On Tuesday, I started researching the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after remarks by Dr. Rand Paul, the just-selected Republican Party representative for the state of KY's senate race. I obviously chose a different topic as evident by a two day discussion on pensions. I am again tabling my original intent on the discussion in lieu of another topic. To give a little teaser for tomorrow, I plan on arguing that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is unconstitutional. We'll see how that goes.
In my research on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I realized there were some aspects of the Reconstruction Era I did not remember. I also cannot remember if I was ever taught this in the first place. In my reading, I saw a pattern that was reminisce of recent times. Thus was born a discussion on bully politics.
One of the first indications of bully politics is found in our Country's history during Washington's second administration. After the Revolutionary War, the country had taken on the state's debt and needed to raise funds. In 1791, Alexander Hamilton proposed a tax on distilled spirits to help raise said funds. One of the problems was it was a tax that favorable large producers over small producers (globalsecurity.org, n.d.). In western Pennsylvania, farmers used grain not sold to distill whiskey. They even bartered in the distilled spirits. The excise tax (a tax at production not consumption) was an undue burden on the small producers. Tax evasion and abuse of tax collectors became prevalent throughout the western region of Pennsylvania. Riots even broke out over the tax. Fed up with the insubordination, Washington raised a militia from other states. Under the command of Virginia Governor Harry Lee (Gen Robert E. Lee's father), the militia went to Pennsylvania and put the uprising to an end (earlyamerica.com, n.d.). This was an event which showed the states the new federal government was ready to enforce its authority. A flex of its might, the nation showed its power. In 1801, the unpopular whiskey excise tax was repealed....
At the end of the Civil War, the former slaves were all freedmen. However, the plantation owners still needed their crops harvested. How could they get them harvested at a cheap cost? Pass laws which would force the freedmen back into lawful servitude, that's how! The southern states then passed what has become to be known as the Black Codes which reestablished white dominance (Nash and others, pg 545). For example, one state made it illegal to not have a job, in other words, vagrancy was a crime. If charged with vagrancy, the violator would have to pay a fine. Of course, the vagrant did not have the money to pay the fine. So the vagrant was given the option to "work off" his debt at the plantation (civilwarhome.com, n.d.). Wasn't this a great plan? Of course, the northerners weren't going to have any of this. In response, the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1866. The southern states, at the urging of President Johnson, refused to ratify the amendment. So after flexing its muscle with the Fourteenth Amendment, the northern states flexed their muscles again with the Reconstruction Acts. They redrew voting districts and disallowed many rebels from voting. This ensured blacks could vote on a new state constitution. Only after ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment were the southern states allowed to send representatives to Congress (Nash and others, pg 549). However, it wasn't until the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment become the way of life. Or has it?
In 2008, the state of California passed Proposition 8. This proposition defined marriage as between a man and a woman. These words were placed into the state's Constitution making it difficult for the court to allow same-sex marriages. The beginning of Prop 8 began back in 1999. In that year, the legislature wrote several laws recognising a domestic partnership. This effectively gave same-sex couples many of the rights as married couples. Then in 2000, proposition 22 was approved by the voters which defined marriage as between a man and a woman and stated California would only recognize a marriage from another state only if it matched the state's definition. In 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled proposition 22 unconstitutional. Thus the voters of the state which approved prop 22 flexed its muscle and approved prop 8. Same-sex couples were now prevented from using the word "marriage" to define their relationship even though their domestic partnership is legal....
In 2010, the Democrats holding a majority in Congress had to flex their muscles. Even though polls showed most Americans did not want the Democrats' version of healthcare reform, the muscles were flexed and the Democrats passed their healthcare reform over the objection of the public. We have yet to see the repercussions from this muscle flexing.
Throughout our Country's history, the majority has flexed its muscle in a bullying manner to get their agenda passed. Was it for the good of the country or for the good of themselves? Only history will tell...
Mike
Again, I recommend checking out the references.
References:
Nash, G and others. (1990). The American people: creating a nation and a society Volume 2 since 1865. NY: HarperCollins.
USconstitution.net. (n.d.) Notes on the amendments. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.usconstitution.net/constamnotes.html#Am14
Smith, P. (n.d.) Trial by fire, a people's history of the civil war and reconstruction. Retrieved from civilwarhome.com. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.civilwarhome.com/blackcodes.htm
Archiving early America. (n.d.) The Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 25 May 2010 from http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/
Globalsecurity.org. (n.d.) Whiskey Rebellion. Retrieved 27 May 2010 from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/whiskey_rebellion.htm
For Prop 8 or Prop 22 just do a search for them. Obviously, wikipedia will something for you.
I'm sure you know the healthcare debate.
No comments:
Post a Comment