please understand that many of us Black people get it when you take offense to being told what you can’t say or do. That’s just… un-American, isn’t it? They tell you that, as a white person, you can’t say the word “nigger.” Under any circumstances. Well, speaking to you as a proud, pro-Black Black man, I’m here to tell you this:
You can say ANYTHING you want. This is America. You have the constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech. And… you made up the word so, naturally, you might find need (so you think) to employ it from time to time. With that said…
One person’s free speech is another person’s experience of racial violence and, as such, that person who is hearing you “nigger” them may choose to defend themself from your verbal violence. Physically. Because again, this is America. The land of the free. Home of the brave.
If that Black person you call nigger decides that they are free to whoop your ass because they are brave enough to show and prove that they will not accept racial disrespect from white folks in 2016… that’s on you.
The U. S. Constitution promises freedom of speech, not freedom from the consequences of your speech. So say what you like just know that you might have to physically defend yourself, depending on which Black person you happen to call a nigger. I can’t be any more honest with you about it than this.
Although Parks was not the first black woman, nor the first woman,
to refuse to give up her seat, Parks’ defiant action became a landmark event in
the civil rights movement because it was the first to be used as a test case by
the NAACP. Having been an upstanding citizen and an active member of the NAACP
since joining the Montgomery branch in 1943, Parks was believed to be an ideal
candidate by which to challenge the constitutionality of legalized segregation.
Image Credit: (1) “Rosa Parks Police Report.” (2) “Rosa Parks Fingerprints.” (3) “Rosa Parks with Martin Luther King, Jr” by Ebony Magazine. Public Domain via Wikimedia Commons.
New Hampshire has been one awkward moment after the next for the Great White Hope of the ‘Establishment’ GOP, Senator Marco Rubio. As an avid proponent of favoring 'God’s laws’ over the laws decided by Constitutionally mandated process, Marco is going to have trouble reconciling his beliefs with the duties of the chief of the Executive Branch headed by the President of the United States.
Marco Rubio said that the Supreme Court’s rulings on marriage equality in the Obergefell decision, (is) “not settled law.”
The Republican presidential candidate said that states should “do everything possible within the constraints that its placed upon us” to curtail abortion rights, before insisting that government officials “ignore” Supreme Court rulings if they believe they conflict with “God’s rules.”
At a diner in Manchester, NH., Rubio was asked about his anti-gay marriage stance, from a man who has everything to lose. The awkwardness of the situation is enhanced by Rubio’s nervous looking handlers fidgeting about throughout the scene.
“What We Can Learn From Jefferson-Hamilton Debate on National Bank”
Carson Holloway in the Daily Signal explores the upcoming anniversary of the chartering of Bank of the United States and the key lesson for modern politicians from the Hamilton-Jefferson debates over the bank’s constitutionality:
This February is the 225th anniversary of Alexander Hamilton’s and Thomas Jefferson’s famous 1791 debate—carried on in President George Washington’s cabinet—over the constitutionality of Hamilton’s proposed Bank of the United States.
It might seem strange to call such an anniversary to mind. After all, we usually celebrate our great moments of national agreement (like the Declaration of Independence), not of controversy. It might even be a little painful, since the bank bill argument was only the opening shot in a bitter political and constitutional battle between Washington’s two chief ministers.
Nevertheless, it is proper to celebrate and reflect on this first major constitutional dispute in our history. Hamilton and Jefferson disagreed about the correct interpretation of the Necessary and Proper Clause and therefore about the legitimate scope of the powers of the federal government.
They agreed, however, on something more fundamental. What united them was the importance of constitutional fidelity, or the need to make sure that government policy is guided by the true meaning of the Constitution.
At first sight, Jefferson emerges as the Constitution’s champion in this dispute. Hamilton’s initial report calling for a national bank did not even bother to bring forward any constitutional basis for such a measure.
It was Jefferson, following James Madison’s lead, who contended that the Necessary and Proper Clause could not be pushed so far as to justify the creation of such an institution. Nevertheless, in the clash of argument over the question Hamilton, too, established his constitutional seriousness.
He replied to Jefferson at impressive length, trying to show that Jefferson had misunderstood the Necessary and Proper Clause, that it could reasonably be read to authorize laws that were, if not indispensable to, at least reasonably related to the exercise of the government’s enumerated powers.
Hamilton prevailed, and George Washington signed the bill into law. This reminds us of Washington’s often overlooked role in our first great constitutional debate: He caused it by calling for Hamilton and Jefferson’s written opinions of the question of the bank’s constitutionality. In doing so, Washington set a high example of constitutional statesmanship and earned, once again, his unique position of honor among our nation’s presidents.
Washington, who usually followed Hamilton’s advice on matters of domestic policy, surely favored the bank bill. And since it had been passed easily in both houses of Congress, after Madison had raised his constitutional objections in the House, Washington had plenty of political cover, had he wanted to exploit it, to simply sign the bill and move on. That he instead called for further argument within his own cabinet shows that he was utterly serious about keeping his administration’s policy square with the Constitution.
We live in a time of widespread constitutional unseriousness. It is a time in which a speaker of the House, asked about the constitutional basis of a bill pending before the Congress, can answer, “Are you serious?” In such times, we sorely need the example of such statesmen as Jefferson, Hamilton, and Washington. [See article source]
“So let’s solve the problem,” Mikuski urged. “Let’s not get involved in constitutional arguments, and let’s help our American people be safe and secure in their home, their neighborhood, their school and their house of worship.”
And as Republican senators at Wednesday’s hearing showed, they were unwilling to heed Mikuski’s request to avoid the constitutionality of Obama’s action.
“The department is on notice,” Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby told Lynch. “This subcommittee will have no part in undermining the Constitution and the rights that it protects.”
Antonio José de Sucre, in full Antonio José de Sucre Alcalá (born February 3, 1795, Cumaná, New Granada [now in Venezuela]—died June 4, 1830, Berruecos, Gran Colombia [now in Colombia]), known as the “Gran Mariscal de Ayacucho” (English: “Grand Marshal of Ayacucho”) was a Venezuelan independence leader, one of Simón Bolívar’s closest friends, generals and statesmen. Liberator of Ecuador and Peru, and one of the most respected leaders of the Latin American wars for independence from Spain, he served as Bolívar’s chief lieutenant and eventually became the first constitutionally elected leader of Bolivia.
I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ 'interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed that their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can.
Texas Advocates Speak Out as Abortion Access Hangs in the Balance
Young women on the Texas A&M University campus in College Station Friday read personal narratives about having abortions as part of the #FightBackTX Truth Tour. The speakers gave life to the experiences of women who have had an abortion as part of an ongoing effort to end the stigma around the procedure.
The Feminists for Reproductive Equity and Education, a student organization, sponsored the event on Texas A&M University’s campus.
Reproductive rights advocates with the #FightBackTX Truth Tour have traveled around Texas this month to raise awareness about the negative effects anti-choice laws have had on abortion access, and the further repercussions for reproductive health care that could come to pass in the coming months.
The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments March 2 in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt(formerly v. Cole), the case that will decide the constitutionality of the sweeping anti-choice restrictions passed by Texas Republicans in 2013.
“It’s a challenge to the Texas law that has had such drastic impact on this state and could have even more detrimental impacts if the case doesn’t go our way,” Heather Busby, executive director of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, one of the sponsors of the tour, told RH Reality Check.
Busby explained the importance of traveling around the state to raise awareness and ensure diverse voices from all women could be heard. “We really wanted to make sure that Texan voices were represented, and not just in Austin at a rally at the capitol, but across the state,” Busby said, referencing the battle waged at the tail end of the 2013 legislative session.