Log in

No account? Create an account

March 2018



Powered by LiveJournal.com
talking sense

Barack Obama

So, Barack Obama took Iowa.

Everybody has been saying that Hilary is more electable because White Americans would sooner elect a white woman than a black man.
I say Look at History!
Black men have proceeded white women in every category!
Black men got recognized as equal under the law before white women. (Amendment 14 - Citizenship Rights. Ratified 7/9/1868 (starts of saying "persons" but specifies male citizens). ERA was never passed)
Black men got the vote before white women. (Amendment 15 Ratified 1870 vs. Amendment 19 - Women's Suffrage. Ratified 1920.)
Black men got elected to congress before white women (Congressman Joseph Rainey 1870, Congresswoman Frances Payne Bolton 1940, Senator Hiram Revels 1870, Senator Hattie Caraway 1931. Even if you discount Reconstruction era Blacks were being elected again in 1928.)
Black men got got appointed to the Supreme Court before white women. (Thurgood Marshall appointed 1967, Sandra Day O'Connor 1981)


That's a very thought-provoking list.

I'm a member of the "Anyone-But-Huckabee" subcommittee of the "Not Another Republican" party.

Unfortunately, I'm registered as Independent and can't vote in Arizona's presidential primary. :/
My coworker is a Huckabee groupie. Just the thought of that man as president is Soooooo scary.
We so do not need another version of Bush in the White House. This is just a poorer version, but how about a worldly president...one who can converse with someone other than podunk USA people?
Read Amendment XIV again:
Section 1. 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. 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.

This extends citizenship to "all persons" (born or naturalized in the US), black, white, male, female, without regard to anything. It extends "equal protection" and "due process" to "all persons". It keeps States from abridging the privileges or immunities of "citizens", again without restriction on any of these clauses to male, female, etc.

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

This extends representation to all (excluding untaxed Indians), without regard to black, white, male, female.

But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

This clause (which WIkipedia claims was never enforced) basically says that if the states limits who can vote beyond males over 21, their representation in Congress is proportionately limited. This deals with voting rights, not basic citizenship and personhood. As you pointed out, women wouldn't get the vote until 1920, but nothing in this clause should be considered as restricting the citizenship rights of women compared to men except, perhaps, when it comes to voting -- which you handled in another case.

One objection to the ERA was that it was redundant -- that the ground had been trod already by the 14th amendment -- and useless -- that if the 14th amendment was being ignored that way, so would the ERA.


The courts have stretched the Fourteenth Amendment to cover women in some cases but it was clearly not intended to when it was passed.

Even the Wikipedia article says the purpose of the Amendment was "intended to secure rights for former slaves" not to give equal rights to women.
Thank you for substantiating my point. I said to Wolf just last night, I said "Amercia will vote a black man into the White House before a woman."

His view on it was that the Clintons have out-lived their electability entirely and Hillary won't be able to stand up against her record, both as First Lady and as NY senator. He also pointed out the very successful smear campaigns run in the South against a black Democrat whose name escapes me. Well ahead in the polls, until his Republican opponent ran ads suggesting he was attractive to white women. It was all done visually too, nothing was actually said.

We are still a racist country, but mysogeny (sp?) is stronger in the voting public. Plus Obama has proven he can rally generations X and Y, which is really saying something.
The Democrats aren't going to win the racist Southern states anyway, so why worry about them.

Harold call me!

Although, to keep you from getting too depressed
I'm astounded by the immaturity of this national conversation. My mother & I saw two young girls in a bookstore by the political calendars, and one said to the other, "Would you choose the girl, or the black one?" That's perhaps excusable for children, but it seems more & more clear those innocents were reflecting the level of discourse in our society as a whole, and I can only describe that as irresponsible and insane.

It's nuts to give someone as much power as we give to our president. It's nuts to elect anyone through such a random, torturous, capricious, meaningless process. But it truly gives the lie to the whole thing, that given such a pathetically simple choice as their only political outlet, the citizens of the United States of America find themselves unable to make a decision about anything other than what race or gender they might like to have, like they're choosing a set of drapes.

Which president will color coordinate best with our country? How do they look in red, white, & blue? OK phew I randomly decided, there's your consent of the governed, there's what we're really going to try to pass off as democracy, in front of a world full of other people who are smarter than us and who can see what fools we are making of ourselves.

You are right. I agree with you.

I wish Kucinich could win. I actually agree with him.

Neither Hilary nor Obama are liberal enough for me.

Re: You are right. I agree with you.

I like Kucinich as well. I don't want to have to choose between giving a single vote to Kucinich and Gravel any more than I want to choose between Obama and Clinton, though! I think it's obvious we need one of the many voting systems-- IRV, range voting, etc-- where you can go in and cast a meaningful, safe vote which expresses your opinion about all of the candidates. How can people talk about "spoilers" all the time for so many years without anyone seriously recommending we switch to one of the many, readily available systems without such obvious flaws??
Most Americans really are that simple. "If I can't have someone who most agrees with ME, then I'll take the first name on the list."

The only people who really care about the political process vote in primaries or debate in the caucuses. And they are a very, very small fraction of the country's populace. The rest don't give a damn.
I think there is also a sizeable portion of the population which is genuinely disgusted with this process to the point where they are boycotting the elections, just as people boycott undemocratic elections the world over, from Burma to Pakistan to Kenya to Iraq.

The primary process is not a democratic election on any level-- there is no attempt at "one person, one vote", there is no attempt at fairness in the debates or in the media, and at the end of the day they have already declared (I find this mindblowing) that many of the votes which are cast will simply not count because of internal party politics, whole states worth of votes being thrown aside willynilly by the will of a small number of party officials.

I guarantee you that if we put in place a system which allowed people to meaningfully register their opinion at the voting booth and then have it counted-- you know, a democracy-- that the participation rate in the USA would be perfectly reasonable. It's a boycott of this broken system.