No, really, says the Rev. Jesse L. Jackson, Barbara Arnwine, and Janice L. Mathis: States’ Rights Redux: Voting Rights Act + 46
States’ rights is code for discrimination.
Isn’t it great how they can read the minds of everyone who believes in the Constitutional provision which provided States with power against the potential tyranny from the federal government?
A century and a half ago, some states asserted the right to leave the union. We fought the nation’s bloodiest conflict, then admitted the traitors back into the country on generous terms. Though our Confederate brothers and sisters died defending the enslavement of African-Americans, we did this in the name of peace and forgiveness.
Oh, you mean those Democrats who did that?
Fast forward, to the 1960’s, all Americans were free from legalized slavery — but blacks were still routinely denied the ballot. Some states blocked access to the ballot with the same ferocity, and on the same grounds, that they stood in schoolhouse doors with ax handles — states’ rights. Denial of the ballot was based on the right of states to control all election procedures.
I agree, those Democrats were bad people for doing that. Funny, though, how Democrats, who always say that they are the smartest people in the room and can see shades of gray, take a black and white position (no pun intended) on this subject, and fail to see that using the 10th Amendment incorrectly doesn’t diminish the whole thing.
But radical conservatives, frightened by the country’s demographics and the potential long-term voter realignment, and also emboldened by a federal judiciary that puts “federalism†limits on Congress’ enforcement powers, are now raising the terrible visages of voter suppression and states’ rights once again.
You know why? Because some may require *gasp* ID to prove identity when voting. So, obviously, those states that are passing/pushing laws which require people to prove who they are when performing one of their most sacred duties is intentionally raaaaacist, as evil conservatives attempt to disenfranchise minorities. Well, we are trying to disenfranchise dead people, who may be minorities. And dogs and cats, who may be owned by a minority. And Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, Jesus II, Bart Simpson, Family Guy, King Kong, Doodad Pro, and Good Will, among others, will be disenfranchised.
But, any of you who believe in ALL the Amendments are raaaaacists. Period.
Crossed at Right Wing News and Stop The ACLU.
Our constitution was written to prevent this but this band of communists are full speed ahead, pedal to the metal, fuk Americans who disagree with them.
They are tyrants and fascists. They are communists at heart. They do not care for this country because this country MUST BE CHANGED. They only care that this country be molded and shaped in the image of their beliefs.
LEGISLATE and then REGULATE….with each legislation and regulation they are a tiny step closer to the ultimate tyranny of the minority they so covet. It is why OBAMA exclaimed….get me a damned bill to sign….knowing that once in place any legislation is almost impossible to remove from the BEAST.
and when you disagree with them……they litigate…..as in litigating everything Christian out of society…litigating schools…litigating gay rights, abortion….litigating food and nuclear plants and AGW.
It is as the bible predicted. This would happen. The world would be thrown into chaos and a leader would emmerge.
Barak Obama and his progressive minions are emerging as the nations smolder under the weight of Obama’s policies designed to destroy not create.
and the MSM shouted AMEN!!! as they proclaim Islam is good and Jews and Christians are evil.
Am I the only one who sees a logical fallacy in this statement? If the states were “admitted back into the country,” the logical position is that they actually did leave the union.
Lincoln fought the Civil War on the basis of the fact that the Southern states had no right to leave the United States. (The Supreme Court later agreed with him.)
This is the problem when people like Jackson start propagandizing history.
They screw it up.
The fact of the matter is that the “state’s rights” of the 1800’s is not the same states’ rights we are talking about today. In the 1800’s, the term meant a state could not enforce any Federal law or regulation it did not like. Whether that law or regulation was Constitutional or not did not matter. What mattered was only that some states felt they had the right to not comply to a contract they had agreed to.
Today, “states’ rights” is the Constitutionally based idea that the 10th Amendment applies to restrict the power of the Federal government.
Anytime someone says “states rights,” the distinction has to be made less they be able to equate the incorrect idea of the past with the correct idea of today.
[…] Believe In States’ Rights? You’re A Racist […]
[…] Pirate’s Cove: Believe In States’ Rights? You’re A Racist […]