Friday, December 19, 2014

The Communists Come Together

Posted by Douglas V. Gibbs

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Hard Starboard Radio: Team North Korea, Movie Police



Sony should take a lesson from Captain America’s creators, who faced death threats from Hitler’s thugs; Why liberals really, really hate conservatives; Will insisting that diversity depends on race and identity instead of class cost the Left its political power?; Elizabeth Warren has everything going for her that Hillary does not; Is Barack Obama's "winning streak" imaginary?; and Bill Clinton gives the ChiComms MIRV'd ICBMS.

Stan Lee really does have a pair on Open Thighs Friday at 6PM Eastern/3PM Pacific.

Massachusetts Town Removes ‘Merry Christmas’ Sign After A Single Complaint

by JASmius



One complaint.  Which means this town was looking for any excuse, no matter how flimsy, to censor even the word "Christmas" within its city limits.  And did I mention that the sign was on private, not public, property?  Makes you wonder what the extend of the municipal government's jurisdiction really is, doesn't it?:

“It’s a Christmas holiday, it’s a national holiday, not some random holiday,” said one man at the post office today.

Precisely.  And, consequently, the "holiday" that would be eliminated altogether if not for its, shall we say, commercial aspects.

Over the weekend, several Department of Public Works workers put an electronic sign on a friend’s property, right on the main road through the town. And the message? Merry Christmas.

“We work for the town, and we just wanted everyone to be in the Christmas spirit and there are few decorations,” said Steve Barber, a DPW worker.
Two words: "Merry Christmas".  No Gospel message.  No Scriptural references.  Just the generic seasonal greeting.  On private property.  And the Christophobes won't tolerate even that much.

But apparently, someone complained and sure enough, there are by-laws governing electronic signs. “We don’t object to the message,” said Building Commissioner Gerald O’Neill, “but the sign has to conform to size regulations, among other factors.”

i.e. "We object to the message - which really isn't a message, per se - but we have a fig leaf behind which to hide our anti-Christian bigotry, and we're going to take full advantage of it.

So the sign had to go. But one DPW worker said next year, they’re going to put a large banner across Route 139. “There are fewer regulations about banners,” he said.

There won't be by a year from now, pal.  I guarantee it.

Think a sign about Ramadan would receive similar treatment?  Or would the complaintant be vilified as an Islamophobe?  I think we know.

"Diversity," my ass.

Oh, and MERRY CHRISTMAS.  I dare Commissioner O'Neill to find a by-law censoring season's greetings here.

Obama May Visit Cuba

by JASmius



See if you can guess the real reason why:

Just a day after his stunning announcement that the United States will re-establish a diplomatic relationship with Cuba — including opening an embassy in Havana —  President Barack Obama is weighing a trip to the island nation or hosting a visit from its communist leader, Raul Castro.

"I don’t have any current plans, but let’s see how things evolve," Obama told ABC "World News Tonight" anchor David Muir.

Time reports that Secretary of State John Kerry is already planning a trip there, according to a statement issued Thursday in which he said: "I look forward to being the first Secretary of State in sixty years to visit Cuba."

Earlier Thursday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said the president was not "ruling out" a visit to Cuba, with Earnest adding that there could be "important national security reasons for the president to travel to other countries that have what we would describe at best as checkered human rights records."

Here's a hint: dignifying and bolstering regimes with "checkered human rights records" with corrupt U.S. diplomatic recognition and "engagement" is NOT why O is "weighting a trip to Cuba".  On that score he's much more interested in giving Raul Castro the red carpet treatment here, which is already in the works.

No, there's one reason - besides that fine Cuban choom - why his infernal majesty wants to frolic on that Caribbean island prison:

Earnest also noted that the natural beauty of Cuba might entice the president to make a trip there.

"Like many Americans, (Obama) has seen that Cuba is a place where they have a beautiful climate and a lot of fun things to do, so, if there's an opportunity for the president to visit, I'm sure he wouldn't turn it down," Earnest said.

That's right, folks: Cuba is O's newest vacation destination.  He'll even get to play golf on the same course as Che Guevara did!  That will be some reverent putting, right there.

Exit observation: Calvin Coolidge is the last POTUS to visit Cuba for any reason.  What, then, does that tell us about Cuba's strategic value to the United States, and Barack Obama's hard-left ideological reasons for tossing the oppressed Cuban people overboard?

Bonus exit question: If O goes to Cuba, can't they keep him down there?  He'd be right at home, after all.

Are Implied Powers Constitutional?

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The United States Constitution was written to establish a federal government to handle issues the States individually could not.  The States, who had original authority over all issues prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution, legally transferred some of their powers to the federal government so that it may function in the manner intended by the framers of the Constitution during convention in 1787.  The federal government were given express powers that are enumerated in the Constitution, but may not act upon any power not enumerated unless that action is necessary and proper to be used in order to carry out an expressly granted authority.  The powers given to the federal government were carefully chosen, limiting the central government to handling only external issues that concern the union of States, as well as conflicts between the States.  In return, the States would be tasked with administering issues that are internal, or specifically affecting to their own affairs.

In Federalist #45, James Madison explains that by design, as provided by the United States Constitution, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State."

The concept of "Implied Powers," as defined by Alexander Hamilton during his argument for a national bank, was that "there are implied, as well as express powers [in the Constitution], and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter. . . Implied powers are to be considered as delegated [to the federal government] equally with express ones."

Implied Powers are assumed authorities to the federal government, according to those that support the concept, that are not expressly enumerated, but are implied based on the interpretations of the Constitution by the political class, and judges.  We are even told as soon as we are old enough to study American History that it is the job of federal court justices to "interpret the law," which in turn leads to their authority to "interpret the Constitution."

The problem with the power of interpretation is that if you give an agency the authority to "interpret" something, their definitions will be more apt to reflect their own political ideology, than the letter of the law.

A living and breathing legal system changes at the whims of the electorate, politicians, and judges.  Cultural evolution can be used to manipulate the law, changing legal definitions without using the proper tools granted by the Constitution, such as the Article V. amendment process, to get the Constitution to mean whatever the power-brokers want it to mean.  The writers of the Constitution did not initiate a flimsy system that should change based on the whimsy desires of political opportunists.  The American form of government under the United States Constitution was designed to be a system based on a set standard, a written foundation with specific enumerated powers expressly granted to the federal government.  To allow the political elite to manipulate the Constitution based on their interpretations of the document through an unconstitutional concept they call "implied powers" is to go against the original intent of the document, and to establish a direct path to tyranny, and a loss of liberty in America.

Strict constructionism recognizes that the federal government was created to serve the States, not control them.  Supporters of the concept of Implied Powers suggests that the federal government can expand beyond those original restraints by simply following the opinion of a politician, or judge, regarding the constitutionality of a federal law, or action.  There are powers that lie beyond what is specifically enumerated, but those powers are not "implied powers," but instead find a direct connection to authorities expressly enumerated in the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, and any subsequent amendments.  Those powers are called, "Necessary and Proper."

Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, the "necessary and proper clause," reads: To make all law which shall be necessary and proper to carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.

The language of this clause specifically establishes that only laws that may not be expressly granted as authorities, but are necessary and proper in order to carry into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested in this Constitution, may be passed using this clause as their supporting authority.

Foregoing powers means "the powers expressly granted preceding this clause." All other powers vested in this Constitution means "any other powers granted by amendment."

Also notice the word "vested." Vested means "legally transferred." If the powers are legally transferred, they must be transferred from someplace. If you read Article I, Section 1 and the Tenth Amendment, it becomes apparent that the original possessors of the powers granted to the federal government is the States, therefore the laws must be in accordance with those powers granted, and any new powers must be obtained through the amendment process (Article V) which does not go into effect until the States ratify the request with a vote of three-quarters of the States.

Any laws passed by the federal government must be in line with their authorities from the Constitution itself.  If an authority is not specifically enumerated as a power of the federal government, it must be "necessary and proper" in order to carry out express powers granted.

As an example, in Article I, Section 8, the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to establish post offices.  A necessary and proper law or federal action to carry out that express power would be if Congress purchased the land needed for the location, hired the construction company to build the facility, and hired the personnel necessary to wrap up any construction, or post-construction needs.

The government uses the concept of "implied powers" to justify regulating companies like UPS, or Fed Ex, because they carry out services similar to that of the post office.  However, regulating those private companies is not necessary and proper in order to carry out U.S. Mail functions, nor is the government placing such restrictions on a private company for any reason enumerated in the Constitution.  Therefore, federal regulation over private parcel delivery corporations is unconstitutional.  The States, however, are not prohibited from setting rules regarding the movement of parcels within their boundaries, therefore, any regulation necessary regarding parcel delivery companies would need to be established by the States in which the companies operate.

Implied powers, therefore, are not constitutional, but necessary and proper laws legislated for the purpose of the federal government being able to carry out authorities expressly granted by the U.S. Constitution are.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary


Pew Research Study: U.S. Wealth Gaps Hit Record High

by JASmius



"Income inequality" didn't work - i.e. the Left voyeuristically sticking their grubby paws all over our paychecks (those of us that still receive one, anyway) - and so now they've moved on to sticking their grubby paws all over our nest eggs, where their greedy voyeurism is equally unwelcome:

The wealth gap between the country's upper-income and middle-class families has risen to a record high, according to a new study from the Pew Research Center.

The survey, based on thirty years of Federal Reserve data, shows the gap between upper- and lower-income families also has climbed to an all-time peak.

And for the exact same reason that income inequality has exploded under Barack Hussein Obama: The "1%" are having to shelter their resources against O's confiscatory plundering and forcibly imposed, exorbitant regulatory costs instead of investing them in economically productive (i.e. "profitable") and job-creating ventures.  In short, "the rich" will remain "rich" no matter how much Obamunists purport to "soak" them, but "lower-income families" can't be upwardly economically mobile if no jobs are being created for them to fill.

The median wealth of upper-income families totaled $639,400 last year, 6.6 times the median wealth of middle-income families — $96,500. That compares with 4.5 times in 2007, the year before the financial crisis.

That's interesting, isn't it?  My family and I have never had more than a middle-of-middle class income, and yet our nest egg is somewhere between those two numbers.  Why?  Because we have never run up huge debt, we've never "house hopped" to bigger and bigger dwellings, we've never purchased new cars but got along with recently "pre-owned" vehicles.  In short, we've never consumed conspicuously, and that has enabled us to sock away dough consistently over the years against the proverbial "rainy day" - which turned out to be a fifteen-months-and-counting deluge.

If interest rates were being set by the market instead of Janet Yellen's ouija board, who knows how much additional wealth I would possess by now?

But should I be penalized for not living beyond my means?  And is the economic status of "lower-income families" the fault of Americans who have done vastly better?

There's a right answer to those two questions.  It just isn't the answer that will come out of the Obama Regime.

"The latest data reinforce the larger story of America's middle-class household wealth stagnation over the past three decades," the report states.

"The Great Recession destroyed a significant amount of middle-income and lower-income families' wealth, and the economic recovery has yet to be felt for them. . . . Middle- and lower-income families' wealth levels in 2013 are comparable to where they were in the early 1990s."

The (Second) Great DEPression - which is still ongoing - destroyed approximately 5% of my wealth, and I subsequently made it back plus an additional 15% or so.  Of course, by the same token, in the next year that nest egg will begin declining by about 5% a year, barring the advent of a fresh source of income for me, all of which illustrates that Obamanomics - and horrible bosses - will "get" you sooner or later. But it still isn't any of anybody's damn business what my financial resources look like, or yours, or everybody else's - particularly those who are more well off than you or I are.  Economic voyeurism is the principle means by which income and wealth disparities are exacerbated to justify further depressionary government interventions, in a perpetual motion machine of poverty, squalor, and oppression.

Hey, Pew: How's about we each keep our own eyes on our own bank accounts, our own noses to our own grindstones, and the feds get the hell out of the way and allow the former American capitalist economy to function?  If you really want to ease income and wealth inequality, that is.

Paramount Follows Sony, Bans "Team America"

by JASmius



After Sony Pictures allowed North Korea to dictate to them what pictures they can make and release, a few theaters around the country substituted Team America: World Police, a 2004 film that parodied the NoKos, for The Interview, and did so to huge public acclaim and appreciation.

You can see where this is headed, cantcha?:

Three movie theaters say Paramount Pictures has ordered them not to show "Team America: World Police" one day after Sony Pictures surrendered to cyberterrorists and pulled "The Interview". The famous Alamo Drafthouse in Texas, Capitol Theater in Cleveland, and Plaza Atlanta in Atlanta said they would screen the movie instead of "The Interview", but Paramount has ordered them to stop. (No reason was apparently given and Paramount hasn’t spoken.)  "Team America" of course features Kim Jong Un’s father, Kim Jong Il, as a singing marionette.

Does Paramount have to give the reason?  We all know what it is.  Alamo Drafthouse, Capitol Theater, and Plaza Atlanta were going to show a different movie that would piss off the NoKos, and Paramount didn't want to incur any cyberretaliation, so they put the kibosh on Team America as well.  In effect, Pyongyang doesn't have to censor American cinema, because now American cinema is censoring itself to the NoKo's "sensibilities".

If I were the Un-dictator, I'd spread the censorship net as wide as I could, just to see how far Hollywood can be pushed to bend over and grab its ankles.  MGM's remake of Red Dawn, which depicts a North Korean invasion of the U.S., would appear to be next on the chopping block.  I wonder how long this one will take?


UPDATE: George Clooney weighs in the side of right (for once), and is stunned that so many of his Hollywood chums are already in the tall grass:

A good portion of the press abdicated its real duty. They played the fiddle while Rome burned. There was a real story going on. With just a little bit of work, you could have found out that it wasn’t just probably North Korea; it was North Korea. The Guardians of Peace is a phrase that Nixon used when he visited China. When asked why he was helping South Korea, he said it was because we are the Guardians of Peace. Here, we’re talking about an actual country deciding what content we’re going to have. This affects not just movies, this affects every part of business that we have. That’s the truth. What happens if a newsroom decides to go with a story, and a country or an individual or corporation decides they don’t like it? Forget the hacking part of it. You have someone threaten to blow up buildings, and all of a sudden everybody has to bow down. Sony didn’t pull the movie because they were scared; they pulled the movie because all the theaters said they were not going to run it. And they said they were not going to run it because they talked to their lawyers and those lawyers said if somebody dies in one of these, then you’re going to be responsible.

We have a new paradigm, a new reality, and we’re going to have to come to real terms with it all the way down the line. This was a dumb comedy that was about to come out. With the First Amendment, you’re never protecting Jefferson; it’s usually protecting some guy who’s burning a flag or doing something stupid. This is a silly comedy, but the truth is, what it now says about us is a whole lot. We have a responsibility to stand up against this. That’s not just Sony, but all of us, including my good friends in the press who have the responsibility to be asking themselves: What was important? What was the important story to be covering here? The hacking is terrible because of the damage they did to all those people. Their medical records, that is a horrible thing, their Social Security numbers. Then, to turn around and threaten to blow people up and kill people, and just by that threat alone we change what we do for a living, that’s the actual definition of terrorism.

You do realize what this dynamic is, yes?  Hollywood is finding itself on the receiving end of political correctness for a change, and only a few - Rob Lowe, Jimmy Kimmel, Michael Moore, and now George Clooney - are willing to put their "artistic freedom" money where their mouths are, when the censors in question are ideologically sympatico.

I can disagree with somebody but still respect their consistency.  Those with whom I disagree and haven't the courage of their rancid convictions are and ought to be beneath our contempt.

Exit question: How far will the NoKos have to take this cyberterrorism gambit before a majority of Hollywoodies join their handful of colleagues in saying, "Enough is enough!"?  I'd put the over/under in the dozens of movies scotched, except that I'm not aware of that many North Korea parodies.  Maybe they'll expand their dragnet to "any film that depicts Asians in a negative light".  That'd put the over/under in the hundreds, actually.

FCC: "Redskins" Not "Profane"

by JASmius



And why would it be?  Just because it offends the Left?  The same Left that has no problem at all forcing all manner of obscenities on the Christian Right in the name of "tolerance" and "free speech? 

Just one more one-way street, my friends.  And the FCC, remarkably, chose not to let leftwingnuts redefine the term "profane":

In a formal ruling, the commission rejected calls to yank the broadcast license of a radio station owned by Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder for excessively using the team’s name, which some find offensive.

George Washington University professor John Banzhaf filed a petition in September opposing the license renewal of the D.C. station, WWXX-FM.

The FCC can prohibit the use of profane or obscene language, but the team’s name does not fit the definition of either category, according to the FCC’s Media Bureau, which handled the case.

As, indeed, it does not.  The attempt itself to define the term "Redskins" as "profane" would seem, to me, to be a racist slur against Original Americans, whose very existence is anything but "profane".

Now I could understand "Professor" Benzhaf's objection if Daniel Snyder renamed his NFL franchise the "Foreskins," because that could be construed as "describing or depicting sexual conduct".  And I fully realize that every time D.C.'s 3-11 football team takes the field, the product they put forth is itself an obscenity, and perhaps crappy football is an insult to American Indians.  But none of that has anything to do with the team's nickname, which, by the official FCC definition, clearly is not "profane," and thus not subject to a ban.

It reveals, in point of fact, how desperate lefties are to, um, shaft the "skins that "Professor" Banzhaf attempted this dubious legal gambit.  But I have a suggestion for him and the rest of his ideological fellow-travelers: Get over yourselves, dial down your hyperoversensitivities, and understand that you are not entitled to not be "offended".

At least not in a country where the First Amendment is a two-way street.

Hands Up, "Stupid Sh*t’"

by JASmius



As with every other one of the Left's one-way streets, they can dish out pushback, but they most assuredly cannot take it.

And the best part here is, the pushback is coming from a police union rep.

New York Patrolman’s Benevolent Association President Patrick Lynch told union members the following:

“There’s a book they make for us where if you carried it with you, you won’t need to go to the gym,” Lynch said. “Every time there’s a problem, they tell us what we can’t do. They tell us what we shouldn’t do. They never tell us what we can do. We’re going to take that book, their rules and we’re going to protect ourselves because they won’t. We will do it the way they want us to do it. We will do it with their stupid rules, even the ones that don’t work.”

Lynch also complained about members of “the United States Congress on the steps of the Capitol raising their hand as if police officers aren’t protecting their rights to do stupid shit like that,” referring to a December 11th demonstration in Washington. [emphasis added]

Reportedly (and not surprisingly), leftwingnuts are incensed at Mr. Lynch's effrontery is giving voice to what every sane person already knows: The whole "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" movement is a monument to racist extortion, built upon a foundation of flagrant, despicable, racist lies.  Or, more to the point, and in terms LIVs and NIVs understand, HUDS is not reasonable.  It's a transparent "gimmie-gimmie" temper tantrum with the ability to kill and maim lots of people and destroy lots of property.  It's dangerous, and that's what law enforcement exists to put a stop to.  But cops are being hamstrung from doing so by, in this case, New York City's "stupid rules" of engagement, and it's endangering police officers' safety.  And Patrick Lynch is not suffering these fools gladly.

Pushback against the Left is not only a healthy thing (including for them, though they'll never admit it), it is damned refreshing, if you ask me.

And in the case of Marc Fucarile, who lost a leg in the Boston Marathon bombing a year and a half ago, there's no question about who has the moral authority in this confrontation:



"Get a life," indeed - instead of trying to steal everyone else's on false, reprehensible pretenses, and believing yourselves entitled to do so.

CNN: Barack Obama Is "Superman"

by JASmius



Not to be sexist or anything, but doesn't it seem to you like Gloria Bolger should have been naked when she delivered this tonguebath to The One?



Obama's despotism makes him "brave"?  She thinks it's a good and righteous thing that he's acting in a crassly partisan fashion to "box the Republicans in" from outside the bounds of law and the Constitution?  "“I think he’s kind of like Clark Kent stepping into the phone booth and coming out with the cape, and saying, ‘Now I’m going to do what I’ve always wanted to do,’ and he’s doing it."  Is Ms. Bolger serious about this obsequious, fawning fellation?

Yes!  She!  Is!

No matter how many profanity-laced tirades Barack Obama unleashes on the press, they will always be there for him, because while they may be abused slaves, they're abused slaves on the winning side.  And all libs really care about at the end of the proverbial day is winning.

And, you know, getting naked.

Except for Wolf Blitzer.  Even libs have some aesthetic standards.

Eric Holder: "White America" Still Cowardly Racists

by JASmius



Well, at least this time Eric "The Red" had to be prompted to insult all of "white America" (again):

“A lot of people talk about biases. Police officers not from the communities that they’re policing. Kind of the racial, the ethnic biases that also play into policing. You came into office very early on in your tenure and you made a very strong statement. And you said that we’re a nation of cowards and dealing with the issues of race. Do you still believe that now? Because we don’t seem to have gotten very far even in terms of dealing with those underlying racial issues.”

HOLDER: “Well, I think as a nation, we are too reluctant to talk about racial things.

Perhaps that's because "as a nation, we" keep taking to heart what Martin Luther King said about reaching the day where every American is judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  And seeing as how Holder clearly doesn't want that day to ever arrive, I think we can correspondingly determine the content of his character.

But do tell us, Reichsfuhrer, what would you like us to "discuss"?

It’s painful, it’s difficult, given the history of this nation.

It's only painful and difficult if you don't want to let go of and move past the pain and difficulty, or abandon the regressive concept of "collective guilt".  That's the moral supremacist truncheon with which black racists like you continue to inflict more pain and difficulty while absolving "your people" of personal responsibility for their criminal, insurrectionary actions.

And it’s been — the easier thing to do is try to figure out a way in which you kind of deal with the issue that’s before you and not deal with the underlying concerns that make a particular incident blow up into something that is of nationwide concern.

"Underlying concerns" like imaginary "systemic white racism" from a "white America" 40% of which voted for "the first black president" not once, but twice.  Does that mean that "white America" is still definitionally "racist" because we didn't give O an outright majority to go with the 95% anti-white black vote?  But there's nothing "racist" about that, is there?

So, yeah, we’ve not done all that we can. I’m hopeful that with regard to this incident at this time with this president that we can make progress in ways that we have not in the past.”

Finally, whites will be formally enslaved by blacks.  Maybe by the end of Barack Obama's fourth or fifth term.  After all, we can't let the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments stand in the way of "social justice," now can we?

Exit question: Holder is leaving, right?  Sure seems like it's taking him an awfully long time to finish cleaning out his office.  When I was given the bum's rush fifteen months ago, it didn't even take an hour.

White House Slams Rubio Over His Attacks On Cuba Deal

by JASmius



Or, at least, they think they did:

The White House on Thursday hit back against Florida Senator Marco Rubio's harsh attacks on President Barack Obama's plans to normalize relations with Cuba, saying he should back the deal because he supported the confirmation of an ambassador to China earlier this year.

"One of the leading proponents of this strategy of shutting off funding for the construction of this embassy and appointing an ambassador to Cuba is Senator Rubio, of course," White House press secretary Josh Earnest told reporters at a daily news briefing....

What does Senator Rubio voting for the confirmation of former Senator Max Baucus (D-MT) as ambassador to Red China have to do with blasting O's sellout to the Castro brothers?  Good question, although I do see what they were trying to go for:

Citing Rubio's statements from the confirmation hearing of former Democrat Senator Max Baucus as Beijing ambassador in January, Earnest hinted that those comments conflicted with his statements on Wednesday about Havana.

China has long been under attack for its human-rights abuses. Baucus was confirmed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, of which Rubio is a member.

"In thinking about this," Earnest continued, "it occurs to me that it seems odd Senator Rubio would be reluctant and, in fact, actively seeking to block the appointment of an ambassador to Cuba when earlier this year he voted to confirm the ambassador to China that the president nominated."...

"The other thing I noticed that, in the context of those hearings, Senator Rubio said something that this administration wholeheartedly agrees with," Earnest said. "Let me read it to you."...

He then read Rubio's comment from the January 28 hearing:

"I think you'll find broad consensus on this committee and I hope in the administration, that our embassy should be viewed as an ally of those within Chinese society that are looking to express their fundamental rights to speak out and to worship freely.

"We think the exact same thing can be said of the new embassy in Cuba," Earnest said.

Ha ha, White House caught Rubio in a "gotcha!".  But not much of one.  The gaping difference between the two is that relations with Red China have been normalized for over forty years.  I'm sure Senator Rubio feels the same way about the ChiComms as he does the Castro brothers, but there's no way at present that diplomatic relations with Beijing are going to be severed, so he was making the best of an unsavory situation.  But we also have to remember that the primary justification for President Nixon's opening to the PRC was that it is a major global power, and it was silly to simply pretend that it didn't exist.  I'll leave it to y'all to decide whether that was sufficient reason to recognize the ChiComms, but it's now a fait accompli.

Communist Cuba, by stark contrast, is not a global power, has nothing we want or need, but still abuses its own people as much or more than the ChiComms do.  So while it is at least arguable that diplomatic relations with the PRC are in our national interest, no such argument can be made with regard to the Castro regime.

In short, we did not and do not have to recognize the Castro brothers; it is an ideological choice that Barack Obama is making, and thus fair game for Senator Rubio to rip from rectum to belly button.

I do find it interesting that the White House felt the need to push back against Rubio's criticism, though.  Strictly speaking, O can open diplomatic relations with any government he wants, and we know that he's been liberated to do whatever he wants, law and the Constitution be damned.  So why would it matter to The One if a freshman Republican senator had a problem with his Cuba sellout?  It's either perceived damage control, or the dictator's narcissism has reached even more stratospheric heights.

And perhaps its simply that he can't get that fine Cuban choom fast enough.

Thursday, December 18, 2014

295 Millionaire Floyd Mayweather Says "White Racism" Bilked Him Out Of Billions

by JASmius

Shut up, Floyd.  No, shut the hell up.  No, shut the [BLEEP] up.  The change you have floating around in your various and sundry couches could set me up for life.  And almost a third of a billion dollars isn't enough for you?  Shall we start calling you Floyd "Not Enough Money" Mayweather?

Get OVER your greedy, racist self. Like, yesterday.



NFL Week 16 Kickoff

by JASmius



Get ready for a true clash of the.....well, "Titan," between two playoff cont....um, 2-12 cellar-dwellers that are elbowing for position atop....er, languishing at the bottom of my power rankings (Jacksonville #27, Tennessee #32 and dead last).

Ah, who am I kidding?  Is anybody going to watch this game?  Even in either -ville?

Tennessee
Jacksonville* (-3)

I wouldn't be surprised to see a wave of NFL Network subscription cancellations after this fiasco.

Either that, or a wave of suicides....



Civil War Amendments, Handout for Temecula Constitution Class

Constitution Class Handout, 12/18/2014, 6:30 pm
Instructor: Douglas V. Gibbs                                                

Faith Armory
41669 Winchester Rd.
Temecula, CA



Lesson 21

The Civil War Amendments 13, 14, and 15

The End of Slavery
Prior to the Civil War, any federal legislation related to slavery dealt with the importation of slaves.  Aspects of slavery inside State lines were considered a State issue.

Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 abolished the Atlantic slave trade, and the United States Government intervened militarily to ensure the law prohibiting the importation of slaves was enforced.  The Framers of the Constitution believed that in order to ensure the southern States did their part in ratifying the Constitution, while remaining consistent with the concept of the federal government only having authority over external issues, and disputes between the States, they could not abolish slavery nationally through the articles presented by the Constitution.  A large number of delegates at the federal convention in 1787 desired the immediate abolition of slavery, but the fear was that the southern States would not only refuse to ratify the Constitution, but that they would refuse to remain a part of the union, eventually succumbing to attacks from Florida and absorbed into the Spanish Empire.

A proposed amendment to abolish slavery during the American Civil War finally passed the Senate on April 8, 1864, by a vote of 38 to 6, but the House did not approve it.

When the proposed amendment was reintroduced by Representative Ashley, President Lincoln took an active role in working for its passage through the House by ensuring the amendment was added to the Republican Party platform for the upcoming Presidential elections.  Lincoln’s efforts, combined with the result of the War Between the States, ensured the House passed the bill on January 31, 1865, by a vote of 119 to 56.

The 13th Amendment was ratified into law on December 6, 1865.

Terms:

Atlantic Slave Trade - Started by the Portuguese, but soon dominated by the English, the Atlantic Slave Trade was the sale and exploitation of African slaves by Europeans that occurred in and around the Atlantic Ocean from the 15th century to the 19th century.

War Between the States - The Civil War was fought from 1861 to 1865 after Seven Southern slave States seceded from the United States, forming the Confederate States of America.  The "Confederacy" grew to include eleven States.  The war was fought between the States that did not declare secession, known as the "Union" or the "North", and the Confederate States.  The war found its origin in the concept of State’s Rights, but became largely regarding the issue of slavery after President Abraham Lincoln delivered the Emancipation Proclamation.  Over 600,000 Union and Confederate soldiers died, and much of the South's infrastructure was destroyed.  After the War, Amendments 13, 14, and 15 were proposed and ratified to abolish slavery in the United States, and to begin the process of protecting the civil rights of the freed slaves.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why wasn’t slavery abolished at the founding of this nation?

2.  Why did the House of Representatives not originally approve this amendment?

3.  How has the abolition of slavery affected this nation since the ratification of the 13th Amendment?

Resources:
Congressional Proposals and Senate Passage Harper Weekly. The
Creation of the 13th Amendment. Retrieved Feb. 15, 2007

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).


Citizenship, Civil Rights, and Apportionment

            Citizenship Clause

The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution failed in 1866 after the southern States rejected the proposed amendment.  After a second attempt to ratify the amendment, it was adopted on July 9, 1868.  The ratification of the 14th Amendment occurred after the federal government began to govern the South through a system of military districts.  Some historians question the validity of the ratification of the 14th Amendment because it is believed by these historians that the southern States ratified the amendment under duress, and pressure applied by the northern governorships in each of the southern States during the early part of the Reconstruction Period.

The first clause of the 14th Amendment is known as “The Citizenship Clause.”  The clause was intended to ensure the children of the emancipated slaves, as well as the newly freed slaves, would be considered citizens without any room for argument.  The clause reads:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

This clause has been misinterpreted to mean all persons born in the United States are automatically citizens, which is not the case.  The defining term in this clause that enables the reader to recognize that citizenship needs more than just being born on American soil reads: "subject to the jurisdiction, thereof."

To understand the term jurisdiction, one may go to the debates on the congressional record of the 14th Amendment.  In those debates, and in articles of that time period written to explain the intent of the language of the amendment, one finds that “full jurisdiction” was meant to mean “full allegiance to America.”  The intention was to protect the nation against persons with divided loyalties.

The writers of the 14th Amendment wished to follow the importance of "full loyalty" as portrayed by the Founding Fathers.  As far as the founders were concerned, there could be no divided allegiances.  They expected citizens to be fully American.

Despite the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the emancipated slaves were not receiving the rights and privileges of American citizens as they should have been.  The former slaves were present in the United States legally, and because they were here legally they were "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," but they were still not receiving any assurance of equal protection under the law.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was created in the hopes of correcting the problem.  Some of the language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 states, "All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States. ... All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."

The definition of "persons within the jurisdiction of the United States" in that act was all persons at the time of its passage, born in the United States, including all slaves and their offspring, but not having any allegiances to any foreign government.

Michigan Senator Jacob Howard, one of two principal authors of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment (Citizenship Clause), noted that its provision, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," excluded American Indians who had tribal nationalities, and "persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers."

Senator Howard’s responses to questions regarding the language he used in the Citizenship Clause were recorded in The Congressional Globe, which are the recorded transcripts of the debates over the 14th Amendment by the 139th Congress:

Mr. HOWARD:  “I now move to take up House joint resolution No. 127.”

The motion was agreed to; and the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the joint resolution (H.R. No. 127) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

“The 1st Amendment is to section one, declaring that all persons born in the United States and Subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside.  I do not propose to say anything on that subject except that the question of citizenship has been fully discussed in this body as not to need any further elucidation, in my opinion.  This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.  This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.  It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States.  This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country.”

Senator Howard even went out of his way to indicate that children born on American soil of foreign citizens are not included.

Clearly, the framers of the 14th Amendment had no intention of freely giving away American citizenship to just anyone simply because they may have been born on American soil.

The second author of the Citizenship Clause, Illinois Senator Lyman Trumbull, added that "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" meant "not owing allegiance to anybody else."

The full quote by Senator Trumbull:

"The provision is, that 'all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens.'  That means 'subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof.'  What do we mean by 'complete jurisdiction thereof?'  Not owing allegiance to anybody else.  That is what it means."

Trumbull continues, "Can you sue a Navajo Indian in court?  Are they in any sense subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States?  By no means.  We make treaties with them, and therefore they are not subject to our jurisdiction.  If they were, we wouldn't make treaties with them...It is only those persons who come completely within our jurisdiction, who are subject to our laws, that we think of making citizens; and there can be no objection to the proposition that such persons should be citizens."

Senator Howard concurred with what Mr. Trumbull had to say:

"I concur entirely with the honorable Senator from Illinois [Trumbull], in holding that the word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply a full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, whether exercised by Congress, by the executive, or by the judicial department; that is to say, the same jurisdiction in extent and quality as applies to every citizen of the United States now."

Based on these explanations by the writers of the clause, then, it is understood that the intention was for those who are not born to American citizens to have no birthright to citizenship just because they simply were born inside the borders of this country.

The courts have interpreted the Citizenship Clause to mean other things, but we must remember that the Constitution cannot be changed by the courts.  Changes to the Constitution can only be made by amendment (Article V.).

It was through the progressive actions of the Lincoln administration in the American Civil War, and the actions of the courts to incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, that America ceased to be “The United States Are,” and became a more nationalistic “The United States Is.”

            Privileges and Immunities Clause

The next clause, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” was expected to protect the newly emancipated slaves from local legislation that may treat them differently.  This clause was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed in the States that were designed to limit the former slaves from obtaining all of the freedoms they thought they had been guaranteed.

The Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of the proper due process of law.  The right to a fair trial was to be extended to all persons, including the emancipated slaves.

            Due Process Clause and Equal Protection Clause

The Due Process Clause, and the Equal Protection clause, have been the subject of debate since the language written by Congressman John Bingham, the principal author of the later part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, was first penned.  Bingham believed the federal government should use all national tools available to ensure the southern States behaved as instructed.  Bingham repeatedly stated his belief that the Fourteenth Amendment would enforce the Bill of Rights against the States, but the majority of the members of Congress present did not concur with his muddled and inconsistent argument.

Author Raoul Berger, in his book Government by Judiciary, discussed whether the 14th Amendment should be construed to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States.  Relying on the analysis of Professor Charles Fairman in his published article, Does the Fourteenth Amendment Incorporate the Bill of Rights?, Berger concluded that Bingham was a "muddled" thinker whose views should be discounted.  Berger agreed with Fairman that the framers of the 14th Amendment did not intend it to enforce the Bill of Rights against the States.  Berger rejected even selective incorporation, arguing that the Amendment's framers did not intend that any of the first eight amendments should be made applicable to the States through the 14th Amendment

Antislavery activists largely supported Bingham’s conclusion that that Bill of Rights must be applied to the States, and such application must be enforced by the federal government.  Though the Bill of Rights was originally intended by the Founding Fathers not to apply to the States, and with less than a centuryt since the American Revolution and the writing of the Constitution behind them, Bingham’s supporters contended that local jurisdiction over cases regarding an individual’s rights could no longer be allowed because the southern States could not be trusted to be fair to the newly emancipated slaves.

Bingham’s call for an incorporation of the Bill of Rights to the States established the concept that all people’s rights are supposed to be protected by the federal government.  The Founding Fathers did not apply the Bill of Rights to the States from the beginning because giving that kind of power to a potentially tyrannical federal government carries with it many pitfalls.  As the quote by Gerald Ford goes, “A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have.”  Nonetheless, despite the dangers of a central government dictating to the States regarding their laws regarding individual rights, because of the mistreatment of the former slaves by the Southern States, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, have been commonly interpreted to mean that the Bill of Rights is applicable to the States.

Since the Incorporation of the Bill of Rights did not take hold as a result of the 14th Amendment, as the statists that supported Bingham’s position had desired, the federal courts stepped in and took pursuit.  Pursuing a nationalist agenda, the courts disregarded the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution, as well as the conclusions of the Congress regarding the 14th Amendment, and began to selectively incorporate the Bill of Rights to the States, beginning with the Slaughterhouse Cases just five years after the ratification of the 14th Amendment in 1868.  A five to four vote by the high court interpreted the Privileges and Immunities Clause as the authority to enforce The Bill of Rights against the States.  Subsequent cases also used the 14th Amendment as an authority for incorporation.

The courts, through this process of incorporating The Bill of Rights to the States, have changed the Constitution through unconstitutional means, and against original intent.  As originally intended, all provisions in the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government, unless otherwise noted.  The Bill of Rights was originally intended to apply only to the federal government, and if we are to remain in line with the original intent of the Founding Fathers, State sovereignty must remain protected by that original intent.

The attitude of the southern States, and their refusal to treat the former slaves fairly led to a perceived need for clarification and enforcement by the federal government, which led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and eventually to the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s.

A separate but equal doctrine existed for more than fifty years, despite numerous attempts to ensure blacks enjoyed full rights and privileges of citizenship.

In modern politics, laws continue to test the limits of the Equal Protection Clause.  While the clause was intended to make sure that everyone is treated equally under the law, politicians supporting the Affordable Care Act have handed out exemptions to members of Congress, and some individuals or corporations, allowing those that receive the exemptions to be treated differently under the law.

            Apportionment

Section 2 of the 14th Amendment altered the rules for the apportioning of Representatives in the Congress to the States.  The enumeration was changed to include all residents, while also calling for a reduction of a State's apportionment if it wrongfully denies any adult male's right to vote.

For fear that the former slaves would support the Republicans, southern Democrats worked feverishly to dissuade blacks from voting.  Section 2 addressed this problem by offering to the southern States the opportunity to enfranchise black voters, or lose congressional representation.

            Consequences of Insurrection

Section 3 of the 14th Amendment prohibits the election or appointment to any federal or state office of any person who had held any of certain offices and then engaged in insurrection, rebellion or treason.  A two-thirds vote by each House of the Congress could override this limitation.  The interest was to ban the service of any members of the Confederacy that refused to renounce their participation in the Confederacy.

            Public Debt as a Result of the War

Section 4 of the 14th Amendment confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt appropriated by Congress.  The clause also indicated that neither the United States nor any State would pay for the loss of slaves or debts that had been incurred by the Confederacy.  This clause was to ensure that all States recognized the validity of the debt appropriated by Congress as a result of the war, while bonds secured by the Confederacy in order to help finance the South’s part of the war “went beyond congressional power.”

Political battles over the debt ceiling in 2011 and 2013 encouraged some politicians to argue that the “validity of the public debt” clause outlawed a debt ceiling, because placing a limit on federal spending interferes with the duty of the government to pay interest on outstanding bonds and to make payments owed to pensioners (such as Social Security).  The clause in the 14th Amendment addressing the validity of the public debt, however, was never intended to be a general clause to be used by future administrations, but a specific clause only addressing the debt accrued as a result of the American Civil War.

            Enforcement

The final clause of the 14th Amendment authorizes Congress to “enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”  Federal intrusion upon the States, however, has been a long-time fear by those that support the concept of State Sovereignty.  The question regarding enforcement was addressed in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, where the opinion of the Supreme Court interpreted Section 5 of the 14th Amendment to mean that "the legislation which Congress is authorized to adopt in this behalf is not general legislation upon the rights of the citizen, but corrective legislation".

In a more recent case, City of Boerne v. Flores, 1997, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress's enforcement power according to the last clause of the 14th Amendment is limited to only enacting legislation as a response to a "congruence and proportionality" between the injury to a person's 14th Amendment rights and the means Congress adopted to prevent or remedy that injury.

Court interpretation of the Constitution can be a dangerous practice, and we must remember that any interpretation of the Constitution offered by the courts in a ruling are merely opinions.  The final authority regarding the definitions of Constitutional law resides with the people, through their States.  Any allowance of the courts to fully define the Constitution at the whims of the judges opens up the opportunity for the courts to change definitions for ideological purposes, resulting in a judicial oligarchy, rather than a constitutional republic driven by the consent of the governed, and the self-evident standards of Natural Law.


Terms:

Black Codes - Laws put in place in the United States after the Civil War with the effect of limiting the basic human rights and civil liberties of blacks.

Constitutional Republic - Government that adheres to the rule or authority of the principles of a constitution.  A representative government that operates under the rule of law.

Equal Protection Under the Law - Laws must treat an individual resident or citizen in the same manner.

Incorporation of the Bill of Rights - The process through court rulings based on the interpretation of the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the States.

Jurisdiction - Full loyalty, a condition in which all foreign allegiances have been released; not owing allegiance to anybody else.

Military Districts - Districts created in the seceded states (not including Tennessee, which had ratified the 14th Amendment and was readmitted to the Union), headed by a military official empowered to appoint and remove state officials.

Nationalist - An advocate of Nationalism.

Natural Law - Unchanging moral principles regarded as a basis for all human conduct; observable law relating to natural existence; birthright law.

Original Intent - Original meaning of the United States Constitution as intended by the framers during the Federal Convention of 1787, and the subsequent State Ratification Conventions.

Public Debt - National debt; the financial obligations of a national government resulting from deficit spending.

Reconstruction Period - Period following the American Civil War during which the United States government began to rebuild the States that had seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy, lasting from 1865-1877.  During Reconstruction, the federal government proposed a number of plans and committed large amount of resources, to the readmittance to the union, and the rebuilding, of the defeated Confederate States.

Separate But Equal - Various laws designed to undermine the 14th Amendment requirement that former slaves be treated equally under the law, contending that the requirement of equality could be met in a manner that kept the races separate.  The result of these laws was a generally accepted doctrine of segregation throughout The South.

State Sovereignty - The individual autonomy of the several states; strong local government was considered the key to freedom; a limited government is the essence of liberty.

United States are - These States that are united; a group of sovereign member States in America voluntarily united into a republic.

United States is - Nation of the United States containing a number of States similar to provinces ruled over by a centralized federal government.

Questions for Discussion:

1.  How might have the governors of the military districts influenced the ratification of the 14th Amendment?

2.  Does the Citizenship Clause have anything to do with Natural Born Citizenship? Why?

3.  Why was Congress concerned with the threat of divided allegiance?

4.  Did the 14th Amendment eliminate laws like the Black Codes, as intended?

5.  How is it that despite the original intent of those that voted for the 14th Amendment that the Bill of Rights not be applied to the States most of the first ten amendments have been applied to the States anyway?

6.  What pieces of legislation since the ratification of this amendment have been passed in order to ensure that the Equal Protection Clause is properly enforced?

Resources:
Congressional Globe, 39th Congress (1866) pg. 2890: Senator Jacob
Howard States the Intent of the Fourteenth Amendment Published in the Congressional Record, May 30, 1866.

Civil Rights Act, The - April 9, 1866,
http://www.tedhayes.us/CVR_civil_rights_act_of_1866.htm

Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of
Abraham Lincoln; New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks (2005)

Frank J. Williams, Judging Lincoln; Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press (2002)

John F. Marszalek, Sherman: A Soldier’s Passion for Order; New York:
Vintage Civil War Library (1993)

Joseph Andrews, A Guide for Learning and Teaching The Declaration of
Independence and The U.S. Constitution - Learning from the Original Texts Using Classical Learning Methods of the Founders; San Marcos: The Center for Teaching the Constitution (2010).

Thomas J. DiLorenzo, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham
Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War; Roseville, California: Prima Publishing, a division of Random House (2002)

William S. NcFeely, Grant; New York: W.W. Norton & Company
(1981)

Voting Rights

The 15th Amendment was designed to protect the voting rights of all citizens, regardless of race, color, or if the voter had previously been a slave or indentured servant.  As stated in the amendment, this article applies to both the federal government, and the States. 

As the third reconstruction amendment, the 15th Amendment faced another challenge that was unexpected.  In some States the requirements were that all voters and candidates must be Christians.  As originally written, the amendment would require these States to change their rules regarding the manner of elections.  Realizing the ratification of the amendment may depend on the support of the States with Christianity requirements regarding elections, the amendment was revised in a conference committee to remove any reference to holding office or religion and only prohibited discrimination based on race, color or previous condition of servitude.

Democrat Party created militias, like the Ku Klux Klan, continued to try and intimidate black voters and white Republicans.  The federal government promised support, assuring that black and Republican voters could both vote, and serve, in confidence.  When an all-white mob in the Battle of Liberty Place attempted to take over the interracial government of New Orleans, President Ulysses S. Grant sent in federal troops to restore the elected mayor.

President Rutherford B. Hayes narrowly won the election in 1876.  To appease the South after his close election, in the hopes of gaining their support and soothing angry Democrats, President Hayes agreed to withdraw the federal troops who had been occupying the South since the end of the Civil War.  The hope was that the southern States were ready to handle their own affairs without a need for any interference from the North.

In the process, President Hayes also overlooked rampant fraud and electoral violence in the Deep South, despite several attempts by Republicans to pass laws protecting the rights of black voters and to punish intimidation.  Without the restrictions, voting place violence against blacks and Republicans increased, including instances of murder.

By the 1890s many of the southern States had enacted voter eligibility laws that included literacy tests and poll taxes.  Since the black population was normally steeped in poverty, the inability to afford the poll tax kept them from voting in elections.

It took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to finally take hold.  The ratification of the 24th Amendment in 1964, which eliminated poll taxes, and the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, served to ensure that blacks in the South were able to freely register to vote, and vote without any obstacles.

Terms:

Poll Tax - A tax levied on people rather than on property, often as a requirement for            voting.


Questions for Discussion:

1.  Why was the wording of the Fifteenth Amendment changed to not include discrimination based on religion?

2.  Why do you think the Democrat Party played a part in forming the Ku Klux Klan?

3.  Why did President Hayes withdraw federal protections against racial discrimination in the South?

4.  How did poll taxes enable the Southern Democrats from keeping Blacks from being able to vote without violating the Constitution?

5.  Why do you think it took nearly a century for the promise of the Fifteenth Amendment to be realized?

Resources:

Congressional Globe, 40th Cong., 3d Sess (1869) pg. 1318

Foner, Eric, Reconstruction: America's Unfinished
Revolution, 1863-1877; New York: Harper Perennial Modern
Classics (2002)

Gillette, William, The Right to Vote: Politics and the Passage of the
Fifteenth Amendment; Baltimore: John Hopkins Press (1969)



Copyright 2014 Douglas V. Gibbs