In today's America, the Constitution -- if remembered at all -- is "believed" and worshipped, mostly in creeds and in theory, sometimes like Holy Writ, for an hour or so on Sunday.
These are principles that urgently need to be brought down to Earth.
And that... is a horribly difficult proposition, one that goes against the grain for the thought-free who have always taken it for granted that they are "more equal than others".
You make a good point. I would say that it's like other familiar Scriptures..."Thou Shall Not Kill" is pretty good stuff, but not eating a ham and cheese sandwich is kinda dumb and an eye for an eye even worse. I am no fan of "originalism", but some truths are indeed self-evident and deserve to be enshrined.
The handwritten drafts of the United Stated Constitution along with the final UNAMENDED document can be inspected today, nearly any day, at the Library of Congress in DC.
I, like many others, have carefully read the beautiful 18th century handwritten words. I did so years ago before personally attending a SCOTUS session that was mostly ceremonial admitting a number of attorneys to the SCOTUS bar. Very few norticed that a SCOTUS Order did issue on that day which was important to the Life of a minor in a criminal matter. That Order was a stark reminder to me that we have a 'living Constitution' then & now in 2023 and in our future.
Thank you Professor Richardon for putting the 14th Amendment in an accurate historical context.
We have to get Heather to file Amicus Briefs at SCOTUS or at the least have the LFAA Archive linked to a Neal Katyal Brief.
Professor, if you read this, I believe your admission to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences opens the door to being a very important 'Friend of the Court'... besides the scotus 6 will not be the brightest students you have ever addressed.
I will raise the LFAA issues with Mr. Katyal upon his next posting of his 'Courtside' Substack. Respectfully, bsm
Can’t we just run the entire Constitution through Auto-correct, and dispense with the “justices” and their phony “originalism” charade? What does “...on good behavior” really mean, anyway?
I’d like to see somebody unpack the nasty history of “filibuster” for instance. Or the nuanced social hierarchies of the “Code Noir” which
I notice that the mission statement of the Constitution does not appear to draw it's legitimating authority from "We the Original Authors of this Document...", as some would have us believe.
That is indeed the main point I have frequently made JL. There are others who would choose to ignore the plain intent and language of the preamble; as though it had nothing to do with all that followed.
It’s so eery to be reminded of what was then and what is now. Almost a mirror image except that blacks and women have been gaining ground in spite of the muck dealt.
To go along with tonight’s HCR letter, I think it might be interesting to look at Southern Poverty Law Center’s site on the hate groups in our nation. It is a map that cites where they are and believe me, each state has them. Just put your state in and voila! You will see the insanity. www. splcenter.org. Select “Hate Map”.
Republicans have successfully dismantled a lot of Pre-Reagan 20th Century reforms, and encouraged racism, and yet we have a female VP, a majority voted for a female president, we had a two term black president, and some openly gay politicians, so yes our society is still evolving despite the large and powerful reactionary element. I think solidarity, focus and boldness might overcome the impasse.
I believe that. Thank you for the perspective. Unimaginable things have happened politically. Wonderful and horrific. But if we focus on and encourage the wonderful arc of progress, more unimaginable things will happen. Like MA Governor Maura Healey as POTUS.
In all my MANY years on this Earth I have never heard a politician be so intelligent, so well spoken, so compassionate, so very concerned about ALL of us. Combine that with her ability to be a super hard ass prosecutor and we have the makings of a brilliant leader. More like Maura, please!
I hope so too. Our future as a species could easily be tragic, and some scale of tragedy is always part of the deal. Someday the Earth will burn up, the Universe burn out, but it could be fun while it lasts.
Just think, if the last two Democratic presidential candidates, who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, would have become president. We would have Gore’s preemptive actions against climate change, no Bush Iraq war with the associated destabilization of the Middle East that allowed ISIS to thrive, no erasure of the Iran nuclear treaty by trump, no dismantling of the pandemic response team by trump and thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by svuu it once-denial, no empowerment of Russia by Trump (instead of what would have been Clinton’s restraint) that may have prevented the invasion of Ukraine and unnecessary destruction and death, no attempt by trump to overthrow the US democracy on Jan 6, and no appointment of the conservative Supreme Court justices that now sit on the bench.
Yes, I have also supported SPLC for years. They created and provide a free school curriculum called, “Teaching Tolerance “ with lesson plans, books, materials for educators and students at all levels. I used it and shared it. The new name for the program is “Learning for Justice.”
Yes, Marlene, progwoman, and Irenie! It does my heart good to find like-minded souls on this site. I have told my children that after my death, I do not want flowers, but rather messages of sympathy to go to SPLC. It's been my favorite charity for years. And the "Teaching Tolerance" magazines are brilliant. Like you, Irenie, I have passed mine on to teachers I know. Wish that every school in the country would adopt its curriculum.
Thanks for that link, Marlene. I dealt with some of the “Embassy of Heaven” folks, along with another group of “Constitutionalists” who had some very antigovernment views. Since I worked in a Sheriff’s Department, the Constitutionalists at least recognized that (by extension of the Sheriff being elected) I had a modicum of authority.
The simple fact that the founders created the option to amend the Constitution should put the question of "originalism" in the trash bin where it belongs. It's an organic document, not carved into stone.
Exactly so!!! Recognition that “times change” and other rights might need protecting is the recognition and demonstration of the intent of the Framers.
Ken Burns has said that the overriding theme of his documentaries is race, the constant struggle between forces to realize true equality among all citizens. On paper this is supposed to exist, but state legislatures, through gerrymandering and voter suppression, have prevented this dream from becoming a reality. So the question must be asked, why and what are extreme republicans afraid of? The answer, of course, is the fear of losing power. (This could also be said of abortion, despite religious protestations.) And their fight against teaching our children historical truths also reflects this fear. Those who refuse to study and teach these truths are condemned to repeat them. The main issues in today's world are not political; they are psychological.
And we're back at the point of Bork and Dred Scott again, with this rogue collection of graduates of law schools who never learned the meaning of the law while they stole oxygen for three years from those who were determined to learn the meaning of the law and apply it.
And yet the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, one man's efforts to make the Anacostia Swimmable Again finally bears fruit for this river that most dismissed as irretrievably dirty. "Gasaway is one of the grand captains of one of the country’s oldest African American yacht club(s), the Seafarers — 'one of the oldest and most influential champions for restoration of the Anacostia River,' said Chris Williams, the president and chief executive of the Anacostia Watershed Society. 'They were speaking up for the river back when almost no one else was and have been on the front lines ever since.' They began — as so many successful Black institutions did — because of bigotry. The Whites-only clubs of D.C. didn’t allow a Black man to launch his boat when Lewis T. Green, a World War I veteran, built his own and went looking for a place to launch it, said Tony Ford, the current commodore of the Seafarers."
Then, there's this "War of Words" between South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and Ben and Jerry's over who really owns the land on which Mount Rushmore "stands." Having received this news from the Lakota People's Law Project, all I can say is eat more Ben and Jerry's ice cream!
It does sound as though Governor Noem has somehow swallowed bleach, as recommended by the Great Know-All when in the White House. However this was brought about, the grey matter between the gubernatorial ears has plainly been washed whiter than white.
Yay, Lynell! Your comment makes my heart sing! I am reposting your comment on fb, where I have 2000+ followers. From all over the world. It will lift everyone’s spirits to know this history.
I still don't understand why the Fourteenth Amendment, which referred to "all persons born or naturalised" somehow managed to exclude women from voting rights.
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment initially excluded women and Native Americans- they were not yet considered full “persons.” Later that changed. Some Americans still aren’t sure. Just think of current anti-abortion, voting that required its own amendment. And Racism that still exists despite the Civil Rights Act and laws. There’s more.
I can only surmise, Talia, that back in those days, women were considered chattel not persons. So easy to exclude them when they were looked upon through that lens. Perhaps things would be different if the word "two-legged beings" was put in place of "persons"?
Lynell, you seem to be forgetting birds and... more important... the persons corporate whose voice drowns out all others, thanks to the Citizens United judgment which the esteemed Justices bestowed upon America...
Come, Lynell, both of us were forgetting the pre-eminence of centipedes, millipedes and other creepiecrawlies, whether corporate or just things that crawled out from under stones... in deserts mental or physical...
Not to be too technical, but neither the language nor the intent of the 14th amendment excluded women. Moreover, the right to vote at the federal level is nowhere within the language of the Constitution, as the Constitution basically left the architecture of voting up to the States. The white, male, property owner limitation upon voting was prevalent in many States at the time of the Constitution's ratification, and gradually in the early 19th century, the property owning portion fell away. Of course it took the Civil War and the subsequent amendments (13-15) to guarantee the right to African Americans to vote, and women's voting rights were the product of a long, hard fought suffrage campaign, culminating in the 19th amendment in 1920. Women could vote in a few states prior to the 19th amendment.
The amendment was worded in the language of the time, and in that time, women did not have the same rights or standing that men did. Those have been chipped away in that women can now own property, issue contracts, and vote as protected by the 19th Amendment. We still cannot pass an equal rights amendment, and there is still horrendous wage discrepancy between men and women.
That women could vote in several states (Wyoming is the only one I can name without resorting to Google) is immaterial; they were prohibited from voting in many others.
Certainly can't disagree with the bulk of your point, Ally. I do think that the fact there were a few states wherein women could vote prior to the 19th amendment is material however, if only in the sense that a precedent was made upon which to build. My overall point is that the 14th amendment cannot be seen as insufficient or a failure in failing to explicitly mention women. Its purpose was clearly to fully bring former slaves into the full embrace of American rights and liberty. In so doing, it newly empowered the concept of "equal justice for all' for ALL, irrespective of intent. In fact, its language serves as a direct rebuke to the "originalists" who seek to bury the Constitution's protections in historical miasma, and ignore the dynamic intent set forth therein.
Lynell, I post this frequently, there are wonderful books by Gail Collins that should be required reading for all women, but one if her books is enlightening to all, that being "400 Years of America's Women".
A lot of fascinating information. It answers a lot of questions.
Talia, I just answered this above so I'll be brief, but Susan B. Anthony and other suffragists across the land went to the polls to vote after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that they were "persons". Many pollmasters saw the clear logic of that and allowed them to vote. Courts subsequently fined and sentenced these women in highly publicized cases, to shut that down.
Read NYT Adam Liptak “In Her First Term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Came to Play’. She has a new definition of “originalism.”. To quote “During her confirmation hearings, to the surprise of some, Justice Jackson declared herself an originalist, meaning, she explained, that she interprets the Constitution based on how it was understood at the time it was adopted. “I look at the text to determine what it meant to those who drafted it,” she said. But Justice Jackson’s originalism has an unmistakably progressive orientation, one that takes account of not only the original Constitution but also the three transformative amendments adopted in the wake of the Civil War.
And here we are today... (without the segregated lunch counters but instead the reality of today's almost exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities). I wish I could format and boldface your closing paragraph! How inadvertently prescient Senator Ted Kennedy was.
"Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) recognized the importance of the Fourteenth Amendment to equality: “Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”"
Janice: How right you are about Ted Kennedy. I found the following on the internet and it speaks to his beliefs and actions. “U.S. Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA) took positions on many political issues throughout his career via his public comments and senatorial voting record. He was broadly liberal with regard to social issues. Kennedy favored stricter gun control, supported LGBT rights and abortion rights, advocated for universal health care, and legislated for education initiatives.”
But why, oh why, did he sign on with W’s education initiative. Still thought it was politics as usual. He didn’t live long enough to realize how wrong that was…
Ted Kennedy, the Lion of the Senate, produced a mixed bag. He did a lot of good. But, he had a lot to do with Carter’s defeat too.
This is the one thing that I could never forgive Ted Kennedy for: hastening the presidency of Ronald Reagan. Of course, there wasn't any guarantee that Carter would have prevailed, but Kennedy's splitting the Democratic party in two at that time shows the danger in someone showing up who essentially takes away vital support from the leader of the party. And now, we have ANOTHER Kennedy trying to do the same thing. I like to think Edward Kennedy of the present day is loopy enough that he won't present too much of a danger to Biden, but with similar low approval numbers for Biden as Carter had then, and with The Orange Scourge lurking in the wings, ANYTHING could happen. That greatly concerns me because now the stakes are SO much higher. I greatly admired Ted Kennedy for many things, except for his error in judgement in 1980.
Wholly agree here, Bruce. Encourage every Democratic voter you can to NOT cast a vote for vaccine and epidemiological study skeptic, RFK, Jr. He won't get enough votes to win but he could peel off enough, given the chance, to help Biden lose. Just say no.
So right you are
Today’s wannabe Kennedy is just a tool with illusions of grandeur. But a spoiler who can drain off Dem votes. Sadly, the Dems who post support are idealists with not a pragmatic bone
Some gop "lite" who can no long abide tfg OR disanctimonious are hopping the fence into into kennedy jr land.... smdh: why CAN"T they do the most basic THINKING???
Just a quick check: did you mean Edward or Ted?
Edward Moore Kennedy aka Ted Kennedy
They are one and the same.
Edward Kennedy‘s nickname was Ted. One on the same person.
It’s the same person.
OMG
Here in his home town we called him Teddy.
I went to protests against Bork with my parents. In California, at least, there was a massive resistance to that nomination. I thought about that constantly when that descendant and ideological heir to slaveholders, Mitch McConnell, was busily stealing the first Supreme court seat, and people didn't rise up in mass protest. Because we didn't, McConnell and the Rs and tfg knew they could do whatever the **** they wanted.
Mitch McConnell is an evil man who wants only to win so he and the other cretins in the Republican party can wipe out anything they don't like. They don't care about the people who live here, the people who will be affected by their quest to instill racism, misogyny, and hate into law. Republicans want to rule, not govern. We are doomed if we allow this.
Let’s add some conspiracy theories here. McConnell knew that the Russians were helping Trump. Obama wanted him to let the FBI and CIA go after them, but he wouldn’t do it without bipartisan support. McConnell had no interest in stopping the Russians, or in a fair election. How much did McConnell know, and who was paying him to keep quiet?
Obama should have appointed Garland to the court on a temporary basis and told the Senate they could decide if he should stay when they got around to it. All of the three Trump/McConnell justices were raised and shaped for thirty years by the Federalist Society. Their goal has been to protect business from any limits or restrictions. They added on all this religious crap to keep the crazies in line.
The Federalist Society is a dark money funded grooming organization. Call it what it is
The Vaticans mafia.
Obama did not need bipartisan support to enforce US election law against foreign (Russian) interference. Essentially allowing McConnell a veto where the partisan ends the Leader sought were more important than our democracy was a serious error.
Take a look at the Russian “investments” in McConnells state around the same time?!!!
I recall reading that McConnell threatened to accuse Obama of trying to influence the election if Obama made public that the Russians were working to influence the election.
I read that as well.
Why are Dems always so timid about doing the right thing?
I often think Obama was especially careful because he is black and therefore had a target on his back from day one.
I hate it that I even have to consider this because our society is so racist, but there it is!
He had to be very careful--and was--and still our racist culture reacted to his presidency with a massive wave of fear and loathing. Instead of a watershed moment of racial reconciliation (a black president early in the 21st Century? Such would have been unthinkable thirty, forty years prior!), we instead have been treated to a clear view on how divided the country still is on race--and on every question of difference from straight/cis white male Christian ideals.
I really felt for him when he had to address the nation every time another black person was murdered by the police. I have no doubt he was overcome by rage and grief, but letting that any of that show in public would have been political suicide. His self-restraint was extraordinary.
Not that he is different from any other black American in that regard. Their lives depend on exercising extreme diplomacy in public. Most white Americans don't even have to think about such things beyond bare social niceties.
I loved Obama, and still have great respect for him. Nonetheless, I realized during his presidency that he only got as far as he did because he was such a likable and non-threatening black man. Brilliant, funny, compassionate, etc. – just what would make about half of white Americans comfortable with having a black person in the highest office. But that meant that his ability to anger, fight back, and strategize aggressively were compromised.
I have the sam thought about Obama. I also wonder if, during the 2007 - 2009 financial collapse, he didn’t do more for people who lost their homes because so many were Black and didn’t want to appear to be favoring Blacks. Yes, an ugly, awful thought.
McConnell did threaten Obama with that. Obama should’ve acted anyways to protect this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
An EU official anonymously stated everyone respected Obama, but nobody feared him. Both are needed to be effective, no matter how soft the velvet glove.
OAITW, the religious conservatives, especially Evangelicals, have been giving money to, and receiving money from, the secular Libertarians to support causes in which they have common interests. They are effectively joined at the hip.
They fight against godless socialism and communism together. They have interesting ways of defining those terms, but that's what they say.
I recall reading something by a political operator who said that it is like a game in DC. Winning is the drug. It doesn't matter what they've won.
Isn't America always about winning?
Right on. That is the directive of the GOP and to turn the US into a christian state.
Were liberal minded people too numb and distracted to mount effective protests?
Seth - good question. I don't know, exactly. I do think part of it was the utter shock of MM's blatant blocking of Merrick Garland. And I may be totally wrong but by that point it seemed President Obama had been so hammered by racist forces that he didn't feel he could lead a charge against MM. I'd like to hear what others here think.
This is a good NPR article: https://www.npr.org/2018/06/29/624467256/what-happened-with-merrick-garland-in-2016-and-why-it-matters-now
My sentiments also. Obama was hammered is an understatement
Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Barrett, Beer O'Kavanagh & Gorsuch should be locked in a room for a month and forced to experience the exact tsunami of death threats and racist filth the Obamas endured. Maybe, just maybe, they'd rethink their "Racism is dead" bull****.
If they had an iota of empathy, they wouldn’t be the cretins they are. Gorsuch learned his entitlement at his mother’s knee. No knowledge about the others, but society has plenty of rewards for greed and “I’ve got mine, screw you.”
Heat … kitchen. Republicans attack any Democratic President with mindless fury. Does anyone think Hillary would have faced something different if she had won in either 2008 or 2016? It’s a mistake to treat McConnell’s (or those of his caucus) machinations as legitimate. Take, for example, the gross abuse of Senate courtesies by Tuberville, please? That stunt deserves no respect at all.
Hillary would have been skewered, no doubt. They had already decided that no Dem was worthy of public office. Sort of like me and repubs
Thanks Alexandra , this comment opens again the ‘where did it all begin’ premise - suggesting all is not black and white/‘it’s complicated’ and ‘by all means ‘ using that pun.
Is it possible with such answers derived ...real solutions can exact a resume of ‘path of good intents’ ie Democracy?
My baseline fears akin to the ‘rats in a cage’ theory in that too many ( crowding) create chaos, barbarism, etc. is the ‘we all just get along’ ( RK “...”) just another hippie delusion?
Alexandra, here’s what Frank Rich had to say: https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?smid=url-share
I’m not sure he’s entirely right, but I gave up arguing with Frank Rich a long time ago because he’s proven he knows a lot more than I do.
paywall inplace, what did he write?
Here is a gift link:
https://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/05/opinion/05rich.html?unlocked_article_code=LJ9Pw-3Zr4sMpecsMTe6Smc8Wii1olRa1iEBluzhT3BiM_9pQXXkXFybfNmayOIBkgjVlxSZaI2xdFdLogOI_4jtlzcmrv02U7eU-EoB6wAhrFFRbFQRYFK8froZlG7yMaUUepzSYHhMkTOzc1T_3EA8Vtg3cq4GUXYJ85a7zvBvSPSWhN1gmisp08ePTnGQDHKja0V67CotJXCiVFkZhC1Pd4gbij9dpkzFQ05Y-EAZ8VUP55wo255_682fo827akiizwHrAcByQRazdPz7Iay8L-UkH9vNDJDtGHe3LZ9uBKfowxvufrnO6mVbiiZi&smid=url-share
Many of us were disgusted but at the time, the possibility that Trump could actually be the next president hadn't fully sunk in. Yes, we were complacent in thinking it was just a delaying tactic bY MM before Hillary took over.
You're right. I certainly didn't think Trump would win and ... life hasn't been the same since for most of us. And, have you noticed the proliferation of resources (like Heather) that we are all paying attention to now? Early on when I was trying to discuss things online with "friends" and former connections and classmates, I had no comebacks for the "what-aboutisms" my former classmates in northeastern Ohio were sending my way. I was totally unprepared because I didn't really know much about history, politics, etc. and needed to educate myself. And I hadn't bothered to learn those things before. That still shocks me. I had no idea I had so many racist views and ideas, for example. I was "nice" to people. I knew Reagan was wrong but I didn't know how really, really, really wrong and evil he was until the last decade when I read up on things. I thought George Bush (the younger) was okay because he seemed so well-intentioned. Ugh. Wow. I now realize more about all of this stuff. So, if I had the views I had, it makes it easier to understand why so many others still do. For one thing, since 2015 I finally set everything else aside, and was white privileged enough to take that time and do it, to figure out who I am and what I believe and think. At no other time in my life have I been so intellectually on fire to know what's true, what's happening, why do things happen the ways that they do, etc. And I'm in my 70s. It isn't unusual for people to take so long. And some never take it on for one reason or another. Fear, anger, oppression that leaves them without recourse ...
Anyway, I am glad to be here with all of you. Thank you!
You are so welcome. 💙💙
ALL the forces aligned, the racism against Obama, the mysoginy against Hilary, the hatred of the Clintons in general, coupled with McConnell’s sociopathy and Putin’s passion for America’s destruction. The cherry on top was the American Majority’s ignorance (and shocked disbelief!).
Liz, well summarized!
The massive ignorance and apathy about racism from those who voted for Trump (including my own family members) burst my idealistic bubble that the US was really moving forward. The election of Trump has caused a lot of pain and set back the country 40 years in my opinion. Now I’m just hoping the country regains its position as a progressive country before the end of my lifetime.
I am right there with you💙💙
ALL People, on the Democratic Leaning Side, Better get AGGRESSIVE ! and GO TO THE POLLS ! & Put that VOTE ! ...... IN !
MaryB, you're so right.
Spot on!
No, the media is how Trump got elected and they are still doing it today. Think about every news lead, article it is all about Trump.
Yes. Fox News is a Republican machine that has worked its way into the minds of the ignorant masses.
I thought Hillary would win the election and McConnell would have to schedule a hearing for the Democratic SCOTUS nominee.
I went to protests against Kavanaugh. Lot of good it did...
We should have protested Clarence Thomas’s appointment especially after sexually harassing a subordinate. This was while he was head of the EEOC to boot. What a disaster he has been.
There were protests—Republicans weren’t afraid of them. They expected to take the White House in 2016 with their strong bench (pre Trump), and the history that the WH most often changes parties after 8 years.
While I believe Obama was an outstanding president, his greatest failing was not using the bully pulpit and the Courts to challenge Mitch McConnell's unconstitutional usurpation of power.
The second paragraph of Section 2 of Article II does not grant the Senate the *option* to provide Advice and Consent; it mandates the Senate take such action: "...he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, appoint...Judges of the Supreme Court."
Based on the foregoing, I personally consider Gorsuch's appointment as unconstitutional and his presence on the Court illegitimate.
So true and so sad!
The Fourteenth Amendment signalled and jumpstarted the modern-day America with a strong affirmation that "all persons born or naturalized under the United States should enjoy equal protection under the laws." Since its passage, this legislation has delivered landmark cases which include overturning of ruling made in Scott v. Sanford, 60 U.S. 393 case (1857) and allowed everyone to apply and be a citizen of the US without the state preventing them. Native Americans were given US citizenship when Indian Citizenship Act was passed in 1924 and removed the Supreme Court decision in the case of Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) that had ruled that Native Americans who gave birth to children were not automatically US citizenship. Similarly, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in.
Upto date, the Constitution is founded on the respect for individual rights, regardless of the state powers.
👋
If you haven't join me in my newsletter (not too late), I welcome you (for free) as I explore different issues.
It would appear that the 24 states which have banned or severely limited abortions have clearly violated the 14th Amendment. And by what right do they ban anyone from being treated by a doctor with respect to their personal decision to trans lifestyle? We must protect them by exercising our right to elect a Congress and President who will do so! It is our constitutional duty!
Trans is not a "lifestyle."
Yes, and exercise your right to help fund your candidates well. Especially well! Our words in the wind here simply won't get it done alone.
Jon Tester the dem from MT needs lots of support. Native MT, farmer, supports reasonable gun ownership, veterans. He is running against a well funded R from out of state, whose fb page are Freedom Caucus posts
Tester has been adopted by Force Multiplier, which is a good thing. They have a pretty good track record.
Just shared their link with Dems here in MT. Can you say more re our sub stack thread? Or are you still germinating?
Er, Carole that is.
Thank you Cathy. I have a substack thread idea titled Funding Fun. Starting in September.
I will support Tester with a contribution.
I respectfully suggest that we all consider and contribute substantial contributions to a brilliant group of Harvard students who are registering tens of thousands of 18 to 25s and 25 to 35 women focused on protecting their abortion rights. Please go today to www.turnup.us/ and it is a tax deductible nonpartisan contribution! Much more meaningful use of your contributions than wasting it on candidates’ political ads on TV that NONE of these young people watch?
Tell the current Supreme Court
Change the Extreme Court, it must be done for it is the only way they will ever listen. 2024 is key.
Jessica Craven in July 7 newsletter:
"If you know anyone who’s upset about the Supreme Court please feel free to send them this resource document with ways they can help with court reform"
HOW DO WE FIX THE SUPREME COURT?
The short link for this page is https://tinyurl.com/fixscotus
The legislators in states that have "banned or severely limited abortions" believe, or claim to believe, that abortion is murder. Many of them see, or claim to see, abortion as comparable to slavery, as an evil that must be eradicated -- and themselves in the position of the pre-Civil War abolitionists.
They are not opposed to other forms of murder, i.e. capital punishment, guns for all, violating the civil rights of LGBTQi+ that have led to suicides in some cases. Their hypocrisy is flashing mega watts!
They may see themselves that way but they are wrong. And they have learned nothing of our history, of the New Testament, of the Enlightenment and those legislators are mostly men. Their religiosity stops at my nose. Those men should just never have an abortion !
Right on!
It's often difficult for me to appreciate that with very, very few exceptions, everyone in this discussion is coming from a place of righteousness. And very, very few are willing to be wrong.
Curiously, which of the things do you believe are righteously wrong? Transitioning from one gender to another? Abortion? Native American rights? Women’s equality? Granting same sex marriages?
Righteousness itself is somewhat wrong I find. Are those you disagree with or who have no faith unrighteous? People who have no announced faith can also be moral ethical human beings. Discuss!!
(And Ally, there's no need to pick an argument. Each of those topics is both simple in theory, very complicated in application. Would you like to choose one to discuss?)
The last one I confronted was the notion that pleasure/reward somehow "balances out" pain/punishment. It's taken me a while to realize that they operate quite independently.
What's wrong with righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise? Perhaps you are using the term to call out our smugness or unfounded certainty or ignorance or shallow knowledge in the name of righteousness. Enlightening. Having been married for nearly 60 years, I find I no longer require full knowledge or evidence sufficient to apply my probative skills to change my mind or correct a point of view that lacks legs, so to speak. We may be of similar minds, but I find a lot of growth among the correspondents to the Letter From An American. Sometime growth doesn't require publicly stating having been wrong, but rather see shifts in responses and conversation. I find that civil.
Agreed on all counts, with the caveat that it seems difficult for an individual to recognize the difference, in themselves, between righteousness, a virtue and characteristic of the wise, and self-righteousness, a fear-driven bulwark guarding ignorance and bigotry.
What's hard for many to believe is that it's possible to hold strong, ideally well-informed opinions and still be able to see an issue from different perspectives, including those one disagrees with. This IMO is what distinguishes most of today's Republicans from those of a couple of generations ago: they can't or won't do it. And it's not hard to see the same unwillingness or inability among many in the left of center.
I come from the other side of the big pond Dirk and don’t feel qualified to join this conversation but I can’t help feeling you are right! We do have some similarities in our own UK politics!
My wife is, at this very moment, enjoying the hospitality of relatives on your side of the pond, and I'm beginning to wish I'd joined her. Stratford-upon-Avon, lovely place. Is that near you?
Lolololololol and are you willing to admit you are wrong? I imagine you have a lot of difficulty appreciating…
Uh, would you mind finishing your sentence? It's hard to respond when I'm not sure what point you're making. But yes, provide me with sufficiently probative evidence subject to confirmation, and I will happily admit to my error and thank you for the information.
But it's to hide their real agenda, to reinstitute the "traditional family" where women are second class citizens and the man is at the head of the household making all the decisions. It's also to prevent white women from getting abortions, because of the "Replacement Theory" that POC will soon outnumber white people in the country.
Abortion is protected only before viability or to save the life of the mother.. that is not “murder”!
I believe that it's no one's business what a person does with her own body. I'm sure I don't want the state to tell me what medical interventions I can and can't have based on their religious beliefs. Abortion is an unfortunate reality, and is for most women a really terrible choice to make and then a terrible procedure to endure. That the public believes they have a right to weigh in on this is tragic.
Try seeing it from the POV of someone who doesn't believe "viability" is where life begins.
Abortion violates the 13th Amendment.
The 13th Amendment abolishing slavery should be used as a legal basis for the right to an abortion. Restrictions on abortion and the resulting forced pregnancies are disturbingly suggestive of involuntary servitude: forced pregnancy requires a woman to provide continuous physical service to the fetus in order to further the state's asserted interest. Indeed, the actual process of delivery demands work of the most intense and physical kind: labor of 12 or more grueling hours of contractions is not uncommon.
Abortion prohibitions violate the Amendment's guarantee of personal liberty, because forced pregnancy and childbirth, by compelling the woman to serve the fetus, creates "that control by which the personal service of one man [sic] is disposed of or coerced for another's benefit which is the essence of involuntary servitude." Such laws violate the amendment's guarantee of equality, because forcing women to be mothers makes them into a servant caste, a group which is held subject to a special duty to serve others and not themselves. Having a right to life does not guarantee a right to the use of another person's body -- even if one needs it for life itself. While the pregnant woman is not serving at the fetus' command -- it is the state that supplies the element of coercion -- she is nevertheless serving involuntarily for the fetus' benefit, and this is what the Court has said that the amendment forbids
'Historian Eric Foner describes the impact of the Fourteenth amendment:'
The whole question of what is citizenship, who is a citizen and what rights come along with it – that was central to the political conflict in Reconstruction. [The Reconstruction amendments] are the effort of the Republican Congress, and indeed of African Americans themselves, to put into the Constitution the basic idea of equality for all Americans. It's important to remember that ideal didn't exist before the Civil War. Remember, the Dred Scott decision, 1857, said no black person can be a citizen. Only white people can be citizens of the United States.
This was a country with strong belief in liberty but with a strong racial barrier excluding nonwhites from enjoyment of many of those liberties. And so Reconstruction is an effort to shatter those boundaries and to create a new…republic. I mean, that's why I call it the "Second Founding." It really transforms the Constitution, not just adding a few things here and there…to try to implement this principle of equal rights for all Americans.
'In 1853, Frederick Douglass delivered a speech that included his vision of birthright citizenship and the rights of African Americans. The birthright citizenship principle would later be enshrined into law with the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment:'
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens.” (FACING HISTORY AND OURSELVES)
https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/quotes-about-fourteenth-amendment
Excellent post Fern. Especially the pointer toward the importance of Frederick Douglas in all events leading to the fourteenth amendment and the role of black Americans in fostering a true Democracy.
Douglass also was the first to suggest to Lincoln the idea that by freeing the slaves he could enlarge his Union Army thereby hastening an end to the war with more victories. Of course, I don't have a quote reference but I read that fact in "The 1619 Book Project" organized and partly written by Nicole Hannah Jones. Before Douglass suggested freeing the slaves to Lincoln, it had never crossed his mind. Also, it took a while for Lincoln to agree.
Thank you for a great post.
Thank you for your kind words, Mike S. I believe the quote you mentioned is the one below.
'Confronting a President: Douglass and Lincoln'
'Two years into the American Civil War, Frederick Douglass was not a fan of President Abraham Lincoln. The President’s unwillingness to allow Black men in the United States military frustrated Douglass.' “We are striking the rebels with our soft white hand, when we should be striking them with the iron hand of the black man which we keep chained behind us.”
'Once Black men were permitted in the military, Douglass served as a recruiter – most notably of the 54th & 55th Massachusetts Infantry. Two of his sons – Lewis & Charles – were among the recruits. Unfair treatment of Black soldiers persuaded Mr. Douglass to halt his efforts. “When I plead for recruits, I want to do it with my heart without qualification. I cannot do that now.” White soldiers were paid more. Promotions for Black soldiers were non-existent. Black men did not receive POW protections most white men benefitted from. “I must expose wrongs and plead their cause.” Hoping to fix these wrongs, Mr. Douglass traveled to Washington hoping to meet with President Lincoln.' (NationalParksService)
There were three meetings between Fredrick Douglas and President Lincoln. You may learn about them using the link below..
https://www.nps.gov/frdo/learn/historyculture/confronting-a-president-douglass-and-lincoln.htm
Perfect Fern! You rock!
Lincoln said that it was only upon Frederick Douglass' visit to the White House that he came to believe that Blacks were fully the equal of whites--that they were not an inferior race.
“[B]y birth, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; within the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the facts of history; and the admission of American statesmen, we are American citizens; by the hardships and trials endured; by the courage and fidelity displayed by our ancestors in defending the liberties and in achieving the independence of our land, we are American citizens."
This sums up the FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
Thanks
Thanks for this quote, Fern, and thanks for confirming Mike’s quote. I made it a point to read Douglass’s essay on the 4th of July (although I admit, not until Thursday this year). It is a position to remember.
Thank you, Ally.
In 2014, strenght of the Fourteenth Amendment was tested in the Obergefell v. Hodges (June 2015) case, involving the granting the liberty of an individual to enjoy same-sex marriage just like the opposite-sex marriage. Ohio had state restrictions about same-sex marriage, but Obergefell and Hodges challenged that decision and won.
In the Supreme Court Justice Kennedy ruled that marrying is one the “personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy,”. He further stipulated that “same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association.”
(I'm a passionate writer and researcher from Kenya, Africa, exploring African affairs and its history with America and the rest. I welcome you to my newsletter and be part of my mission). Thank you for the support that I always get from you.
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
One of the milestones of the Fourteenth Amendment was the wording that it came with: "substantive due process ". This has become the basis of today's court rulings where lawyers would ask "did the state entity followed the law in depriving someone of the liberty, life, or property?
There is much work left to do but not enough workers.
I am greatly indebted to those who contact me through my newsletter. I welcome you to join me as we debate what matter to us all. Africa and America enjoy cordial relations historically and I will showcase with indepth.
Even though I have no time to add another newsletter, want to thank you for what you contribute to this one. As you learn American history, you are both teaching us and giving us your perspective.
"the Fourteenth Amendment ruled that children born by non-citizen Americans belonged to Federal and State where they reside in."
This is controversial.
Non-Americans but within the country.
I know. And that is controversial. Children of foreign Diplomats born in the US are not granted citizenship. And I don't think that children of foreigners residing legally in the US--such as, say children of visiting professors--are granted citizenship. And I don't think the framers of the 14th amendment ever meant for it to apply to children of people in the country illegally.
Well, my granddaughter, whose Pop is a Canadian in the US working for Microsoft on a green card (30 years), became a US citizen when she was born as well as a citizen of Canada. Dual residency. I am very happy about that.
Can I assume from what you are saying that her mother is American?
I don't blame you for being happy about the dual residency given all the sh*t that's going on in the US. If I could get Canadian or any French/German/Scandinavian dual citizenship I would.
Glad to know about this clear explanation 🙏
Janice, so now we have government (states and school boards) saying that black history shall not be taught while some running for office want to teach the Bible story alongside evolution. Writers and authors are censored every day as a single parent is able to ban a book in a school library. When will the rest of Bork’s America be reinstated by a vocal minority?
It's not going to happen, Mary. Gen Y and Z are the least religious groups (in an organized way) and they will represent about 45% of eligible voters next year.
Eventually Bible thumping will take its rightful place alongside the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Ready for a chuckle? Remember: "He boiled for our sins".
In 2005, when Kansas declared that "intelligent design" must be taught alongside Evolution, Bobby Henderson wrote to the school board suggesting that his religion, Pastafarianism, must be taught as well. After all, the basis for both religions comes from the same place.
Of course, the school board ignored him. But Pastafarianism was born and now we have the fastest growing pasta based religion in the world. International enthusiasm for a religion with no dogma has exploded. And Bobby Henderson is a prophet.
"We need never doubt our Divine Carbohydrate, for even our DNA is shaped like a noodle so we know that pasta is holy"
— Book One: The Holy Book of Lasagna
It's Better If You Do's:
. It's Better If You Find A Thing You Are Good At
. It's Better If You Live in Harmony With the World
. It's Better If You Make Art
. It's Better If You Lead An Untethered Life
. It's Better If You Work Together
It's Better If You Don't's:
. It's Better If You Don't Put People In Cages
. It's Better If You Don't Work Too Much
. It's Better If You Don't Value Possessions
. It's Better If You Don't Hurt Others
. It's Better If You Don't Censor Things
— Book Four: The Holy Book of Tortellini
https://www.spaghettimonster.org/
Do you know if they accept gluten-free members? (Asking for a friend)
Yes! ALL are welcome. You can even maintain your current faith. Many Pastafarians maintain dual memberships. And...there is a 30 day warranty. If you are not happy, we are sure your previous religion will take you back.
Just one more thing…Does “40 Lashes With A Wet Noodle” in actuality refer to a Pastafarian self-flagellation practice?
Nah. I think it refers to the type of punishment a pirate might get for bring a "lite" beer on board. But seriously, causing pain is not one of the canons.
Ann Landers was the self flagellation expert.
Great question! Thank you 🙏🏽
🤣
Bill Alstrom:
Someone posted : “A former student of mine went to the DMV and did this a couple days ago.
*His mom posted this message*
‘Well, it finally happened. After several failed attempts, Cade finally got a California ID with a colander on his head. He could wear it for the picture because he claims he is Pastafarian and the colander is a religious garment. Hey, he's only 17 once!’”
Yes, a classic demonstration of his faith and a statement for religious freedom. A courageous and pious young man.
😂
😂
Thank you for adding this excellent and edible religion to the list! But I have a question about the donts: objects: when I walk into my kitchen in the morning where many of the objects are gifts of friends, isn’t it ok to value them? It reminds me of the wonderful people I have known who knew that a gift to a friend’s kitchen is forever remembrance. t
I think Bobby would be just fine with that type of "possession". Sounds lovely and healthy. I think he was probably referring to the worship of fancy cars, houses and duomos. But you could ask him yourself. Sometimes he responds to emails.
Here is an example of his attitude:
"That is to say, you do not have to Believe to be part of our Church, but we hope in time you will see the Truth. But skeptics, as well as members of other religions, are always welcome."
Do I get baptized by immersion if I join?
You can hop into a fermentation vehicle or vat at your local microbrewery if you wish. But dunking is not required.
Bill, so does the religion decree how often one must eat pasta, or is eating pasta forbidden? ;-)
Very few "decrees". Eating pasta is like a sacrament. So it is encouraged. There are Facebook pages devoted to FSM type recipes. For me, the second best part of this religion is the food.
The first best part is this: We are encouraged to poke fun about some aspects of organized religion. Noah's ark is a target, as an example. But we are required to be nice. No personal attacks. No buildings, no tithing. Just a whole lot of food, fun and a lot of beer.
The FSM created the universe about 5000 years ago while drunk - in a matter of a few seconds. When he woke up with a hangover, he realized how many mistakes he made. With regret, he flew off into who knows where and has not been seen again. Although some claim sightings, we think he probably won't be back.
The core idea is that ALL religions and faiths should be personal and that the line between church and state must be like a steel wall. I think he just came here to remind us how important our Constitution is and maybe to suggest we lighten up a bit.
Mary,
Regarding comparing "The Bible" and "Evolution" ......
I have often been struck by the similarity of Genesis, Chapter 1 and the actual event order of what is thought to be the origin of the solar system and subsequent evolution. Next time you read Genesis Chapter 1, think about what scientists know about the order of events of our Solar System formation and then the order of life on the planet.
Whoever wrote Genesis Chapter 1, came pretty close to BINGO where the order of events of the formation of the Universe, the Solar System and planets, and then the order of life on earth as thought to have occurred via evolution.
In particular I like to compare these two sentences, one Scientific and one Biblical:
1) Scientist say that all of the mass in the Universe somehow found its way to a single point in the Universe and then there was a "Big Bang". We all accept this to be true yes?
2) In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Now, is there really much difference between those two sentences? Both of them are literally filled with the unknown.
I never really thought there is much difference between "Big Bang" and "God created".
Both of those statements are the same thing as saying "Who Knows?"
:-)
NOT that I am saying we should be teaching from the Bible in public schools. We should not.
Yes, and who can define what ‘a day’ is for God, or whether God is male, female, etc.. I just wish religious fundamentalists could just start to think in cosmic terms.
Interesting that you use the word "think".
I recently received a very sincere letter from one of my fundamentalist sisters in Texas concerned about my own tendency to think for myself. She was seriously worried about me going to hell and sent me an incredibly long sermon by some guy named John MacArthur about people who are sponsoring "Christian Deconstruction".
This lengthy sermon ended up really being a long, one hour, rant by this old guy about young people leaving his church and then posting negative reviews of this guy on social media.
After listening to this guy barely say anything for an hour, I could definitely understand why people were leaving his church for sure.
But, for people who have grown up in the Baptist, fundamentalist ideology which is mostly focused on separating those who are "going to heaven" from those who are obviously "going to hell" it is REALLY hard to break out of that and think for yourself.
I know how hard it is to let go of that feeling that the list of four things the Baptist preacher said will send you to hell, (all of which humans do all the time), and just accept everyone without judgement like Jesus actually said we should do.
That Southern Baptist hard philosophy also supported slavery, discrimination and segregation for 100 years. It is why there is a Northern Baptist Church and a Southern Baptist Church. Baptists in the North were against slavery.
But, in the south, the Southern Baptist Church preachers, since their big donors were slave owners, fully supported slavery as invented by God himself. No joke.
Those religious views alway, always set the tone of because I believe I’m better than you! I’m going to heaven and you are going to hell simply because you won’t believe what I say!
Jimmy Carter wrote an interesting book re why he left the radical Baptist church.
Does the Northern Baptist Church still exist, and does it still maintain more progressive ideas than their southern relatives?
Jimmy Carter wrote a book about this, forgotten the name.
I just wish they would start to think instead of blindly following whatever their pastor says. It's a golden opportunity for people who like to control thoughts and actions of others....then you start to see the hubris. Here in Salem and most likely elsewhere, it's become in your face to others. During the pandemic, the biggest church in our neighborhood became COVID central as well. Following the teachings of Jesus....not so much.
When a person accepts religion they give up their right to think for themselves. Unfortunately many of them were brainwashed as children before they could make up their own minds. It's a form of child abuse.
In some cases, I would agree with you, but not all. I went to church as a child and I did not view it as child abuse. I did disagree with some of my mother's beliefs (my father was not religious although raised in the Methodist church). My fav story about her concerns evolution where I remember her telling me that if we were descended from apes, it was on my father's side.
“Something from where there was previously nothing”, right?
There is no logic available to explain that at this time
I believe “religions” are Man’s Attempt to bridge this “unknown” with the world it sees around them.
Read Buddhist cosmology, which discusses the history of what happened before “the big bang”, and also the Big Bang that happened before this last one, and the one before that. Very entertaining, but all to the point that what any individual does or does not do, in the immediate moment, is all we have to work with. Choosing to be the best human you can be, in this moment, improves the moment, maintains and expands your humanity. Anything else just continues the slide down the vector of delusion...
Very interesting. I’m not really up to speed on Buddhism however the “be the best human you can be in the moment” is an appealing message
As for the slide down the vector of illusion, that was kinda my point regarding “something from nothing” logistical dilemma I believe “relegion” is man’s attempt to deal with “the impossible unknowns”
I liked James Michener’s book, “The Source”, an interesting historical fiction that touches on this struggle to understand how the Universe came to be
Michener was an erudite guy. The “Be the best human you can be” is the message for non practitioners. Once you decide to study more, be it Zen or Vajrayana, the goals shift. At some point, what you are studying will cease to be “religion”.
Thanks for the blast of memory, Dave! I read "The Source" as a teen, it was one of the most impactful books in my young life. Most of what I understand about Judaism comes from there, too.
As a person not raised with religion, I’ve always looked at them from an outsiders perspective. I’ve always thought it was very telling about a society when looking at a religion they grew up with and choose to follow as adults.
For example, from the little that I have read about some of the religions of Indigenous Peoples of the North Americans continent, the relationship between humans and the natural world is a part of their religion. The Christian Bible, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to do that. Now look at where we are regarding the climate crisis. The climate’s fate is essentially being decided by this lack in the dominant religions.
The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. Humans make decisions that impact others, and then suffer the consequences. Then the humans will seek to end their suffering by coming back to God.
Generally, the religions of the American indigenous peoples are animistic or polytheistic methods of ordering experiences, which puts humans as another of the many beings having life and more or less agency. Humans must take the well-being of others, all the others, into account, since humans and all the others live in balance, and sometimes human actions throw off the balance, creating unexpected and unwanted changes.
These are two very different world view, for sure.
"The mono-theistic, patriarchal Christian god explicitly makes human beings and gives them dominion over all his other creations, to do with what they will. "
Exactly. There is no lack of a relationship between man/humanity and nature in the European tradition of Christianity: it is a relationship defined by separation and domination. Man is figured as not even belonging to this world, but to the kingdom of Heaven. He is to subdue the Earth--with corollary that he also rule over woman, who is figured, at best, as dangerously well-acquainted with nature. At worst, she is the agent of original sin, having been first to give into the temptation to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I would be overjoyed to see a renaissance of indigenous values here in the Americas. I sometimes think it is one of our only best chances to heal our relationship with the rest of life on Earth.
Read "Braiding Sweetgrass" by Robin Wall Kimmerer, if you are interested in learning more about it. She's both an indigenous person and scientist.
Thanks. I’ll check it out.
Glad for your last sentence
Another interesting examination of religion is looking at the different Indigenous Peoples origin stories. I think that wherever you look, religion attempts to explain the unexplainable.
The NW Indigenous stories & how & where they were told are great! Bill Reid's writings about them as well as his art. They are full of the duality of man's character & the universe. Another interesting read is Frank Waters BOOK OF the HOPI
Mike S., while there are many surface correlations between parts of Genesis and the the overall drift of current cosmology, the primary difference is that the physics model is based on observation and is subject to endless revision as new observations come in. Genesis, on the other hand, is touted as the Word of God, revealed to Moses, completely true and unchangeable.
Besides, having plants arise before the Sun makes a mockery of the Asparagus Law, by which the Plant King gave the power of photosynthesis to is leafy subjects.
And how about that “talking “ serpent ? In the totally believable column !
It is certainly up to us, today, to vote in a super majority in 2024. It then will require hard work and constant vigil so the correct laws are enacted protecting and amplifying what the framers meant while writing the Constitution.
Janice, isn’t it painfully ironic that instead of Bork we got Thomas? He stands for stopping all the things Senator Kennedy listed, as do the other Christo fascists on the bench. The Buddhist image of our democracy being on the blade of a very sharp sword with a sheen of oil on the blade comes to mind.
Give it time. We basically have Bork’s court. Those lunch counters are, unfortunately, coming soon to a place near you.
Will, yeah - that's the obvious implication of the ruling for that bigoted website designer's hypothetical situation.
As well as the take down of affirmative action. Either one is essentially excluding folks from sitting at lunch counters
Who is today’s Ted Kennedy? We desperately need someone with the moral conviction and the personal courage to call out these blatant attempts to roll back progress and disguise them in double-speak and fake news! HEATHER FOR PRESIDENT👍
I can think of at least two worthy candidates to wear Ted Kennedy's robes: Jamie Raskin and Adam Schiff.
Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse.
My first thought too
Elizabeth Warren. And I might add even though a great fan of Senator Whitehouse who people in the state I live in put in office and even though I agree with the others mentioned here I find it interesting that people listed men first. Or maybe I’m not as well educated on American history as I could be ( which is why I’m reading HCR) or strengths of many Senators to hazard an opinion. Anyway it doesn’t seem to be a debate or popularity contest. Mostly highlighting people with conviction integrity and vision to be grateful for their membership and actions in the Senate.
Just for clarification, my two nominees are in the House. Raskin announced this week he won't be running for the Senate. Schiff is running to replace Dianne Feinstein.
Thanks for the corrections. I should (and now do) know better. I wish good luck to Schiff.
How about Katie Porter?
Katie is a fine representative but I don't see her in the tier as Adam Schiff.
Took the words right out of my mouth, MisTBlu!
In the House, I’d say Jamie Raskin is that voice.
I can't help but wonder if RFKJr would have gone off the deep end of the conspiracy pool if his Uncle Teddy was still alive.
I listened to the latest Lincoln Project podcast last night. Rick Wilson said Kennedy Jr was recruited by Steve Bannon to run. It seems plausible to me.
Steve has never been idle, always stirring hate and vitriol
I have been waiting to see if the latest round of Supreme Court decisions, allowing discrimination, is going to lead to segregated lunch counters again. Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t it now legal for somebody owning a restaurant or a store to refuse service to anyone they don’t want to serve?
I'm waiting for the case to arise where a plaintiff argues that allowing women to exercise authority over men is against his religion, so he and his business should be allowed to promote only men to positions of management.
Many do, but to base that refusal of service on a defined “protected status” is a violation of constitutional rights.
Robert Bork served as an advisor to the student formed Federalist Society. The students wanted a conservative response to the failure of Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court. Look where we are today.
Kennedy wasn’t prescient. He grew up in one of the uppermost levels of the socioeconomic hierarchy.
He grew up listening to other people of his class openly share their often low and dismissive opinions regarding the common people, of women, of persons of color, and discuss how to control society for their best advantage by ridding laws and regulations which protect the rights of minorities, workers, consumers, etc.
"exclusively black neighborhoods, towns, and cities" reflects the broader failure for America to have dealt with the social/economic consequences of uplifting huge social populations out of profound poverty outcomes. Not just for blacks, either. America's social vision of individualism and self reliance is radically incomplete.
Correct, and I did consider stating "BIPOC" but it seems that Black Americans have suffered the most in terms of redlining and other discriminatory practices.
Kennedy knew whereof he spoke.
Dammit! Will there ever be a nation where leaders know/remember/understand the job they are hired to do: and that is to protect and uphold the benefit of the people they are hired to represent? The Bork justice sounds like what many of today's Justices, and so many Repubs, are trying bring in. Keep fighting and keep informing, HCR... please!
Sadly, Bork's defeat galvanized the right to ensure that more people of his persuasion should be appointed. That's how we got Scalia, for example.
Lets write job desdriptions for president, vice president, senators, representatives, and justices of the SC. That would begin to brovide a factual basis for evaluating their performance. Of course, the process of establishing those job descriptions would be arduous...
And getting anyone of them to adhere to any agreement would be impossible, remember they are politicians. And don't overlook at the comments made by a couple candidates for jobs on the Supreme Court... "For a long time the Court has accepted the law on abortion and I will uphold that law!" Yeah, sure..........
The Fourteenth Amendment, a fortress of freedom and equality for all, is a mere irritant for this Supreme Court majority. To our great peril, these justices will keep ruling as if it doesn’t exist.
The 14th Amendment exists; and yet it is as though it did not exist; or existed only as fine principles to be stated, recited and admired, but systematically circumvented.
It is like clouds that cross the sky but bring earth no rain.
Some Spanish adventurer in the New World expressed the practicalities well:
"His Majesty's orders were obeyed but not carried out..."
It sometimes feels just as though Central America -- those forever conquistador-dominated statelets in which rulers oppress and murder peones freely under cover of fine words -- extended all the way to the Mason-Dixon line.
And beyond.
These 6 judges rule by their religion and then try to come up with bizarre ways to show it's constitutional. In other words, the constitution doesn't mean anything to them.
“These 6 judges rule by their religion and then try to come up with bizarre ways to show it's constitutional. In other words, the constitution doesn't mean anything to them.”
And their religion? What about their religion?
That too is bizarre, albeit sadly commonplace, for these laymen are manifestly guided by imperatives neither religious nor intrinsically moral but political, imperatives exclusively to do with social control and the preservation and strengthening of hierarchies. Whoever is pulling their strings shows every sign of having been inspired by concerns proper to Mammon rather than arising from the Gospel of Jesus Christ…
Despite so many saints, so much good work, so many reforms and reformers, churches and churchmen have for so many centuries buried Christ and his gospel under layer upon layer upon layer of irrelevant accretions, transforming the Temple from which Jesus drove the moneymen into something more like the Augean Stables.
Christian churches owe it to God, to mankind, to themselves, to clean up their act and seek first the inspiration and guidance of the Spirit, not external influences and influencers, irrelevant however expert, however high, however powerful. The times are too demanding for business as usual, for religion as usual, for anything "as usual". Salvation cries out for urgent salvage, for jury rig, cutting away smashed spars and rigging, jettisoning all that stands in the way of bringing our storm-damaged vessel safe to port.
Using the pulpit to further ambition... it appears that where people gather, there is networking and the building of coalitions hiding behind the advertised purpose... the Master’s Open, for instance...
True, this, Peter.
Thank you.
True it may be but I am sorry to bring up such irksome truths.
It is just that our very survival, and more so, that of our children and theirs -- even of life on Earth's surface, with all the variations mankind has known -- is now threatened by sweet-talking false friends. So it is time to speak inconvenient truths. And to do all we can -- and more, because our best will not be good enough -- to live those awkward truths. Not just to proclaim them. Unless we can gradually become the Truth we proclaim, it will just be words spoken to the wind.
We need to find ourselves and live accordingly. And to find one another. As drops find the ocean.
The false friends make use of our sense of separation and powerlessness. But it is they, not we, who are alone; they, not we, who have separated themselves from all that truly is.
They are like the severed head of which Marcus Aurelius speaks in Book 8:34... lying separated from the body.
[Sorry, I keep coming back to that passage. It is well worth reading.]
"THEY" may corral and stampede great numbers, a human herd... Yet the last line of "mad Shelley's" Masque of Anarchy says it all:
YE ARE MANY--THEY ARE FEW.
And they know it.
Hence the worldwide turmoil, they are trying to force Nature, trying to halt a movement of deep change, one that is already taking place.
EVERYWHERE.
Let's be irritable back, Michael...vote Blue!
No counterweight?
If I understand your question as you intend, yes, elect a Democratic Congress and re-elect President Biden. The Senate votes to end the filibuster, and Congress expands the Supreme Court.
Et fiat lux.
It has happened before (1960’s-80’s). Might happen again if we’re not too rotten from within.
There isn’t a respectable one at the moment. We are still waiting for “New Republicans” to emerge.
All 6 of the “originalist” justices in SCOTUS believe in Robert Bork. They will, if allowed, recast America into what Senator Kennedy described as Bork’s America. There’s no time to waste: SCOTUS needs to be reformed to prevent a Borkian society.
I say disbar them. They are violating the code of conduct.
I would hesitate to call SIX SCOTUS judges "originalist." I can think of two clearly, but I haven't seen a case for the others.
See this https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2021/1221/Originalism-moves-from-theory-to-high-court.-What-that-means-for-US which makes 5 of 6 originalists except Roberts whom I would consider, if not in theory, but in practice. Regardless they all flock together hen it counts when it counts.
Thanks for your reply. I suspect that not all six are originalist all the time. Perhaps I'm out of date, and the Originalist bandwagon is on a roll.
My take on original meaning, in the minds of the Founders, is here:
https://substack.com/profile/85178460-john-schmeeckle/note/c-18095855
All six I think are originalist when it suits his/her purpose. None however has debunked the theory.
For an approach to original intent that allows for flexibility, I like James Madison's summary of the Declaration of Independence in "The Federalist" #43, stating that "the safety and happiness of society are the objects at which all political institutions aim, and to which all such institutions must be sacrificed."
This is reinforced by Chief Justice Marshall's words at the beginning of the decision section in Marbury v. Madison, stating: "That the people have an original right to establish for their future government such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected."
In other words, to look into the minds of the Founders, we must understand their understanding of "happiness," which meant what we mean today by "well being." Congress's actual definition of happiness appears in the original May 1776 independence resolution: "Internal peace, virtue and good order."
The problem with Originalists is that they are stating an opinion of the Founding Fathers/Mother intents. The opinions do not equal truth or an understanding of the context they were in. The general principles they espoused were "liberal" of their time. They were children of the enlightenment. General principles evolve as society evolves. The power is in their generality. This is why the 14th amendment is so relevant for today. Thanks Heather for taking your weekend to illuminate us.
Certainly our understanding of useful principles evolves over time, as they have in the sciences. Informative as the biographies and character of the frames might be, the power of the Constitution rests in the verity and usefulness of the prescriptions it espouses, not in the infallibility of those who devised it . People will inevitably interpret those prescriptions differently, even with due diligence and good faith, and unlike the boiling point of water at a given air pressure, it is simply hubris to declare you can get the precise meaning exactly right, at least not when a balancing of interests is involved. But I think we can identify obvious concordance and discord between the Constitutional instructions and some of the the things they are claimed to say. For example"Citizen's United" strikes me as preposterous, especially in light of motto carved into the SCOTUS HQ; "Equal Justice Under Law". Where does equality fit into that one?
There is a book that sheds some light on the process of writing our founding documents, "Our Declaration, A Reading of the Declaration of Independence in Defense of Equality" by Danielle Allen. Thomas Jefferson wrote the first draft, but the book shows images of subsequent drafts, extensively marked up and revised. It is plausible to believe that there was much argument among the delegates to the Constitutional Convention, over specific wording of each clause and sentence. They hammered out compromises. It was far from "Holy Writ" inscribed on stone tablets.
As ordinary citizens we are free to dream up rights that were not enumerated in the original wording of the Constitution, nor in the Amendments thus far. There is a nascent movement to establish the rights of Nature, for example. Many of us would enjoy the right to live in a pollution-free environment, as another example.
We want to be able to stand on the rock that is the foundation of our Constitution, but we also want to be able to incorporate improvements as our understanding of phenomena evolves, to establish rights that we have not yet acknowledged or formalized.
And we should also remember that when the Supreme Court finds that a provision in a law is unconstitutional, the Congress can work to find a different wording which does comport with the Constitution and still achieves the original intent of the law. The recent SCOTUS ruling that makes it more difficult to protect our nation's wetlands begs for law-making by Congress to restore our ability to protect our natural systems. And if this Congress is unable to achieve that goal, then we must work to elect a Congress that can get that job done.
Many of us have been acting as though the Supremes can lay down their trump cards, and it's game over. That is not how our system should work, and it will only work that way if we allow it. The Court can say that Nature has no rights, but we can argue that Nature should have rights, and we will work to establish those rights, and whatever else needs to be done, as the law of the land.
As always, the Court should not be making the law of the land. That is the job of Congress. We've been talking about changing the court because it's so difficult to get anything done in Congress. But the Congress is where the fight belongs.
"Many of us would enjoy the right to live in a pollution-free environment, as another example."
Substantive pollution has already been demonstrated to be life-shortening, not to mention the emerging hazards of climate impacts, Freedom to cannot be separated from freedom from. Freedom to walk safely down a street requires substantive freedom from depredation by thieves, rapists, or aggressive hate mongers. Air and water should be kept free of poisons. Democracy implies a share of responsibilities as well as choice.
"As ordinary citizens we are free to dream up rights that were not enumerated in the original wording of the Constitution, nor in the Amendments thus far."
There has been a tendency for some manifestations of government to treat electronic communication as less protected by the 4th Amendment that written or hard wired communication. It all seems a matter of what can we get away with? Are the products of using ball point pens any less Constitutionally protected than goose quills? The framers never saw a ball point pen, let alone a pocket computer.
Exactly.
Author Barbara Cline quotes Nobel laureate Wolfgang Pauli as saying “There will be no heavy duties,” Wolfgang Pauli told the physicist who was to serve as his assistant. “Your job is, every time I say something, contradict me with the strongest arguments.” I assume "strongest' would be mandatory, as I have read that Pauli did not suffer fools gladly, but it illustrates a creative way to welcome controversy.
We need debate to keep from drifting into circular thinking and/or dishonestly self-serving agendas. Controversy improves justice (our court system is based in it) so long as we aim for and cultivate negotiation is good faith. So long as we are reasonably earnest and keep our own narcissism at bay. Cheating is tempting but fundamentally corrosive of "liberty and justice for all".
Written in a clear understandable way,
agreed!
I like your post in general, except it is not clear that the Founders were "children of the Enlightenment," especially the French Enlightment.
Today’s letter is a history lesson every person and court needs to know or remember: “ No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” Fourteenth Amendment. What did “any person” mean? American Indians and Women gained citizenship privileges and rights much later. The Civil War was not enough to fully address inequality, Racism and poverty. And this must also be recognized: “On June 2, 1924, President Calvin Coolidge signed into law the Indian Citizenship Act, which marked the end of a long debate and struggle, at a federal level, over full birthright citizenship for American Indians.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-in-1924-all-indians-made-united-states-citizens
And Women’s right to vote, June 4, 1919, the 19th Amendment. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/19th-amendment#:~
Irenie, my wish is to see all women of every ethnicity and diverse cultural background, rule our nation. We will not allow ourselves to be influenced by outside forces or dictators. We will, however, take a strong stance and continue to be united with iron fists. Sounds like a good Marvel film, doesn’t it? Gawwwwd...one can dream...
Marlene, please include me in your dream. And we must work to make it a reality. Teach our children.
💞💞
That would only work if we close our eyes to the fact that women are just as likely to act in cruel, regressive and oppressive ways, given half the chance. The problem is humans, power and historical structures of inequality.
Rayya, it is simply not statistically true in any way that "women are just as likely to act in cruel, regressive and oppressive ways." And any decent law enforcement official will tell you that. What in the world would you be basing that assertion on?
Well there was a recent report from a US women’s prison that showed that women prison guards were MORE likely to assault the prisoners than male ones and if you work in DV you see plenty of F on F violence. Women soldiers are not ‘nicer’ than males in e.g. Israel. And let’s not get started on the violence enacted by white women on black people… If you work in a female majority profession you see those in power being uncompassionate, callous and backstabbing. Margaret Thatcher wasn’t ‘nice’ nor was Theresa May and Liz Truss nearly destroyed the UK economy with her rank arrogance. Suella Braverman is an outright fascist who would happily let refugees drown. So sorry if I don’t hold some illusion about women being naturally better in power. I loved Nicola Sturgeon and Jacinda Ardern but there are also admirable male politicians. Feminism is about equality and non-discrimination but not about ‘women are better’.
I'd like to see that report from "a" US women's prison, because that is completely contrary to overall prison statistics.Do you have a name for it or any other details?
I have worked in DV and I can't imagine you're actually trying to say that women commit DV at a higher or remotely equal level to men. If so, again, please link directly to sources you're using. Have you really not looked at statistics of male violence vs. female?
Certainly some women in power have bought into patriarchal/religious sociopathy lock stock and barrel, but naming a handful of those in comparison to millennia of hundreds of thousands of male sociopathic political leaders is hardly a convincing argument.
She’s got a way to go to equal he’s in this regard, in my opinion
Yes, and why would we want to? We should be looking to women for better ways to govern and act.
Rayya, the point is not if women or Native people
are “just as likely to act cruel…” etc. it’s that they were not treated or considered equal in the constitution, including in the Fourteenth Amendment. Not until much later in the Indian Citizen Act and for women the 19th Amendment were they granted equality under the law.
I think I was responding to someone who suggested women would be better in power. Not disputing the disenfranchisement or inequity of women!
I have said for years, at least 40, that women must get into the governing act. It will be tested strongly in '24 to make sure more women vote.
Have you seen the 2004 movie "Iron Jawed Angels" about women's suffrage in the early 1900s?
It's patently clear that women and people of color are still being "deprived of life, liberty and property without due process of law." But still no Equal Rights Amendment to underline those rights.
Susan B. Anthony and other suffragists across the land went to the polls to vote after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that they were "persons". Many pollmasters saw the clear logic of that and allowed them to vote. Courts subsequently fined and sentenced these women in highly publicized cases.
Black communities camped out in groups, in forests and secluded areas outside voting stations, the night before elections so they could approach the polls in relative safety.
And the fight goes on.
Thank you for reminding us that the 14th Amendment is the Holy Writ for those of us who are progressive, inclusive, and fair minded patriotic Americans.
That is just the trouble, Kerry, it... and the entire Constitution... is Holy Writ. And treated accordingly.
In today's America, the Constitution -- if remembered at all -- is "believed" and worshipped, mostly in creeds and in theory, sometimes like Holy Writ, for an hour or so on Sunday.
These are principles that urgently need to be brought down to Earth.
And that... is a horribly difficult proposition, one that goes against the grain for the thought-free who have always taken it for granted that they are "more equal than others".
You make a good point. I would say that it's like other familiar Scriptures..."Thou Shall Not Kill" is pretty good stuff, but not eating a ham and cheese sandwich is kinda dumb and an eye for an eye even worse. I am no fan of "originalism", but some truths are indeed self-evident and deserve to be enshrined.
The handwritten drafts of the United Stated Constitution along with the final UNAMENDED document can be inspected today, nearly any day, at the Library of Congress in DC.
I, like many others, have carefully read the beautiful 18th century handwritten words. I did so years ago before personally attending a SCOTUS session that was mostly ceremonial admitting a number of attorneys to the SCOTUS bar. Very few norticed that a SCOTUS Order did issue on that day which was important to the Life of a minor in a criminal matter. That Order was a stark reminder to me that we have a 'living Constitution' then & now in 2023 and in our future.
Thank you Professor Richardon for putting the 14th Amendment in an accurate historical context.
If we don’t have a “living constitution,” then we are all living in 1776 or thereabouts. What nonsense the originalists blather…
We have to get Heather to file Amicus Briefs at SCOTUS or at the least have the LFAA Archive linked to a Neal Katyal Brief.
Professor, if you read this, I believe your admission to the American Academy of Arts & Sciences opens the door to being a very important 'Friend of the Court'... besides the scotus 6 will not be the brightest students you have ever addressed.
I will raise the LFAA issues with Mr. Katyal upon his next posting of his 'Courtside' Substack. Respectfully, bsm
"Fiends of the Court"... The misprint raises interesting visions that Daumier might have enjoyed illustrating...
Great idea
Enshrined.
Sure, so long as that means fully assimilated. And lived by.
Living together calls for something deeper than the half-baked social-Darwinist shards of an idea that too many people let themselves be misguided by.
I take it that you don't believe that "the market" will solve all our problems. 🤠
Such blasphemy, Kerry!
Holy Market's solution to all our problems is simple. And it is final.
All dead.
Sacrificed to a fragment of an idea.
We shall sacrifice to you, O Lord Baal.
Can’t we just run the entire Constitution through Auto-correct, and dispense with the “justices” and their phony “originalism” charade? What does “...on good behavior” really mean, anyway?
I’d like to see somebody unpack the nasty history of “filibuster” for instance. Or the nuanced social hierarchies of the “Code Noir” which
I notice that the mission statement of the Constitution does not appear to draw it's legitimating authority from "We the Original Authors of this Document...", as some would have us believe.
That is indeed the main point I have frequently made JL. There are others who would choose to ignore the plain intent and language of the preamble; as though it had nothing to do with all that followed.
Thank you, needs to be said, over and over
It’s so eery to be reminded of what was then and what is now. Almost a mirror image except that blacks and women have been gaining ground in spite of the muck dealt.
To go along with tonight’s HCR letter, I think it might be interesting to look at Southern Poverty Law Center’s site on the hate groups in our nation. It is a map that cites where they are and believe me, each state has them. Just put your state in and voila! You will see the insanity. www. splcenter.org. Select “Hate Map”.
Republicans have successfully dismantled a lot of Pre-Reagan 20th Century reforms, and encouraged racism, and yet we have a female VP, a majority voted for a female president, we had a two term black president, and some openly gay politicians, so yes our society is still evolving despite the large and powerful reactionary element. I think solidarity, focus and boldness might overcome the impasse.
I believe that. Thank you for the perspective. Unimaginable things have happened politically. Wonderful and horrific. But if we focus on and encourage the wonderful arc of progress, more unimaginable things will happen. Like MA Governor Maura Healey as POTUS.
Wouldn’t that be just something, Bill?
In all my MANY years on this Earth I have never heard a politician be so intelligent, so well spoken, so compassionate, so very concerned about ALL of us. Combine that with her ability to be a super hard ass prosecutor and we have the makings of a brilliant leader. More like Maura, please!
I hope you are right J L
I hope so too. Our future as a species could easily be tragic, and some scale of tragedy is always part of the deal. Someday the Earth will burn up, the Universe burn out, but it could be fun while it lasts.
Just think, if the last two Democratic presidential candidates, who won the popular vote but lost the Electoral College, would have become president. We would have Gore’s preemptive actions against climate change, no Bush Iraq war with the associated destabilization of the Middle East that allowed ISIS to thrive, no erasure of the Iran nuclear treaty by trump, no dismantling of the pandemic response team by trump and thousands of unnecessary deaths caused by svuu it once-denial, no empowerment of Russia by Trump (instead of what would have been Clinton’s restraint) that may have prevented the invasion of Ukraine and unnecessary destruction and death, no attempt by trump to overthrow the US democracy on Jan 6, and no appointment of the conservative Supreme Court justices that now sit on the bench.
If only!!!
If it betrays the pubic will like a disaster and lays the world to waste like a disaster, it's a disaster.
Yes, the SPLC took the initiative in outing hate groups when the FBI was slow to take up the task. We owe them a huge debt.
We sure do! I have been gifting them $$ for 22 years.
Yes, I have also supported SPLC for years. They created and provide a free school curriculum called, “Teaching Tolerance “ with lesson plans, books, materials for educators and students at all levels. I used it and shared it. The new name for the program is “Learning for Justice.”
https://www.learningforjustice.org/
They provide other publications including maps of groups they determine to be Hate Groups. One such group is “Moms for Liberty.”
Determined to be an ant-government extremist group. https://www.npr.org/2023/06/07/1180486760/splc-moms-for-liberty-extremist-group
Yes, Marlene, progwoman, and Irenie! It does my heart good to find like-minded souls on this site. I have told my children that after my death, I do not want flowers, but rather messages of sympathy to go to SPLC. It's been my favorite charity for years. And the "Teaching Tolerance" magazines are brilliant. Like you, Irenie, I have passed mine on to teachers I know. Wish that every school in the country would adopt its curriculum.
I love that they have called M4L extremists because that’s exactly what they are. Actually religious zealots!
Thanks for that link, Marlene. I dealt with some of the “Embassy of Heaven” folks, along with another group of “Constitutionalists” who had some very antigovernment views. Since I worked in a Sheriff’s Department, the Constitutionalists at least recognized that (by extension of the Sheriff being elected) I had a modicum of authority.
Oh Ally, I am certain you have so many stories to tell!
Thanks Marlene. The map is so easy to use and thorough (thoroughly scarifying).
It is!
The simple fact that the founders created the option to amend the Constitution should put the question of "originalism" in the trash bin where it belongs. It's an organic document, not carved into stone.
Exactly so!!! Recognition that “times change” and other rights might need protecting is the recognition and demonstration of the intent of the Framers.
If you look closely, they are originalists when he suits their needs and ignore original text when it doesn't.
Exactly so.
Total unmasking. The clarity of this Letter leaves nothing hidden or disguised.
Ken Burns has said that the overriding theme of his documentaries is race, the constant struggle between forces to realize true equality among all citizens. On paper this is supposed to exist, but state legislatures, through gerrymandering and voter suppression, have prevented this dream from becoming a reality. So the question must be asked, why and what are extreme republicans afraid of? The answer, of course, is the fear of losing power. (This could also be said of abortion, despite religious protestations.) And their fight against teaching our children historical truths also reflects this fear. Those who refuse to study and teach these truths are condemned to repeat them. The main issues in today's world are not political; they are psychological.
And we're back at the point of Bork and Dred Scott again, with this rogue collection of graduates of law schools who never learned the meaning of the law while they stole oxygen for three years from those who were determined to learn the meaning of the law and apply it.
Regrettably, they've founded their own law school, named for Scalia, at George Mason University in Virginia.
They NEVER give up, or learn anything.
And yet the 14th Amendment notwithstanding, one man's efforts to make the Anacostia Swimmable Again finally bears fruit for this river that most dismissed as irretrievably dirty. "Gasaway is one of the grand captains of one of the country’s oldest African American yacht club(s), the Seafarers — 'one of the oldest and most influential champions for restoration of the Anacostia River,' said Chris Williams, the president and chief executive of the Anacostia Watershed Society. 'They were speaking up for the river back when almost no one else was and have been on the front lines ever since.' They began — as so many successful Black institutions did — because of bigotry. The Whites-only clubs of D.C. didn’t allow a Black man to launch his boat when Lewis T. Green, a World War I veteran, built his own and went looking for a place to launch it, said Tony Ford, the current commodore of the Seafarers."
(Gifted) https://wapo.st/3rjrLtJ
Then, there's this "War of Words" between South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem and Ben and Jerry's over who really owns the land on which Mount Rushmore "stands." Having received this news from the Lakota People's Law Project, all I can say is eat more Ben and Jerry's ice cream!
https://www.benjerry.com/whats-new/2023/07/stolen-indigenous-land?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4083532-noem-hits-back-at-ben-jerrys-over-stolen-mount-rushmore-message/?emci=ada8009e-e51c-ee11-a9bb-00224832eb73&emdi=bb4e3e7d-9f1d-ee11-a9bb-00224832eb73&ceid=9906079
It does sound as though Governor Noem has somehow swallowed bleach, as recommended by the Great Know-All when in the White House. However this was brought about, the grey matter between the gubernatorial ears has plainly been washed whiter than white.
Yay, Lynell! Your comment makes my heart sing! I am reposting your comment on fb, where I have 2000+ followers. From all over the world. It will lift everyone’s spirits to know this history.
Yay for you, Elisabeth, and your 2000+!
I still don't understand why the Fourteenth Amendment, which referred to "all persons born or naturalised" somehow managed to exclude women from voting rights.
Yes, the Fourteenth Amendment initially excluded women and Native Americans- they were not yet considered full “persons.” Later that changed. Some Americans still aren’t sure. Just think of current anti-abortion, voting that required its own amendment. And Racism that still exists despite the Civil Rights Act and laws. There’s more.
Never seems to be settled, does it
Nope
I can only surmise, Talia, that back in those days, women were considered chattel not persons. So easy to exclude them when they were looked upon through that lens. Perhaps things would be different if the word "two-legged beings" was put in place of "persons"?
Lynell, you seem to be forgetting birds and... more important... the persons corporate whose voice drowns out all others, thanks to the Citizens United judgment which the esteemed Justices bestowed upon America...
How many voters equal one effective lobbyist?
I only asked.
Peter, you are so right! Thankfully, no one asks me to be on their debating team, or baseball since I lack the ability to cover all the bases!
Come, Lynell, both of us were forgetting the pre-eminence of centipedes, millipedes and other creepiecrawlies, whether corporate or just things that crawled out from under stones... in deserts mental or physical...
Well said, Peter. Soldering on!
"Effective" aka "Richly Funded".
Citizens United was a disastrous decision with horrible implications.
Not to be too technical, but neither the language nor the intent of the 14th amendment excluded women. Moreover, the right to vote at the federal level is nowhere within the language of the Constitution, as the Constitution basically left the architecture of voting up to the States. The white, male, property owner limitation upon voting was prevalent in many States at the time of the Constitution's ratification, and gradually in the early 19th century, the property owning portion fell away. Of course it took the Civil War and the subsequent amendments (13-15) to guarantee the right to African Americans to vote, and women's voting rights were the product of a long, hard fought suffrage campaign, culminating in the 19th amendment in 1920. Women could vote in a few states prior to the 19th amendment.
The amendment was worded in the language of the time, and in that time, women did not have the same rights or standing that men did. Those have been chipped away in that women can now own property, issue contracts, and vote as protected by the 19th Amendment. We still cannot pass an equal rights amendment, and there is still horrendous wage discrepancy between men and women.
That women could vote in several states (Wyoming is the only one I can name without resorting to Google) is immaterial; they were prohibited from voting in many others.
Certainly can't disagree with the bulk of your point, Ally. I do think that the fact there were a few states wherein women could vote prior to the 19th amendment is material however, if only in the sense that a precedent was made upon which to build. My overall point is that the 14th amendment cannot be seen as insufficient or a failure in failing to explicitly mention women. Its purpose was clearly to fully bring former slaves into the full embrace of American rights and liberty. In so doing, it newly empowered the concept of "equal justice for all' for ALL, irrespective of intent. In fact, its language serves as a direct rebuke to the "originalists" who seek to bury the Constitution's protections in historical miasma, and ignore the dynamic intent set forth therein.
Thanks, Ally...morning!
Morning, Lynell!
Lynell, I post this frequently, there are wonderful books by Gail Collins that should be required reading for all women, but one if her books is enlightening to all, that being "400 Years of America's Women".
A lot of fascinating information. It answers a lot of questions.
Also her one recounting recent hx WHEN EVERYTHING CHANGED. What has happened between 1960 to the present (2009)
Thanks for the suggestion, Miselle. I’m going to order that.
Thank you, Miselle. Will check it out!
Talia, I just answered this above so I'll be brief, but Susan B. Anthony and other suffragists across the land went to the polls to vote after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, arguing that they were "persons". Many pollmasters saw the clear logic of that and allowed them to vote. Courts subsequently fined and sentenced these women in highly publicized cases, to shut that down.
Read NYT Adam Liptak “In Her First Term, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson ‘Came to Play’. She has a new definition of “originalism.”. To quote “During her confirmation hearings, to the surprise of some, Justice Jackson declared herself an originalist, meaning, she explained, that she interprets the Constitution based on how it was understood at the time it was adopted. “I look at the text to determine what it meant to those who drafted it,” she said. But Justice Jackson’s originalism has an unmistakably progressive orientation, one that takes account of not only the original Constitution but also the three transformative amendments adopted in the wake of the Civil War.