Anti-Federalist No. 3 – On Race


I am going to dare to venture deep into a topic that few white males dare to dive into… race. I am sure that I will be blasted by many on the left for my remarks as this blog gets more exposure, however due to the recent news controversy regarding Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, I feel that I owe it to our readers to delve into this subject matter.

The History of Race and Federalists

On the issue of Federalism, there are two lines of thinking when it comes to racial equality and the role of the government. There are Federalist who believe that a strong Federal government is essential in protecting the rights of minorities. They evidence Supreme Court cases such as Brown vs. BOE and Roe v. Wade in their arguments. These Federalists bask in the light and the glory of the role Affirmative Action played in promoting the interests of minorities in the work place. Generally Anti-Federalists are painted as the sexist/racist villains because they question the wisdom of such a strong central government. The masses jump on this bandwagon, never stopping to questions things.

I believe there to be well intentioned Federalists and maniacal Federalists. I believe that most of the masses are well intentioned Federalists who believe that a strong Federal government will protect them and their rights. The maniacal Federalists on the other hand use the well intentioned masses to demonize Anti-Federalists and garner more power for themselves. I must state the obvious here, that but for cases like Plessy v. Ferguson, Dred Scott v. Sandford, and Koremotsu v. United States where liberty and justice are NOT for all, there would have been no need for cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. BOE. Federalists marvel at the Federal government’s ability to “give” rights to the people; the problem is that these Federalists overlook the fact that it was the same strong central government which took those rights away in the first place. The flaw with Federalism is that the government givith, and the government taketh away. This runs contrary to the principals of inalienable rights which state that our rights are granted to us by GOD… NOT some temporary institution called government.

Federalists: The modern day racists?

You may be asking yourself: “How does this relate to race and Harry Reid?”. I must refer you to two quotes:

President Barack Obama: “Just because you have a right does not mean that the state or local government cannot constrain that right”.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: “A right delayed is a right denied”

You see here that one man believes that rights are inalienable, the other man believes otherwise. The Supreme Court, as explained above, believes that IT has the final word on your rights, the same as the man on the left pictured above. I will not go so far as to say that Dr. King was a Conservative, a Republican, or an Anti-Federalist, but he certainly understood the incredible power that a strong Federal government could wield over an entire race of people. Dr. King certainly understood what inalienable rights were. Neither will I go so far as to say that President Obama is a racist, only that the policies he supports lend themselves to restricting liberty and fairness.

At the core of our inalienable rights is the principal of fairness. However, there is a double-standard in this nation. If a Republican or Conservative says something idiotic regarding race he is immediately labeled a racist in the court of public opinion. This man or woman is not judged by the content of his or her character as Dr. King would call for, but instead is run out of town on rails. If the same happens with a Democrat, all that is needed is an apology and things are made okay.

I submit to you that President Obama is weak. Here an incredibly accomplished, intelligent, revered leader was demeaned to what Senator Reid would call a “negro”, and instead of showing this nation his strength, and that that racism will not be tolerated, regardless of political party, he instead opted to cow tail for the sake of beltway party politics. This is the same kind of crap that Republican Federalists do.

Then there is the logic of President Obama, the same man who said that a Cambridge Police Officer “acted stupidly” without knowing the facts of the case, dismisses Senator Reid’s comments without equivocation. This isn’t “Change You Can Believe In”, this is more of the same insider party politics.  I believe that Trent Lott was RIGHTFULLY run out of D.C. for his remarks, and so too should Senator Reid. OUR public servants should be held to a higher standard. Yeah, and Kanye West is the “jackass”? Kanye’s got nothing on Reid. Please, share your thoughts.

This concludes Anti-Federalist No. 3


RSS feed

8 Comments Leave a comment

The national govt did oppress blacks, but so did the states

cary_grant (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 7:31PM EST (link)

Many in Congress through the years tried to do much for blacks, and had some success as well as many failures. Certain presidents also tried – again, with success and failure.

The Court was the major problem.

But none of this takes away from the fact that certain states passed Jim Crow laws and took other similar actions against blacks.

Those who believe in robust federalism of the kind originally intended, as I do and as you might, still need to respond to the criticism that racial injustice could not be righted within such a federalist system. There are responses one can make, but I don’t think you attempted to make any of them.

My first amendment rights are protected by my second amendment accuracy.

What would be one of those arguements

Leopard1996 (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 8:04PM EST (link)

I mean, I know that if I didn’t like a “segragationist” law where I lived, I could probably beat feet to another state, however, back in th 60′s there weren’t many places to beat feet to for a majority of blacks that lived under Jim Crow, because about every state in the union at that time had either explicit or under the table racism. As a black person, I do think that there needs to be an adhered to standard of civil rights that applies to everyone if they are a citizen of this country. Outside of that I am all for state’s rights and the 10th amendment, but that does not give 51% of a given state if they just hate blacks to pass laws to make sure that blacks are treated as 2nd class citizens.

“The accumluated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save Us!”….and I’ll look down and whisper, “No”…The Watchmen

My preliminary ideas on federalism and racial justice

cary_grant (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 8:45PM EST (link)

I wasn’t suggesting that the solution under the federalist approach was for black to up and leave. I wouldn’t call that a solution.

Candidly, this is a subject I’ve been meaning to study much more, so I can give you only preliminary thoughts.

The argument by progressives is that the states had too much power under the old federalist system and therefore the national government could not have stopped segregation. I am inclined to think that the national government always had the power to stop segregation, certainly since the 14th Amendment, and possibly even since the ratification in 1789.

The 14th Amendment forbids states from denying equal protection to their citizens, and also forbids states from denying U.S. citizens their privileges and immunities. The national government could have abolished segregation under either of these parts of the 14th Amendment, because the 14th Amendment also gives Congress the power to enforce its clauses.

There are other parts of the Constitution that were around from the beginning that could, arguably, give the national government the power, such as the guarantee of a republican form of government for every state.

And then there’s the argument that the Constitution is color-blind – always was – and by implication forbids segregation at the state or federal level. (I’m not fully persuaded by this.)

Finally, let me mention that at least some of the state constitutions themselves might have been violated by segregation laws, but pro-segregation majorities prevented the constitutions from being enforced. (I’m not certain of this – still meaning to look into it more.)

My first amendment rights are protected by my second amendment accuracy.

 

More on 14th Amendment and equality

cary_grant (Diary) Wednesday, February 3rd at 9:02PM EST (link)

This article by Andy McCarthy, discussing a longer article by Judge Michael McConnell, is instructive. I certainly recommend Judge McConnell’s article, too. It’s at the center of the contemporary discussion of the meaning of the 14th Amendment. (I don’t have a link to Judge McConnell’s article, though.)

http://article.nationalreview.com/399402/equality-under-the-law/andrew-c-mccarthy?page=2

My first amendment rights are protected by my second amendment accuracy.

Thank you for this

Leopard1996 (Diary) Thursday, February 4th at 2:11PM EST (link)

I knew about the 14th amendment, but like everything else, when you hear the echo chamber from the media, and from douches like NJ senator Bob Menenedez, pretty much trying to divide and conquer us by running things on the 10th amendment so that you either are against the tea party types or your a racist if you support or are opposed to the 10th amendment. From reading what you wrote the 14th should have been more than adequate for protections, however it was not until the 60′s thanks to the people who are supposedly supposed to be the saviors of civil rights, the Democrat party.

“The accumluated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, “Save Us!”….and I’ll look down and whisper, “No”…The Watchmen

 
 
 

My response to robust federalism

The Anti-Federalist (Diary) Tuesday, February 9th at 7:09PM EST (link)

I try to keep the articles short so that the reader doesn’t have to spend a whole lot of time reading my opinions on matters. I like the dialogue more than being preachy.

I never really believed that it was ever the federal government or robust federalism which did away with racial injustice, but rather popular movements of the like we are witnessing right now with the tea-party’ers. It took a war to end slavery after all.

After the Civil War, the 14th Amendment was passed in order to extend the Bill of Rights down the state level and protect citizens (freed slaves) at that level as well as at the Federal level. This was clearly an example of failed robust federalism. The reason it failed had little to do with the will of Washington, and everything to do with the will of the people (white slave owning people)… D.C. be damned.

Stephen B. Lambeth
The Anti-Federalist Papers
www.theantifederalistpapers.com

“You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” – Dr. Adrian Rogers

 
 

Not bad.

randy streu (Diary) Thursday, February 4th at 6:45AM EST (link)

The key difference here, as I think you’re pointing out, is the role of government in race and the role of the individual.

The government, IMO, should absolutely be able to demand equality in all corners of Government. Including state. As was said somewhere above, everyone does have the right to fair treatment from government — a government that puts one race above or below another is inherently injust.

Where the PC, affirmative action crowd goes to far, however, is in regulating the behavior of individuals. If I open a store, you don’t have the “right” to enter unless I decide you do. That’s what property law IS. A guy who would barr somebody from shopping there because of race is a bigoted a****le, but that’s his right, as far as I’m concerned. You don’t have the inalienable right to not be offended.

All that said, I should mention, I agree about the President’s response to the Gates thing, and about Reid. If we want to elminate racism in government, we need to actually eliminate it. Both the Gates issue (the way Obama handled it) and what Harry said serve to regress race relations, not to progress them.

 

Turning "equal protection" on its head

Menlo (Diary) Thursday, February 4th at 3:01PM EST (link)

Denying equal protection to the unborn is no different from denying equal protection to blacks. In a truly progressive system, the federal government would be fully justified in shutting down abortionists. Roe in no way intended or had the effect of protecting minorities; quite the opposite.

Still, I would argue that those who drafted the fourteenth amendment were the most shortsighted, unwise, and stupid men in the nation’s history, despite their intent. I truly believe we could solve a lot of the nation’s ills in several areas with a do-over of the fourteenth amendment. The current one is not even remotely sufficient.

“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.” -Felix Frankfurter