Constitution Warrior

Furthering the Cause of Anti-Federalism

Richard Henry Lee: Objections to the Constitution

Lee’s Objections to the Constitution

Richard Henry Lee

October 16, 1787

LETTER FROM THE HON. RICHARD HENRY LEE, ESQ.,
ONE OF THE DELEGATES IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA,
TO HIS EXCELLENCY, EDMUND RANDOLPH, ESQ.,
GOVERNOR OF SAID STATE.

New York,

It has hitherto been supposed a fundamental maxim, that, in governments rightly balanced, the different branches of legislature should be unconnected, and that the legislative and executive powers should be separate. In the new Constitution, the President and Senate have all the executive, and two thirds of the legislative power. In some weighty instances, (as making all kinds of treaties, which are to be the laws of the land,) they have the whole legislative and executive powers. They, jointly, appoint all officers, civil and military; and they (the Senate) try all impeachments, either of their own members or of the officers appointed by themselves.

Is there not a most formidable combination of power thus created in a few? and can the most critic eye, if a candid one, discover responsibility in this potent corps? or will any sensible man say that great power, without responsibility, can be given to rulers with safety to liberty? It is most clear that the parade of impeachment is nothing to them, or any of them: as little restraint is to be found, I presume, from the fear of offending constituents. The President is for four years’ duration; and Virginia (for example) has one vote of thirteen in the choice of him, and this thirteenth vote not of the people, but electors, two removes from the people. The Senate is a body of six years’ duration, and, as in the choice of President, the largest state has but a thirteenth vote, so is it in the choice of senators. This latter statement is adduced to show that responsibility is as little to be apprehended from amenability to constituents, as from the terror of impeachment. You are, therefore, sir, well warranted in saying, either a monarchy or aristocracy will be generated: perhaps the most grievous system of government may arise.

It cannot be denied, with truth, that this new Constitution is, in its first principles, highly and dangerously oligarchic; and it is a point agreed, that a government of the few is, of all governments, the worst.

The only check to be found in favor of the democratic principle, in this system, is the House of Representatives; which, I believe, may justly be called a mere shred or rag of representation; it being obvious to the least examination, that smallness of number, and great comparative disparity of power, render that house of little effect, to promote good or restrain bad government. But what is the power given to this ill-constructed body? To judge of what may be for the general welfare; and such judgments, when made the acts of Congress, become the supreme laws of the land. This seems a power coëxtensive with every possible object of human legislation. Yet there is no restraint, in form of a bill of rights, to secure (what Doctor Blackstone calls) that residuum of human rights which is not intended to be given up to society, and which, indeed, is not necessary to be given for any social purpose. The rights of conscience, the freedom of the press, and the trial by jury, are at mercy. It is there stated that, in criminal cases, the trial shall be by jury. But how? In the state. What, then, becomes of the jury of the vicinage, or at least from the county, in the first instance—the states being from fifty to seven hundred miles in extent? This mode of trial, even in criminal cases, may be greatly impaired; and, in civil cases, the inference is strong that it may be altogether omitted; as the Constitution positively assumes it in criminal, and is silent about it in civil causes. Nay, it is more strongly discountenanced in civil cases, by giving the Supreme Courts, in appeals, jurisdiction both as to law and fact.

Judge Blackstone, in his learned Commentaries, art. Jury Trial, says, “It is the most transcendent privilege, which any subject can enjoy or wish for, that he cannot be affected either in his property, his liberty, or his person, but by the unanimous consent of twelve of his neighbors and equals—a constitution that, I may venture to affirm, has, under Providence, secured the just liberties of this nation for a long succession of ages. The impartial administration of justice, which secures both our persons and our properties, is the great end of civil society. But if that be entirely intrusted to the magistracy,—a select body of men, and those generally selected, by the prince, of such as enjoy the highest offices of the state,—these decisions, in spite of their own natural integrity, will have frequently an involuntary bias towards those of their own rank and dignity. It is not to be expected from human nature, that the few should always be attentive to the good of the many.” The learned judge further says, that “every tribunal, selected for the decision of facts, is a step towards establishing aristocracy—the most oppressive of all governments.”

The answer to these objections is, that the new legislature may provide remedies! But as they may, so they may not; and if they did, a succeeding assembly may repeal the provisions. The evil is found resting upon constitutional bottom; and the remedy, upon the mutable ground of legislation, revocable at any annual meeting. It is the more unfortunate that this great security of human rights—the trial by jury—should be weakened by this system, as power is unnecessarily given in the second section of the third article, to call people from their own country, in all cases of controversy about property between citizens of different states, to be tried in a distant court, where the Congress may sit; for although inferior congressional courts may, for the above purposes, be instituted in the different states, yet this is a matter altogether in the pleasure of the new legislature; so that, if they please not to institute them, or if they do not regulate the right of appeal reasonably, the people will be exposed to endless oppression, and the necessity of submitting, in multitudes of cases, to pay unjust demands, rather than follow suitors, through great expense, to far-distant tribunals, and to be determined upon there, as it may be, without a jury.

In this congressional legislature, a bare majority of votes can enact commercial laws; so that the representatives of the seven Northern States, as they will have a majority, can, by law, create the most oppressive monopoly upon the five Southern States, whose circumstances and productions are essentially different from those of theirs, although not a single man of these voters are the representatives of, or amenable to, the people of the Southern States. Can such a set of men be, with the least color of truth, called a representative of those they make laws for? It is supposed that the policy of the Northern States will prevent such abuses. But how feeble, sir, is policy, when opposed to interest, among trading people! and what is the restraint arising from policy? Why, that we may be forced, by abuse, to become ship-builders! But how long will it be before a people of agriculture can produce ships sufficient to export such bulky commodities as ours, and of such extent? and if we had the ships, from whence are the seamen to come?—4,000 of whom, at least, will be necessary in Virginia. In questions so liable to abuse, why was not the necessary vote put to two thirds of the members of the legislature?

With the Constitution came, from the Convention, so many members of that body to Congress, and of those, too, who were among the most fiery zealots for their system, that the votes of three states being of them, two states divided by them, and many others mixed with them, it is easy to see that Congress could have little opinion upon the subject.

Some denied our right to make amendments; whilst others, more moderate, agreed to the right, but denied the expediency of amending; but it was plain that a majority was ready to send it on, in terms of approbation. My judgment and conscience forbade the last; and therefore I moved the amendments that I have the honor to send you enclosed herewith, and demanded the yeas and nays, that they might appear on the Journal.

This seemed to alarm; and, to prevent such appearance on the Journal, it was agreed to transmit the Constitution without a syllable of approbation or disapprobation; so that the term “unanimously” only applied to the transmission, as you will observe by attending to the terms of the resolve for transmitting. Upon the whole, sir, my opinion is, that, as this Constitution abounds with useful regulations, at the same time that it is liable to strong and fundamental objections, the plan for us to pursue will be to propose the necessary amendments, and express our willingness to adopt it with the amendments, and to suggest the calling a new convention for the purpose of considering them. To this I see no well-founded objection, but great safety and much good to be the probable result. I am perfectly satisfied that you make such use of this letter as you shall think to be for the public good; and now, after begging your pardon for so great a trespass on your patience, and presenting my best respects to your lady, I will conclude with assuring you that I am, with the sincerest esteem and regard, dear sir, your most affectionate and obedient, humble servant,

RICHARD H. LEE.

Which Shall It Be? Liberty or Equality, Americanism or Marxism

Which Shall It Be?
Liberty or Equality, Americanism or Marxism

By R. Carter Pittman

Address delivered before the Annual Convention of the
Alabama Bar Association, Montgomery, Alabama, July 16, 1954
(Published in the Congressional Record of Saturday, July 31st, p. A5624)

SEVERAL years ago J. Edgar Hoover asked Herbert Philbrick, a quiet, humble church worker of Massachusetts, to go underground and become a “Communist” for his country. For 9 years Philbrick was an FBI counterspy deep in the Communist underground. Finally he emerged and is now on the staff of the New York Herald Tribune. Speaking in Arkansas recently he said;

One of the great problems which we have in dealing with communism is the fact that there seems to be in the minds of the American people certain blind spots.

He then described how the Communists have reduced deception to a science — the science of filling in blind spots with falsehood and misleading people by “scientific” thought control. The Communists call that system “cybernetics.” It is the control and falsification of information. It is hyprocrisy in red robes.

Empty minds, like empty stomachs, grab at any bait. Man learned that as a jungle dweller. Russians claim to have just discovered it. Cybernetics therefore consists of the elevation of the lowest level of human depravity to the dignity of sociological “science.” Its name sounds learned. As usual, many who wish to appear learned become fellow-travelers, and Communists use them as a front. Fellow-travelers usually call themselves and call each other “doctors” or “liberals.”

A well-conceived and plausible falsehood, spoken or written at the proper moment gains popular credence, shapes thoughts and actions, and makes history.

Man is frail, is gullible, and is prone to err. He stands forever in need of fervent prayers and gentle guidance. The best of us stagger forward to ideals that seem always beyond reach.

The most fertile field for the communistic and “liberal” practice of the so-called “science” of cybernetics lies in the barren area left by our ignorance of the foundations of human liberty and dignity in America. Liberty has lost its landmarks. Its history is a blind spot.

Twenty-eight years ago an eastern university law-school senior, paying his way by tutoring American history, questioned certain conclusions of Dean J. H. Wigmore, late of Northwestern University, as to the history of a provision of the fifth paragraph of the Federal Bill of Rights. Soon this student had run the indexes in the law and general libraries of Columbia University. He not only found nothing on the history of the Fifth Amendment, but found nothing indexed on the history of the many other provisions of the Bill of Rights. Librarians were consulted. The casual and unconcerned reply was: “We have nothing.”

At the New York Public Library the answer was: “We have nothing.” At the Harvard and Yale University libraries, the answer was: “We have nothing.” Finally, at the Library of Congress, that supreme repository of the records of American civilization, the inquiring student stood speechless to hear the final verdict. It was: “We have nothing.”

A quick look at the indexes revealed mountains of books on the history of the Declaration of Independence, a document that accords no constitutional right and affords no constitutional immunity, a document no man could use then or now to shield his naked body from the lash of tyrants, a document that served a noble but temporary purpose in the American Revolution, but which never drew one breath as living law.

The indexes at Harvard University library revealed many thousands of volumes on fish. A recent news item disclosed that Harvard’s great Widener Library is the proud repository of 21,800 volumes on fish and fishing. But it does not yet contain one book on the history of the Federal Bill of Rights or any of those State bills of rights that preceded it and particularly the Virginia Bill of Rights, and upon which it was based. The most influential constitutional document ever penned by man was the Virginia Declaration of Rights of June 12, 1776. It was the grandfather of them all. Both it and its author await a Boswell.

The disillusioned and empty-handed student spent spare time for a full year, trying to find materials with which to set Dean Wigmore aright. Old unindexed records of American civilization were searched in boiler rooms and basements. Uncut leaves revealed that no other had traveled that way before.

At last he was able to piece together a semicoherent story of the historical evolution of the privilege against self-incrimination in America. A few years later the resulting paper was sent to Harvard Law Review, where it was rejected as uninteresting. Columbia Law Review rejected it for the same reason. Finally Virginia Law Review printed it as a space filler. Dean Wigmore picked it up in the third edition of his Work on Evidence, quoting that part of it that caused him to change and restate his views.(1)

Justices Black and Douglas are especially fond of it. The Supreme Court has since cited it many times. Dean Griswold, of Harvard Law School, used it in his article on the subject in the June 1954 issue of the American Bar Association Journal. The Attorney General, Herbert Brownell, Jr., used it in his address to the Law Club of Chicago on November 6, 1953, in which he told the lawyers of Chicago more than once to see Pittman, “The Colonial and Constitutional History of the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination in America” (21 Va. L. Rev. 793, et. seq.).(2)

Candor of mind displaced humility of heart, that I might tell that story for the first time. That student speaks to you now. Aside from and yet germane to the purpose we have in mind, we beg indulgence as we exercise the natural right of self-defense and quote one paragraph of that article. It has never been quoted in any reference we have seen in the mass of literature that cites Pittman to buttress Fifth Amendment Communists. Here it is:

This privilege against self-incrimination came up through our colonial history as a privilege against physical compulsion and against the moral compulsion that an oath to a revengeful God commands of a pious soul. It was insisted upon as a defensive weapon of society and society’s patriots against laws and proceedings that did not have the sanction of public opinion. In all the cases that have made the formative history of this privilege and have lent to it its color, all that the accused asked for was a fair trial before a fair and impartial jury of his peers, to whom he should not be forced by the state or sovereignty to confess his guilt of the fact charged. Once before a jury, the person accused needed not to concern himself with the inferences that the jury might draw from his silence, as the jurors themselves were only too eager to render verdicts of not guilty in the cases alluded to.

“Society’s patriots” in this Nation will need that “defensive weapon” and foxhole of liberty in the bleak winters ahead. Treasure and use it for the causes that our Anglo-Saxon forefathers intended it to be used. Stand mute before the bars of sociological injustice. Informed Anglo-Saxon jurors will do the rest. The privilege against self-incrimination was fashioned to parry the blows of just such a government as the Supreme Court seeks to impose upon us in 1954. In such a government, the last refuge of helpless man is “a jury of his peers,” with courage and virtue to render verdicts of not guilty. It was fashioned for cases where governments — not the governed — broke out of bounds — where rulers ruled by will instead of law.

In his great work on Civil Liberty and Self-Government (1880), at page 24, Francis Lieber said:

A people that loves liberty can do nothing better to promote the object of it than deeply to study it; and in order to be able to do this, it is necessary to analyze it, and to know the threads which compose the valued texture.

There is no surer way for a civilization to lose liberty than for it to lose, deface, ignore or destroy the charts which mark its springs and sources. We have done that. The repositories of our cultural records are virtually barren of any evidence as to the springs and sources of basic American liberties. The foundation stones of our freedom are as abandoned rubble.

The shocking experience of the law school senior left in him an urge to place one book on the library shelves of America that would tell the history of each provision of the Federal Bill of Rights. For 27 years he accumulated materials. Hard earned and expended dollars soon became hundreds. Hundreds soon became thousands. It was early found that all the main roads of constitutional liberty in America bypassed big names to converge at last at a grand terminal with evolution’s pioneer George Mason, of Gunston Hall. It was found that big names had borrowed from that fearless, humble, godly and forgotten man. It was soon learned why Jefferson regarded him the wisest man of his generation, why Madison described him the greatest debater he had ever heard speak, and why Patrick Henry named him the greatest statesman he had ever known.

The search was renewed with Mason as a guide. It was rewarding. Microfilms, photostats, and other material accumulated. The project outgrew the researcher. The sympathetic chief justice of the supreme court of an Eastern State encouraged the researcher to apply at the portals of an eastern foundation for financial help to finish the job. The insulting reply discouraged any further opening for like humiliation. Hope matured into despair.

The Truman-sponsored National Historical Publications Commission was activated in 1951. Since Truman professed to be a historian, it was hoped that the Commission would list the father of our Bill of Rights as one whose papers were worthy of publication, but on the list of 121 published names of Americans whose writings were deemed worthy of publication the name of George Mason was not to be found.

Judge Felix Frankfurter was a member of the Commission and helped to make up that list. He preferred to list the papers of Andrew Carnegie, Tench Coxe, Ignatious Donnelly, Harvey Firestone, Samuel Gompers, Horace Greeley, Robert La Follette, Brigham Young, and Sidney Hillman as of more importance than those of the father of our most cherished freedoms. Frankfurter would guano American minds with trifles and mulch them with trash.

Ask cybernetic doctors of philosophy, “Who wrote the Federal Bill of Rights?” The answer most likely will be: “Thomas Jefferson.” One who has never been to school and can’t read and write may say: “I don’t know.” That would be about the only correct answer one would get.

A staff of 25 editors of Life magazine issued a publication in 1951 entitled “Life’s Picture History of Western Man.” On page 288 this book speaks of the Constitutional Convention of 1787, saying:

The delegates were fortunate in two respects: First, there were among them several great men — notably, Adams, Hamilton, and Madison — who not only believed in the Declaration [meaning the Declaration of Independence] but had taught themselves to know more about political philosophy than any men of their time.

In the next paragraph Life‘s editors described the limitations of powers reenforced by “Jefferson’s Bill of Rights.” In the same paragraph it was stated that Jefferson “aimed to give the Supreme Court a democratic bent by making it the guardian of his Bill of Rights.” They then gave John Locke credit for Jefferson’s “pursuit of happiness” phrase.

(1) John Adams did not attend the Constitutional Convention. He was in England. (2) Jefferson never wrote a single liberty preserving provision of any Constitution or Bill of Rights that has ever been adopted in America. (3) He never sat in a Constitutional Convention in his life and was in France while Mason’s struggle for a Bill of Rights was being waged. (4) He formulated his preamble to the Declaration of Independence, containing the equality and “the pursuit of happiness” phrases from George Mason’s Virginia Bill of Rights, adopted June 12, 1776, and John Locke had nothing to do with it. (5) The only connection Jefferson ever had with the Federal Bill of Rights was that he favored it from afar. (6) “Political philosophy” played no respectable part in the framing of our Constitution, and none in the Bill of Rights. Experience was the guide. John Dickinson expressed the idea well on August 13, 1787, on the floor of the Constitutional Convention, when he said:

Experience must be our only guide. Reason may mislead us.

There was only one philosopher in the Constitutional Convention of 1787. His name was Dr. Benjamin Franklin — one of the least influential men there. It has been noticed by several students of the Convention that he seemed to be the proponent of more rejected proposals than any other delegate.

If the editors of a great publication such as Life magazine pay such homage to philosophy and falsehood, how can we expect our children to know the historic truths that made and kept our ancestors free? A free press that knows not the author of its freedom will not long remain free.

Ask cybernetic doctors where Jefferson got the preamble to the Declaration of Independence. In unison, 98 percent of them will cry out, the philosopher, Dr. John Locke, and quote from a hundred books written by other doctors. Jefferson himself denied it many times, but most cybernetic doctors had rather make Jefferson out a liar than to admit that he worshipped at the feet of George Mason, who knew history and laughed at soothsayers. Some philosopher must be made to play the leading role in every great scene on the hill tops of history, even though he be a ghost.

The most intensely uneducated, ignorant and dangerous men in America are some of those who salve an inferiority complex by calling themselves doctors of philosophy or some pseudo-socio-science. The Un-American Activities Committee of Congress lists such doctors by the scores on their roll of treachery and dishonor.

The genealogy of the Declaration of Independence remains an untold story, though often told by doctors of cybernetics. Jefferson did not tell an untruth about it. When he said that it was not original with him but its source was the American mind, he told the truth. When he said he “copied from neither book nor pamphlet,” he excluded Locke, Otis and Paine and again told the truth. He didn’t exclude newspapers, manuscripts or circulars. That tip was the payoff but the cybernetic doctors all duck it. Those self-styled doctors prefer to lose it in John Locke’s philosophy, even if they must defy truth and defame both Jefferson and history.

Philosophy and sociology have always been the tamper tools that have sprung institutions of liberty out of alinement. Historical research and common sense born of experience, have always been the tools to spring them back into place. Doctors of pseudo-socio-science have always been the apes of tyranny.

A few days ago we glanced over the various constitutions of Alabama from her first until the last, printed in Thorpe’s Charters and Constitutions (1909). We found one provision traceable to Thomas Jefferson. It was in her carpetbag constitution of 1867. It was article 1, section 1, as follows:

That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

That was forced upon the people of Alabama by carpetbag doctors of psuedo-socio-science, while Federal bayonets held the outraged white people at bay. As soon as those doctors were run out, Alabama called a constitutional convention, struck the first line, went back to George Mason, copying from the first paragraph of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of June, 1776:(3) “That all men are born equally free and independent.”

The carpetbag doctors put the same doctrine of equality into the constitutions of Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, North Carolina, and South Carolina. Every one of these six States except North Carolina, heaved it as soon as the carpetbag doctors were driven out(4) North Carolina ran her carpetbaggers as far as her college campuses. There they swapped their title “Scalawag” for doctorates and there they have ever remained, screaming: “Academic freedom.”

George Mason’s original first line was, “That all men are born equally free and independent.” The Virginia convention changed it to read: “That all men are by nature equally free and independent.” Jefferson perverted it to read, “All men are created equal.”

We do not condemn Jefferson for converting the first three paragraphs of the Virginia Declaration of Rights into a preamble for the Declaration of Independence. But we do not commend him for playing the part of a gypsy, first defacing before claiming as his own. But men don’t stand on etiquette in the midst of revolution. Jefferson was writing, not to appeal to America but to appeal to France. America was in a death struggle. Washington commanded her troops long before July 4, 1776. The doctrine of equality then had a powerful appeal to the simple-minded peasant and philosophers of France. Jefferson was just giving them some cybernetics. He knew that France was a despotism tempered with epigrams. He knew the secret Napoleon later revealed at St. Helena when he said that the French mind wanted equality more than liberty and, it not being possible to give both, he gave them equality.

Jefferson was not a stranger to wisdom. He could have foreseen that which Lord Acton recorded many years later: “The deepest cause which made the French Revolution so disastrous to liberty was its theory of equality.”

Jefferson was an advocate, pleading America’s case at the bar of French public opinion. If “all is fair in love and war,” he was justified in appealing to the ignorant and shallow-minded philosophers of France with a false epigram, palatable to them, though abhorrent both to himself and to all America. He could not know that a Supreme Court would try to turn it into an “American creed” near two centuries later.

Jefferson indicted George III because: “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us.” He clipped that from the South Carolina Constitution of March 1776, whose indictment read, “. . . excited domestic insurrections; proclaimed freedom to servants and slaves . . .” Again, a Jefferson defacement fooled France and her philosophers. It didn’t fool America then. Only fools are fooled now. Marxists and Communists never object or even refer to that clause of the Declaration of Independence. Servitude and slavery is a necessary concomitant of equality — look beyond the Iron Curtain.

Let it be said to the honor and glory of the American States, of the United States, and of the whole non-Communist world, that the George Mason concept of equality of freedom and independence under law took root in all of their constitutions. Faint traces of the Jeffersonian dialetical defacement may be found dangling like dodder in the declarations of rights of Idaho,(5) Indiana,(6) Kentucky,(7) North Carolina,(8) Massachusetts,(9) and Nevada.(10)

The original George Mason concept is both implicit and explicit in the constitutions of every one of those six States. It is to be found in all of our constitutions today and in more than one-half of the American state declarations of rights in the words of Mason. Paragraph after paragraph and clause after clause of the original phrases of George Mason are to be found in the fundamental laws of every American state, the United States Constitution and more than one-half the constitutions of the world. The equality clause of the Declaration of Independence never took root in America. The philosophy of equality beyond the range of legal rights dies in free soil. It thrives only in the sewers of Slavic slavery.

At a quick glance we identified 16 paragraphs of Alabama’s Declaration of Rights of 1901 as having been first framed by the pen of George Mason, before being recorded as preservatives of liberty in Alabama. They are as follows: Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 11, 15, 21, 25, 26, 27, 29, 35, 36, and 42. Jefferson is unknown to Alabama’s fundamental laws.

Of the 83 constitutions of sovereign nations of the world in 1950, 50 expressly preserved the old Anglo-Saxon concept of equality under law. The same concept is implicit and protected by safeguards in 78 of these constitutions. Only four contain the carpetbag concept of social equality. Those four are Guatemala,(11) the Mongol Peoples Republic,(12)the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,(13) and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.(14)

Mongolia puts it this way: “Equal rights in all spheres of the state, economic, cultural, and sociopolitical.”

Russia puts it this way: “Equality of rights of citizens of the U. S. S. R. irrespective of their nationality or race; in all spheres of economic, government, cultural, political and other public activity.”

America expressed it in the 14th amendment with the phrase “equal protection of the laws.” The carpetbaggers that fell on Alabama in 1867, didn’t fall on the Nation in 1868. We can thank God for that.

Thirty-one of the constitutions of the nations of the world use exactly the same equality clause,(15) to wit: “Equal before the law.”

Each of the other 47 non-Communist nations use language that means the same thing. (See Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations.)

France rejected Jeffersonian advocacy to copy George Mason’s concept into her Declaration of Rights of 1789, in these words: “All men are born and remain free and equal in respect of rights.”

In the bath of blood we know as the French Revolution, Jefferson’s defacement replaced the Mason original in 1793, as follows: “All men are equal by nature.”

That substitution was symtomatic of the government of flesh that was to leave a tragic legacy in the history of France. After 153 years of sorrow, Jefferson’s advocacy was stricken and Mason’s concept went back into her fundamental law in 1946, exactly as it was in 1789.(16) Six years before, France had found the light in sackcloth and ashes. Her revolutionary motto: “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” was stricken from the tomb of her liberty. That cluster of inconsistencies no longer tarnishes the tricolor of France.

The doctrine of sociracial equality no longer stands forth in this world, except in four Communist countries and within the secret chamber of a strange Supreme Court of the United States.

On June 26, 1787, Alexander Hamilton, speaking on the floor of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia said:

Inequality will exist as long as liberty exists. It unavoidably results from that very liberty itself.

Every mind assented.

It is inequality that gives enlargement to intellect, energy, virtue, love and wealth. Equality of intellect stabilizes mediocrity. Equality of wealth makes every man poor. Equality of energy renders all men sluggards. Equality of virtue suspends all men without the gates of heaven. Equality of love would stultify every manly passion, destroy every family altar and mongrelize the races of men. Equality of altitude would make the whole world a dead sea. Mountains rise out of plains. Plains rise out of the sea.

Equality of freedom cannot exist without inequality in the rewards and earned fruits of that freedom. It is inequality that makes “the pursuit of happiness” something other than a dry run or a futile chase.

On page 334 of his book (cited above) Francis Lieber said: “Equality absolutely carried out leads to communism.” Communism is but another name for equality in slavery. There can be no equality of freedom, without leaving to man his own free choice of the lawful “means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness,” as George Mason had it when Jefferson copied and defaced it from the first paragraph of the Virginia Declaration of Rights of 1776. The right to equality of freedom is a guaranty of the right to unequal shares of the earned fruits in freedom.

The recent decision of the Supreme Court on Segregation was one in which the Court was led into a vacuum by the cybernetics of sociological doctors, who found a judicial blind-spot and practiced a fraud upon the judges to victimize a helpless people. The most effective “expert” in cybernetics seemed to be Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, who wrote An American Dilemma (1944). His 1,483 pages of “psychological knowledge,” financed by Carnegie Foundation, controlled the Court. It was cited by the Court as the “modern authority” on which its decision was grounded. An American Dilemma is now Corpus Juris Tertius in American pseudo-socio jurisprudence.

Dr. Myrdal learned that the biggest blindspot in America is our abysmal ignorance as to the basic principles of American liberty. He found a vacuum or a vortex into which most anything could be thrown and it would pass for food. Thus he created an “American Creed,” that would have evoked universal laughter but for the fact that his creation was in a “blindspot.” Ignorance can’t laugh for fear of being laughed at. On page 4 of his atrocity he defined his “creed” as “the fundamental equality of all men.”

In the same breath he said its “tenets were written into the Declaration of Independence, the preamble of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and into the constitutions of the several states. The ideals of the American creed have thus become the highest law of the land.”

He knew that what he said was an untruth, but he thought he was in a blind spot, and had that same feeling of security that an ambush gives to a midnight assassin.

Nevertheless for fear some unbeliever might cite the Constitution on him he put his shoes on backwards to make tracks both ways. On pages 12-13 he said:

Conservatism, in fundamental principles, to a great extent, has been perverted into a nearly fetishistic cult of the Constitution. This is unfortunate since the 150-year-old Constitution is in many respects impractical and ill-suited for modern conditions . . . The worship of the Constitution also is a most flagrant violation of the American Creed . . . which is strongly opposed to stiff formulas.

On page 18, lawyers and judges became anathema to the American people and the “American Creed,” because, as he says, the “judicial order . . . is in many respects contrary to all their inclinations.”

As his cybernetic pages of Slavic philosophy are turned, the “American Creed” becomes the amalgamator of races. On page 614, “. . . the cumbersome racial etiquette is ‘un-American.’”

He praised Thomas Jefferson to heaven on page 8 for the equality content of the specious “creed,” which he claims to have found in the Declaration of Independence. But he again reversed his shoes on page 90 and damned him to another place for proposing emancipation and simultaneous segregation of Negroes to Africa, in his Notes on Virginia.

While reversing his shoes in rapid succession, his socks slipped off. What an odor. On page 9 he exposes a half-concealed truth in the midst of half-truths. Here it is:

Against this [liberty] the equalitarianism in the Creed has been persistently revolting. The struggle is far from ended. The reason why American liberty was not more dangerous to equality was, of course, the open frontier and free land. When opportunity became bounded in the last generation, the inherent conflict between equality and liberty flared up. Equality is slowly winning. The New Deal during the ‘thirties was a landslide.

For once Dr. Myrdal told the God’s truth. Liberty and equality cannot coexist. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed that truth and used equality to destroy liberty. Dr. Myrdal is the modern authority on that truth. Was that the purpose of Carnegie Foundation in financing Myrdal’s atrocity? John W. Davis is one of the Carnegie trustees. He is a lawyer. He defends Carnegie Foundation with the same mind he used to defend the Constitution and the Anglo-Saxon race. Before a committee of Congress, he defended Carnegie’s employment of Alger Hiss, and his retention after his treason was known, by pleading stupidity. The blindspot in his mind must have been a cavern — a heaven for cybernetics.

The Supreme Court specifically held that the records in the so-called segregation cases affirmatively disclosed that the “separate but equal” formula laid down in Plessy v. Ferguson (163 U.S. 537), had been fully and completely complied with, and that equality of white and black schools in respect to all tangible factors had been demonstrated beyond doubt. The Court thus found itself faced with three alternatives: (1) It could adjudge according to law and facts and find in favor of segregation; (2) it could usurp the powers of a Constitutional Convention and give to itself power to legislate against segregation; or (3) it could copy Dr. Myrdal and Ananias, usurp the power of God, and make new facts. It chose both alternatives (2) and (3) and made a new constitution and new laws for the cases, and new facts for the records. It did not hold Plessy v. Ferguson to be bad law. It held it to be bad sociology, according to Dr. Myrdal, the modern authority.

Unabashed, the Court went back to the records in the graduate school cases of Sweatt v. Painter (339 U.S. 629), and McLaurin v. Oklahoma Regents (339 U.S. 637), and extracted from them what the Court described as “intangibles” and transplanted them into the Kansas, South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware case records, then before the Court.

Next the court found an intangible lurking in the Kansas record that the trial judge had discovered by a new process of psychoanalysis. It was that segregation generates a sense of inferiority and that such “a sense of inferiority affects the motivation of a child to learn.”

The court didn’t stop to consider whether the effect was good or bad. Most psychologists hold that an inferiority complex increases the motivation of a child to learn, but the Supreme Court could not afford to subject Dr. Myrdal’s cybernetics to the light of reason. It transplanted that unevaluated, and hyprocritical intangible into the records of the South Carolina, Virginia, and Delaware cases in order to fill vacuum with void. By that time the Court had lost all sense of reason, direction, and proportion. It then doubled back to fill void with vacuum. Here is the new intangible that made its first appearance in Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence and its last in a government of law:

Whatever may have been the psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy against Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority.[11] Any language in Plessy against Ferguson contrary to this finding is rejected.

The modern authority as set forth in footnote 11 is quoted below.(17) It is sociology, not psychology.

Modern authority is not law. The Court said it wasn’t. It is not within the remote boundaries of the science of law. It first made its appearance as gossip, in whispers and undertones in the secret chambers of the judges. It is not evidence, because, as said by Mr. Justice Brandeis in U.S. et al v. Abilene & Sou. Ry. Co. (265 U.S. 274, 288):

Nothing can be treated as evidence which was not introduced as such.

Modern authority was never introduced in evidence in any of the cases. It couldn’t have been admitted if tendered, because it was hearsay and gossip. No court this side of Moscow admits such evidence.

In Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of Ohio (301 U.S. 292), the Supreme Court held, by a full bench, that to treat anything as evidence which was not introduced as evidence, denies to the complaining party “due process of law,” as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. By the same reasoning, like judicial misconduct on the part of a Federal court is a denial of Fifth Amendment “due process of law.” Thus Virginia, South Carolina, Delaware, and Kansas parties were denied “due process of law” by the very Court that had held such to be unconstitutional. “Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander,” even though the gander struts.

In that Ohio case, the commission transplanted factual findings from an Illinois Federal case into the Ohio record. It also transplanted therein “information secretly collected” by the judicial body. Exactly what the Supreme Court did in the segregation cases. When asked for an opportunity to examine, to explain, and to rebut them by the injured party in Ohio, the response was a curt refusal. In the so-called segregation cases no opportunity was given to ask. The whole thing was kept secret until the judgment was announced. Justice Cardoza spoke for the Supreme Court, in the Ohio case, with indignation:

The fundamentals of a trial were denied to the appellant. . . . This is not the fair hearing essential to due process. It is condemnation without trial . . . This will never do if hearing and appeals are to be more than empty forms . . . There can be no compromise on the footing of convenience or expediency . . . nothing . . . gave warning . . . of the purpose of the commission to wander afield and fix . . . [the facts] . . . without reference to any evidence, upon proofs drawn from the clouds. As there was no warning . . . there was no consent to it. We do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.

Cardoza is no more, but Black is. In National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, Inc., et al. v. McGrath (341 U.S. 123), a group of organizations listed and publicized as communistic by the Attorney General were complaining that the Attorney General had acted on secret information without notice and a fair hearing. Justice Black was enraged. His sociological blood ran hot. We quote him as he tempered the wind to the shorn lamb skins that concealed the communistic wolves:

The heart of the matter is that democracy implies respect for the elementary rights of men, however suspect or unworthy; a democratic government must therefore practice fairness; and fairness can rarely be obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of rights.

. . . The plea that evidence of guilt must be secret is abhorrent to free men, because it provides a cloak for the malevolent, the misinformed, the meddlesome, and the corrupt to play the role of informer undetected and uncorrected. Appearances in the dark are apt to look different in the light of day. . . .The validity and moral authority of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was reached. Secrecy is not congenial to truth-seeking and self righteousness gives too slender an assurance of rightness. No better instrument has been devised for arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it. Nor has a better way been found for generating the feeling, so important to a popular government, that justice has been done.

An “opportunity to meet” Myrdal with a pointed cross-examination would have withered him in a few minutes. What a dissertation he would have given on George Mason’s constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. He might even had cited Pittman on the history of it.

In Stromberg v. People of California (283 U.S. 359), Stromberg had been convicted in California for violating a statute forbidding the display of a red flag “as a sign, symbol, emblem of opposition to organized Government or as an invitation or stimulus to anarchistic action or as an aid to propaganda . . . of a seditious character.”

The Supreme Court reversed the case, holding that it was a violation of the 14th Amendment thus to trample upon the banner of Communism and strike its flag of treason.

However, in Beauharnais v. People of Illinois (343 U.S. 250), the shoe was on another foot and turned backward. The Supreme Court stated the facts as follows:

The information, cast generally in the terms of the statute, charged that Beauharnais did unlawfully . . . exhibit in public places lithographs, which publications portray depravity, criminality, unchastity, or lack of virtue of citizens of Negro race and color which exposes [sic] citizens of Illinois of the Negro race and color to contempt, derision, or obloquy . . . The lithograph complained of was a leaflet setting forth a petition calling on the mayor and city council of Chicago ‘to halt the further encroachment, harassment, and invasion of white people, their property, neighborhoods, and persons, by the Negro . . .’ Below was a call for one million self-respecting white people in Chicago to unite . . ., with the statement added that if persuasion and the need to prevent the white race from becoming mongrelized by the Negro will not unite us, then the aggressions . . . rapes, robberies, knives, guns, and marihuana of the Negro, surely will. This, with more language, similar if not so violent, concluded with an attached application for membership in the White Circle League of America, Inc.

In his opinion upholding the conviction of Beauharnais, Justice Frankfurter expatiated on the terrible racial troubles in Chicago and vicinity, describing the race riots in that non-segregated area, such as are unknown to the segregated South because of segregation. He said:

Only those lacking responsible humility will have a confident solution for problems as intractable as the frictions attributable to differences of race, color, or religion. . . . Certainly the due-process clause does not require the legislature to be in the vanguard of science — especially sciences as young as human ecology and cultural anthropology.

. . . It is not within our competence to confirm or deny claims of social scientists as to the dependence of the individual on the position of his racial or religious group in the community.

So the Red banner streamed in California, while Beauharnais served his sentence in Illinois, because the Court didn’t have the competence to evaluate racial issues in a science as young as human sociology.

The Supreme Court just had too much humility to say that Illinois had run afoul of the constitutional rights and liberties of Beauharnais. Human sociology and cultural anthropology were just too young in 1952. The Court thus humbly disavowed its competence to confirm or deny claims of social scientists on racial issues.

Never before, in all recorded history, have human sociology and judicial competence blossomed before they budded. Never before have such flowers been plucked from the same vine.

When color alinements changed from white to black, and from red, white, and blue to red, human sociology and judicial competence descended upon the Court like an avalanche. Judicial humility lost its virtue to a strange and alien suitor in the secret chambers of the Supreme Court on May 17, 1954. Liberty under law was then and there prostituted by the depraved philosophy of equality under sociology.

A civilization that lets carpetbag doctors paint the alien equality philosophy of Karl Marx on the minds of its children for one whole generation cannot expect them to retain their liberties. Presidents who systematically exclude lawyers from the supreme judicial bench can have no wish to retain the liberties of the people.

Under our common law and under our Constitution, no man or body of men may make law for freemen except the elected representatives of the people. Every freeman in a republic has the despotic right to veto all laws made by any man or group of men except his own delegates. For 500 years Anglo-Saxon freemen have exercised that veto power. Only a blind spot in our knowledge of history could cause any man to doubt the right of any freeman to disobey the unconstitutional edicts of a judge or king. Only fools and pseudo-socio-doctors contend that the Supreme Court can make law, but of such is the kingdom of tyranny. Constitutional liberty is the child of Anglo-Saxon history, christened by the blood of our fathers. How could we so soon forget that the leading principle of the American Revolution was that only delegates chosen by the people may make constitutions and laws for the people? Every forgotten grave from Lexington to Yorktown is a memorial to that principle.

We have no answer to the dilemma. It may be too late. Liberty is lean. In his Virginia bill of rights, George Mason said: “That no free government, or the blessings of liberty can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue, and frequent recurrence to fundamental principles.” None but a fool would dispute his word. None but a fool, or a cybernetic doctor, will tell you that liberty and equality may grow in the same soil.

Equality reaches into the pockets of the frugal to put fat on lazy bones. Fat fools don’t fight, except at the trough. From the trough of equality there may be no road back. The next gate may lead to slaughter pens or to the mines of Siberia. We may have lost the will to be free.

In closing we mention one answer taken from the history of the sanguinary struggles of the Anglo-Saxon race to retain liberty under law. The one word that best describes it is segregation. The very gates of heaven were built for the sole purpose of segregating the good from the bad and the true from the false. The God who segregates beyond the earthly grave by the principle of inequality, segregated the races of men in the beginning by the principle of color, placing the yellow man in Asia, the black man in Africa, the white man in Europe, and the red man in America. We must not be afraid to practice his principles.

At the peak of the tyranny of the sociological Stuart kings in England, our forefathers segregated the royal court and every friend of the court. As Charles I rode from Whitehall to Guildhall and thence into the city of London, with his armed guards, seeking to effect the arrest of five members of Parliament for opposing his tyrannies in 1641, multitudes lined the streets. Everywhere Charles I turned, his eyes were met by cold stares. The only greeting he heard was “Privileges of Parliament.” “Privileges of Parliament.” A man by the name of Walker boldly stepped forth and planted a pamphlet in the royal carriage at the King’s feet, entitled “To Your Tents, O Israel.” Thereafter wherever the King and his friends were seen they were greeted: “To Your Tents, O Israel.” As Charles I went to the block to lose his head, the crowd cried out to him: “To your tents, O Israel.”

Forty-five years later that watchword of freedom was still ringing in the ears of old Judge Jeffries of the Bloody Assizes. At the trial of Richard Baxter, in 1685, Jeffries was in a rage. From the bench and before the royally packed jury, he screamed at Baxter: “Time was when no man was so ready to bind your king in chains and your nobles in fetters of iron, crying, ‘To your tents, O Israel.’” As Jeffries cheated the gallows to die in London Tower, rather than on Tower Hill, “To your tents, O Israel” was the last sound recorded in his depraved mind.

In 1773, as the chains of slavery were being forged for our forefathers in the American Colonies, the Sons of Liberty revived that old Anglo-Saxon watchword. Socio-judicial prostitutes were chilled to the marrow of their bones as they constantly heard that cry, and saw it written on roadsides. When they tried to hold courts on Massachusetts circuits, jurors called to the bar stood mute and took no oaths.

The irate socio-judicial tools of tyranny were finally led from the bench at Worcester by an orderly crowd of 5,000 patriots and gently caused to walk between parallel single files, each of 2,500 patriots and were gently forced to disavow, 30 times, compliance with the tyrannical laws of England they were sent there to enforce — 30 times. A symbol of the 30 times Parliament had been forced to reaffirm Magna Carta on account of depraved kings’ judges who had destroyed governments by laws in England and driven our forefathers to American shores. As those judges were herded to a haven to his majesty’s ships, the last words that rang in their ears was, “To your tents, O Israel.” Samuel Adams was the brain behind it in New England. Segregation was the secret. Every traitor to his land and race was segregated.

In Virginia the committee system was instituted. George Mason was the brains. George Washington was Mason’s most effective segregator. The Washington papers in the Library of Congress still contain the papers George Mason wrote for Washington to circulate for signatures. In fact, Mason wrote every state paper Washington ever carried in his pockets before he assumed command of the continental army before Boston. Washington went to Williamsburg with Mason’s Fairfax County Resolutions in his pocket in the spring of 1774. There they became the Virginia Resolves in the summer, and at Philadelphia they became the Continental Resolves in the fall. Listen to the old Anglo-Saxon doctrine of segregation in paragraph 20, “that the respective committees of the counties, in each colony . . . publish by advertisements in their several counties, a list of names of those (if any such there be) who will not accede thereto; that such traitors to their country may be publicly known and detested,”

Every traitor was segregated in order that America might regain its freedom. Every traitor must be segregated in 1954 that we may retain that freedom they won for us. The Anglo-Saxon race must again emulate the Founding Fathers and organize to fight fire with brimstone. “Sons of Liberty” is an honored name for such an organization. “To your tents, O Israel”(18) is an honored watchword. Above all remember this: Samuel Adams and George Mason had brains and character. There is no substitute for those qualities at the top.

------------

NOTES

1. Wigmore on Evidence, 3d edition, vol. 8, p. 303 et seq.

2. His speech reported in Tulane Law Review, December 1953, vol. 28, p. 1.

3. Art. 1, sec. 1, Alabama constitution, 1875.

4. In Arkansas constitution art. 11, sec. 1, 1864; out, art. 11, sec. 2, constitution 1874; in Florida, art. 1, sec. 1, 1868; out, art. 1, sec. 1, 1885; in Louisiana title 1, art. 1, 1868; out, 1879. maryland, 1864; out, 1867. In, South Carolina, art. 1, sec. 1, 1868; out, 1895.

5. Idaho (art. 1, sec. 1, constitution, 1889).

6. Indiana (art. 1, sec. 1, constitution, 1851).

7. Kentucky (sec. 1, constitution, 1890).

8. North Carolina (art. 1, sec. 1, 1868).

9. Massachusetts (pt. 1, art. 1, 1780).

10. Nevada (art. 1, sec. 1, 1864). (See Thorpe’s Charters and Constitutions alphabetically and chronologically arranged.)

11. Art. 23.

12. Art. 79.

13. Art. 103.

14. Art. 123. (See Constitutions of Nations, alphabetically arranged, by Peaslee (1950).)

15. Albania, art. 12; Argentina, art. 28; Belgium, art. 6; Brazil, art. 141, Bulgaria, art. 71; Burma, art. 13; China, art. 7; Costa Rica, art. 25; Cuba, art. 20; Czechoslovakia, sec. 1; Egypt, art. 3; El Salvador, art. 23; Finland, art. 15; Haiti, art. 11; Ireland, art. 40 (1); Italy, art. 3; Japan, art. 14; Korea, art. 8; Lebanon, art. 7; Liechtenstein, art. 31; Luxembourg, art. 11; Monaco, art. 5; Nicaragua, art. 109; Panama, art. 21; Paraguay, art. 33; Rumania, art. 16; Switzerland, art. 4; Thailand, Sec. 27; Turkey, art. 69; Uruguay, art. 8; Yugoslavia, art. 21.

16. Peaslee, Constitutions of Nations, Vol. II, p. 21.

17. K. B. Clark, “Effect of Prejudice and Discrimination on Personality Development” (Midcentury White House Conference on Children and Youth, 1950); Witmer and Kotinsky, Personality in the Making (1952), ch. VI; Deutscher and Chein, “The Psychological Effects of Enforced Segregation: A Survey of Social Science Opinion,” 26 J. Psychol. 259 (1948); Chein, “What are the Psychological Effects of Segregation Under Conditions of Equal Facilities,” 3 Int. J. Opinion and Attitude Res. 229 (1949); Brameld, “Educational Costs, in Discrimination and National Welfare,” (McIver, ed., 1949), 44-48; Frazer, The Negro in the United States (1949), 674-681. And see generally Myrdal, An American Dilemma (1949).

18. This was the watchword of revolt of the 10 tribes of Israel, when they separated from Rehoboam.

finis

This speech was published in several periodicals including The Alabama Lawyer Vol. 15, p. 342,
and in Vital Speeches of the Day, Vol. 20, p. 754 (No. 24), October 1, 1954.

http://rcarterpittman.org/essays/misc/Which_Shall_It_Be.html

The TRUTH about Marriage in America: Why the Government got involved in Marriage.

1871
Rep. Andrew King (D-MO) proposes a U.S. constitutional amendment banning all marriage between whites and people of color in every state throughout the country. It will be the first of three such attempts.

1883
In Pace v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that state-level bans on interracial marriage do not violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The ruling will hold for more than 80 years.

The plaintiffs, Tony Pace and Mary Cox, were arrested under Alabama’s Section 4189, which read:

“[I]f any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years.”

They challenged the conviction all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Justice Stephen Johnson Field wrote for the Court:

“The counsel is undoubtedly correct in his view of the purpose of the clause of the amendment in question, that it was to prevent hostile and discriminating state legislation against any person or class of persons. Equality of protection under the laws implies not only accessibility by each one, whatever his race, on the same terms with others to the courts of the country for the security of his person and property, but that in the administration of criminal justice he shall not be subjected, for the same offense, to any greater or different punishment …

“The defect in the argument of counsel consists in his assumption that any discrimination is made by the laws of Alabama in the punishment provided for the offense for which the plaintiff in error was indicted when committed by a person of the African race and when committed by a white person … Section 4189 applies the same punishment to both offenders, the white and the black.

Indeed, the offense against which this latter section is aimed cannot be committed without involving the persons of both races in the same punishment. Whatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.”

1912
Rep. Seaborn Roddenbery (D-GA) makes a second attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in all 50 states.

Roddenbery’s proposed amendment read as follows:

“That intermarriage between negroes or persons of color and Caucasians or any other character of persons within the United States or any territory under their jurisdiction, is forever prohibited; and the term ‘negro or person of color,’ as here employed, shall be held to mean any and all persons of African descent or having any trace of African or negro blood.”

Later theories of physical anthropology will suggest that every human being has some African ancestry, which could have rendered this amendment unenforceable had it passed. In any case, it didn’t pass.

1928
Sen. Coleman Blease (D-SC), a Ku Klux Klan supporter who had previously served as South Carolina’s governor, makes a third and final serious attempt to revise the U.S. Constitution in order to ban interracial marriage in every state. Like its predecessors, it fails.

1964
In McLaughlin v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rules that laws banning interracial sex violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

McLaughlin struck down Florida Statute 798.05, which read:
“Any negro man and white woman, or any white man and negro woman, who are not married to each other, who shall habitually live in and occupy in the nighttime the same room shall each be punished by imprisonment not exceeding twelve months, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”

While the ruling did not directly address laws banning interracial marriage, it laid down the groundwork for a ruling that definitively did.

1967
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously overturns Pace v. Alabama (1883), ruling in Loving v. Virginia that state bans on interracial marriage violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

As Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote for the Court:

“There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification. The fact that Virginia prohibits only interracial marriages involving white persons demonstrates that the racial classifications must stand on their own justification, as measures designed to maintain White Supremacy …

“The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men … To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

From this point on, interracial marriage is legal throughout the United States.

Education in America, A Parents Duty – James Wilson

Image

“It is the duty of parents to maintain their children decently, and according to their circumstances; to protect them according to the dictates of prudence; and to educate them according to the suggestions of a judicious and zealous regard for their usefulness, their respectability and happiness.”

James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1791

Noah Webster – Father of American Education

Image

“It is an object of vast magnitude that systems of education should be adopted and pursued which may not only diffuse a knowledge of the sciences but may implant in the minds of the American youth the principles of virtue and of liberty and inspire them with just and liberal ideas of government and with an inviolable attachment to their own country.”

On Education of Youth in America — 1790

We Were Duly Warned – Geo. Mason

Elbridge Gerry Writes To Massachusetts General Court Explaining Why He Did Not Sign Constitution

Elbridge Gerry

Elbridge Gerry to President of Senate and Speaker of House of Representatives of Massachusetts (October 18, 1787)

New York, Oct. 18, 1787.

Gentlemen : I have the honor to enclose, pursuant to my commission, the Constitution proposed by the Federal Convention.

To this system I gave my dissent, and shall submit my objections to the honorable legislature.

It was painful for me, on a subject of such national importance, to differ from the respectable members who signed the Constitution; but conceiving, as I did, that the liberties of America were not secured by the system, it was my duty to oppose it.

My principal objections to the plan are, that there is no adequate provision for a representation of the people; that they have no security for the right of election; that some of the powers of the legislature are ambiguous, and others indefinite and dangerous; that the executive is blended with, and will have an undue influence over, the legislature; that the judicial department will be oppressive; that treaties of the highest importance may be formed by the President, with the advice of two thirds of a quorum of the Senate; and that the system is without the security of a bill of rights . These are objections which are not local, but apply equally to all the states.

As the Convention was called for “the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress, and the several legislatures, such alterations and provisions as shall render the Federal Constitution adequate to the exigencies of government, and the preservation of the Union,” I did not conceive that these powers extend to the formation of the plan proposed; but the Convention being of a different opinion, I acquiesced in it, being fully convinced that, to preserve the Union, an efficient government was indispensably necessary, and that it would be difficult to make proper amendments to the Articles of Confederation.

The Constitution proposed has few, if any, federal features, but is rather a system of national government. Nevertheless, in many respects, I think it has great merit, and, by proper amendments, may be adapted to the “exigencies of government, and preservation of liberty.”

The question on this plan involves others of the highest importance: 1. Whether there shall be a dissolution of the federal government; 2. Whether the several state governments shall be so altered as in effect to be dissolved; 3. Whether, in lieu of the federal and state governments, the national Constitution now proposed shall be substituted without amendment. Never, perhaps, were a people called on to decide a question of greater magnitude. Should the citizens of America adopt the plan as it now stands, their liberties may be lost; or should they reject it altogether, anarchy may ensue. It is evident, therefore, that they should not be precipitate in their decisions; that the subject should be well understood;–lest they should refuse to support the government after having hastily accepted it.

If those who are in favor of the Constitution, as well as those who are against it, should preserve moderation, their discussions may afford much information, and finally direct to a happy issue.

It may be urged by some, that an implicit confidence should be placed in the Convention; but, however respectable the members may be who signed the Constitution, it must be admitted that a free people are the proper guardians of their rights and liberties; that the greatest men may err, and that their errors are sometimes of the greatest magnitude.

Others may suppose that the Constitution may be safely adopted, because therein provision is made to amend it. But cannot this object be better attained before a ratification than after it? And should a free people adopt a form of government under conviction that it wants amendment?

And some may conceive that, if the plan is not accepted by the people, they will not unite in another. But surely, while they have the power to amend, they are not under the necessity of rejecting it.

I have been detained here longer than I expected, but shall leave this place in a day or two for Massachusetts, and on my arrival shall submit the reasons (if required by the legislature) on which my objections are grounded.

I shall only add that, as the welfare of the Union requires a better Constitution than the Confederation, I shall think it my duty, as a citizen of Massachusetts, to support that which shall be finally adopted, sincerely hoping it will secure the liberty and happiness of America.

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, with the highest respect for the honorable legislature and yourselves, your most obedient and very humble servant,

E. GERRY.

To the Hon . Samuel Adams , Esq., President of the Senate, and the Hon . James Warren , Esq., Speaker of the House of Representatives, of Massachusetts.

Ezekiel “Dr. Mengele” Emanuel, Chief Architect of ObamaCare, and his “Complete Lives System”

Emanuel Kelly File
The Chief Architect of Obamacare is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. Recently, Megyn Kelly has had him on her show, “The Kelly File”. Anyone who saw Dr. Emanuel on “Kelly File” knows he is an abrasive, arrogant, and downright nasty individual.

Ezekiel “Dr. Mengle” Emanuel’s views on Health Care is known as “The Complete Lives System”. Below is an excerpt from “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” written by Govind Persad, Alan Wertheimer, Ezekiel J Emanuel which appear in “The Lancet” Vol 373 January 31, 2009 pages 423–31.

Do not be fooled by the rhetoric of the Marxists. As you read this excerpt from the article, you will immediately notice the Marxist “buzz words” of “social justice”,”fair”, “just”, et.al.

At its core, ” the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis, lottery, and saving the most lives.”

(Formatting did not transfer over. I did my best to edit)

“The complete lives system”

Because none of the currently used systems satisfy all ethical requirements for just allocation, we propose an alternative: the complete lives system. This system incorporates five principles (table 2): youngest-first,prognosis, save the most lives, lottery, and instrumental value. 5 As such, it prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. Many thinkers have accepted complete lives as the appropriate focus of distributive justice: “individual human lives, rather than individual experiences, [are] the units over which any distributive principle should operate.” 1,75,76 Although there are important differences between these thinkers, they share a core commitment to consider entire lives rather than events or episodes, which is also the defining feature of the complete lives system.

Consideration of the importance of complete lives alsosupports modifying the youngest-first principle byprioritising adolescents and young adults over infants(figure). Adolescents have received substantial educationand parental care, investments that will be wasted withouta complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet receivedthese investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfillment requires a complete life.77

As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, “It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does”; 78 this argument is supported by empirical surveys. 41,79 Importantly, the prioritization of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo. Consequently, poor adolescents should be treated the same as wealthy ones,even though they may have received less investment owing to social injustice.

The complete lives system also considers prognosis,since its aim is to achieve complete lives. A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses. 42 When the worst-off can benefit only slightly while better-off people could benefit greatly,allocating to the better-off is often justifiable. 1,30  Some small benefits, such as a few weeks of life, might also be intrinsically insignificant when compared with large benefits. 8

Saving the most lives is also included in this system because enabling more people to live complete lives is better than enabling fewer. 8,44 In a public health emergency,instrumental value could also be included to enable more people to live complete lives. Lotteries could be used when making choices between roughly equal recipients, and also potentially to ensure that no individual—irrespective of age or prognosis—is seen as beyond saving.
34,80 Thus, the complete lives system is complete in another way: it incorporates each morally relevant simple principle.

When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance,whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure). 78 It therefore superficially resembles the proposal made by DALY advocates; however, the complete lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value. Additionally, the complete lives system assumes that, although life-years are equally valuable to all, justice requires the fair distribution of them. Conversely, ALY allocation treats life-years given to elderly or disabled people as objectively less valuable.

Finally, the complete lives system is least vulnerable to corruption. Age can be established quickly and accuratelyfrom identity documents. Prognosis allocation encourages physicians to improve patients’ health, unlike the perverse incentives to sicken patients or misrepresent health thatthe sickest-first allocation creates. 58,59

Objections

We consider several important objections to the complete lives system.

The complete lives system discriminates against older people. 81,82 Age-based allocation is ageism. 82 Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. 8,39 Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years. 16 Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.

Age, like income, is a “non-medical criterion” inappropriate for allocation of medical resources. 14,83  In contrast to income, a complete life is a health outcome. Long-term survival and life expectancy at birth are key health-care outcome variables. 84 Delaying the age at onset of a disease is desirable. 85,86

The complete lives system is insensitive to international differences in typical lifespan. Although broad consensus favours adolescents over very young infants, and young adults over the very elderly people, implementation can reasonably differ between, even within, nation-states. 87,88 Some people believe that a complete life is a universal limit founded in natural human capacities, which everyone should accept even without scarcity. 37 By contrast, the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, an daccept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources.

Principles must be ordered lexically: less important principles should come into play only when more important ones are fulfilled. 10 Rawls himself agreed that lexical priority was inappropriate when distributing specific resources in society, though appropriate for ordering the principles of basic social justice that shape the distribution of basic rights, opportunities, and income. 1  As an alternative, balancing priority to the worst-off against maximising benefits has won wide support in discussions of allocative local justice. 1,8,30 As Amartya Sen argues, justice“does not specify how much more is to be given to the deprived person, but merely that he should receive more”. 89

Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending. 81,90 The complete lives system explicitly rejects waste and corruption, such as multiple listing for transplantation. Although it may be applicable more generally, the complete lives system has been developed to justly allocate persistently scarce life-saving interventions. 39,80 Hearts for transplant and influenza vaccines, unlike money, cannot be replaced or diverted to non-health goals; denying a heart to one person makes it available to another. Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create “classes of  Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on”, 91 but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible.

Legitimacy

As well as recognising morally relevant values, an allocation system must be legitimate. Legitimacy requires that people see the allocation system as just and accept actua lallocations as fair. Consequently, allocation systems must be publicly understandable, accessible, and subject topublic discussion and revision. 92 They must also resist corruption, since easy corruptibility undermines the public trust on which legitimacy depends. Some systems, like theUNOS points systems or QALY systems, may fail this test, because they are diffi cult to understand, easily corrupted,or closed to public revision. Systems that intentionally conceal their allocative principles to avoid public complaints might also fail the test. 93

Although procedural fairness is necessary for legitimacy, it is unable to ensure the justice of allocation decisions o nits own. 94,95 Although fair procedures are important,substantive, morally relevant values and principles are indispensable for just allocation. 96,97

Conclusion

Ultimately, none of the eight simple principles recognise all morally relevant values, and some recognise irrelevant values. QALY and DALY multiprinciple systems neglect the importance of fair distribution. UNOS points systems attempt to address distributive justice, but recognise morally irrelevant values and are vulnerable to corruption. By contrast, the complete lives system combines four morally relevant principles: youngest-first, prognosis,lottery, and saving the most lives. In pandemic situations,it also allocates scarce interventions to people instrumental in realising these four principles. Importantly, it is not an algorithm, but a framework that expresses widely affirmed values: priority to the worst-off, maximising benefits, and treating people equally. To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo.

“Dr. Mengele” Emanuel is the Primary Author and Point of Contact for the Article.

Department of Bioethics,The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,Maryland, USA
(G Persad BS,A Wertheimer PhD,E J Emanuel MD)
Correspondence to: Ezekiel J Emanuel,Department of Bioethics,The Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda,MD 20892-1156, USA eemanuel@nih.gov

Immigration Reform: NATIONAL COUNCIL OF LA RAZA (NCLR)

NCLR Logo

With more than 300 affiliate organizations in 41 U.S. states, the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) is currently the largest national Hispanic civil-rights and advocacy organization in America. It is also one of the most influential, as reflected in the fact that NCLR representatives have been called to testify at Congressional hearings more than 100 times since the 1970s.

NCLR’s roots can be traced back to the early 1960s, when a group of young Mexican Americans in Washington, DC decided to form a coordinating body to bring existing Hispanic groups—which were generally small and isolated—together into a single united front, which they called the National Organization for Mexican American Services (NOMAS). Soon thereafter, NOMAS presented a funding proposal to the Ford Foundation, which in turn issued a large grant to finance a major, first-of-its-kind UCLA study of Mexican Americans and the major issues they faced.

Before long, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights began to hold a series of influential hearings on the status of Mexican Americans and, later, other Latino groups residing in the United States. In addition, the Ford Foundation initiated a second (though less academic) investigation of the same subject. To carry out that study, Ford hired three Mexican Americans—Dr. Julian Samora (a community activist who helped pioneer the field of Latino Studies; Dr. Ernesto Galarza (a professor who was widelyconsidered “the dean of Chicano activism”); and Herman Gallegos (a San Francisco-based community organizer who had previously worked with his mentor, Saul Alinsky, to establish a Mexican-American political action group. These three men traveled throughout the Southwest to meet with other Hispanic activists vis a vis policies and programs that could be developed to help Mexican Americans. These consultations resulted in the publication of two reports showing that Mexican Americans “faced numerous obstacles, especially with respect to poverty”; needed “more local, grassroots programmatic and advocacy organizations”; and could benefit from a sustained “national advocacy” campaign on their behalf.

To address these issues, Galarza, Samora, and Gallegos collaborated to co-found the Southwest Council of La Raza (SWCLR)—NCLR’s predecessor—in Phoenix, Arizona in February 1968. SWCLR’s major funding was provided by the Ford Foundation, the National Council of Churches, and the United Auto Workers union. Gallegos became SWCLR’s first executive director, while Galarza served as a consultant to the nascent organization. In the summer of 1968, SWCLR began to help establish and support barrio (community) groups committed to “promoting empowerment, voter registration, leadership development, and other forms of advocacy.”

At the end of 1972, SWCLR became a national organization and changed its name to the National Council of La Raza (NCLR, often simply called “La Raza”) “to reflect its commitment to represent and serve all Mexican Americans in all parts of the country.” The following year, the group relocated its headquarters from Phoenix to Washington, DC. Thanks in large measure to continued support from the Ford Foundation (totaling approximately $40 million in grants over the next four decades), NCLR would grow into a behemoth of the left-wing “civil rights” and “social justice” establishment.

Controversy over the Name “La Raza”

The words “La Raza” (Spanish for “The Race”) in NCLR’s name have long been a source of considerable controversy. Critics claim that the name reflects an organizational commitment to racial separatism and race-based grievance mongering. By NCLR’s telling, however, such critics have mistranslated the word “Raza.” “The term ‘La Raza,’” says the organization, “has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as ‘the people’ or, according to some scholars, ‘the Hispanic people of the New World.’” According to NCLR, “the full term,” which was coined by the Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos, is “la raza cósmica,” meaning “the cosmic people.” NCLR describes this as “an inclusive concept” whose purpose is to express the fact that “Hispanics share with all other people’s of the world a common heritage and destiny.”

NCLR’s interpretation of Vasconcelos’s explanation, however, is inaccurate. As Guillermo Lux and Maurilio Vigil (professors of history and political science, respectively, at New Mexico Highlands University) note in their 1991 book, Aztlan: Essays on the Chicano Homeland:

“The concept of La Raza can be traced to the ideas and writings of Jose Vasconcelos, the Mexican theorist who developed the theory of la raza cosmica (the cosmic or super race) at least partially as a minority reaction to the Nordic notions of racial superiority. Vasconelos developed a systematic theory which argued that climatic and geographic conditions and mixture of Spanish and Indian races created a superior race. The concept of La Raza connotes that the mestizo is a distinct race and not Caucasian, as is technically the case.”

In short, Vasconcelos was not promoting “an inclusive concept,” but rather, the notion of Hispanic racial superiority.

NCLR’s claim is further contradicted by the Council’s own race-specific statements about its activities and objectives. For example, NCLR says that it “welcomesaffiliation from independent Hispanic groups” which share its goals; that it “assistsHispanic groups that are not formal Affiliates”; that it “supports and strengthens Hispanic community-based organizations nationwide—especially those that serve low-income and disadvantaged Hispanics”; that it seeks “to increase policymaker and public understanding of Hispanic needs and to encourage the adoption of programs and policies that equitably serve Hispanics”; that it serves “all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country”; and that its political and ideological message is “reaching millions of Hispanics each year.”

La Raza Mag

The Early Years

In 1974 Raul Yzaguirre began a 30-year tenure as NCLR’s national director. Under his stewardship, NCLR in 1975 not only started to concentrate more heavily on public-policy issues but also began to “gradually broaden” its focus from one that was “solely on Mexican Americans,” to one that included all “Chicanos and other Hispanics.” This expanded constituency became official NCLR policy in 1979 when the organization’s board of directors affirmed the Council’s role as “an advocate for all Hispanics.”

The most prominent individual associated with the fledgling NCLR was the legendary union activist Cesar Chavez, who was elected to Council’s board. He was unable to serve in any meaningful way, however, because of the demands of his principal occupation as head of the United Farm Workers of America.

Maclovio Barraza, a Tucson-based labor organizer who claimed that the injustices inherent in American society had turned Mexican Americans in the Southwestern U.S. into one of “the most disadvantaged segments of our society,” served as NCLR’s board chairman during the organization’s first 9 years. Notably, the federal government’s Subversive Activities Control Board had identified Barraza as a Communist Party member.

Illegal Mexican Immigration

NCLR’s Opposition to Post-9/11 Homeland Security Policies

NCLR strongly opposed most of the U.S. government’s post-9/11 counterterrorism efforts—alleging, in most cases, that they “undermined” the rights of “noncitizen Latinos.” Some examples:

  • NCLR opposed the Aviation Transportation and Security Act of 2001, which required that all U.S. airport baggage screeners—many of whom were Hispanics—be American citizens. “Tying together citizenship and security—without any evidence that the two are linked—sets a new and dangerous precedent in the United States” said NCLR staffer Michele Waslin.
  • NCLR endorsed the December 18, 2001 “Statement of Solidarity with Migrants,” which was drawn up by the National Network for Immigrant and Refugee Rights. This document called upon the U.S. government to “end discriminatory policies passed on the basis of legal status in the wake of September 11”
  • NCLR was a signatory to a March 17, 2003 letter exhorting members of the U.S. Congress to oppose Patriot Act II on grounds that it “contain[ed] a multitude of new and sweeping law enforcement and intelligence gathering powers … that would severely dilute, if not undermine, many basic constitutional rights.”
  • In 2003, NCLR endorsed the Community Resolution to Protect Civil Liberties campaign, a project that tried to influence city councils to pass resolutions of non-compliance with the provisions of the Patriot Act.
  • A June 2003 issue brief funded by the Ford Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and George Soros’s Open Society Institute gave an extensive overview of NCLR’s view of border issues under the heading “Counterterrorism and the Latino Community Since September 11.” Regarding the recent dissolution of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the incorporation of immigration enforcement into the newly formed Department of Homeland Security, the report stated: “Placing the immigration agency within a new mega-national security agency jeopardizes our country’s rich immigration tradition and threatens to make the already poor treatment of immigrants by the federal bureaucracy even worse.”
  • NCLR endorsed the Civil Liberties Restoration Act of 2004, which was designed to roll back, in the name of protecting civil liberties, vital national-security policies that had been adopted after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
  • Post-9/11, NCLR cooperated with groups such as the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Arab American Institute to protest the deportation of Arabs living in the United States illegally.
  • NCLR also cooperated with socialist/Marxist groups such as Refuse&Resist!, which likened those lawfully arrested and deported, to the “disappeared” political prisoners of banana republics.

La Raza Protest CA

Current Programs of NCLR

To promote the interests of Hispanics in the United States, NCLR currently engages in research, policy analysis, and advocacy in 8 major program areas:

1) Advocacy & Empowerment

NCLR’s Advocacy & Empowerment (A&E) program aims to help Latinos “assert” their “rightful place” in American society, where they “are suffering from higher rates of unemployment and foreclosure than other communities.” Asserting that “our [Latinos'] voting rights are threatened in states throughout the country,” the A&E program concentrates on “advocacy activities at state and local levels” and seeks to “strengthe[n] Latino participation in the political process.” It does this by “encouraging eligible applicants to become citizens”; “motivating citizens to register and vote”; and “creating a new generation of Latino leaders to educate voters about issues affecting Hispanics and to advocate for local, state, and national policies that will help build a strong Latino community and a stronger country.” Further, the A&E program helps non-citizen Hispanics to become citizens through its “Citizenship, It’s Time!” and “Citizenship Assistance” initiatives, the latter of which provides grants to naturalization programs run by community-based organizations. Similarly, A&E promotes Hispanic voter-registration and voter-mobilization through its “ya es hora ¡VE Y VOTA!” (“It’s Time, Go Vote!”) and Latino Empowerment and Advocacyprojects. Some additional facts:

  • In pursuit of its A&E program goals, NCLR, at the 2008 “Take Back America” conference sponsored by the Campaign for America’s Future (CAF), proudly announced that it would be joining a number of fellow left-wing organizations in “the most expensive” ($350 million) voter-registration, voter-education, and voter-mobilization effort “in history” during that year’s election season. Other members of the coalition included ACORN, the AFL-CIO, CAF,MoveOn.org, Rock the Vote, and the Women’s Voices Women Vote Action Fund.
  • NCLR opposed the REAL ID Act of 2005, which required that all driver’s-license and photo-ID applicants be able to verify they are legal residents of the United States, and that the documents they present to prove their identity are genuine. According to La Raza, this law “opens the door to widespread discrimination and civil rights violations.”

2) Children & Youth

NCLR’s Children & Youth program was created to represent the interests of this “fastest-growing segment of the American population.” A key component of the program is its Líderes Initiative, a national campaign designed to “build the skills of Latino youth and increase their leadership capacity.”

3) Civil Rights & Justice

NCLR’s Civil Rights & Justice (CRJ) program—founded on the premise that “discrimination severely limits the economic and social opportunities available to Hispanic Americans”—conducts civil rights-related policy analysis and advocacy activities “to promote and protect equality of opportunity in voting, justice issues, education, employment, housing, and health care for all Americans.”

A matter of particular concern to the CRJ program is racial profiling, which, according to La Raza, occurs “when an individual’s race or ethnicity is used to establish a cause for suspicion of a crime.” Such “tactics,” says NCLR, “not only violate civil rights, they also undermine the ability of law enforcement to enforce the law effectively” and cause Hispanics who are targeted to “los[e] trust in the integrity of law enforcement.” To address this issue, NCLR “works with policy-makers, law enforcement, and the community to eliminate the use of racial profiling.”

The CRJ program also focuses heavily on the matter of juvenile justice, lamenting that Hispanic youth: (a) “have disproportionate contact with all stages of the juvenile justice system, from being stopped by law enforcement to their arrest, detention, waiver to adult criminal court, and sentencing”; (b) are “at substantial risk of being detained with adults, which has been shown to lead to increased rates of recidivism and suicide”; and (c) need a range of special “services targeted specifically” toward them, including “greater access to culturally and linguistically competent delinquency-prevention services and alternatives to detention.” Among NCLR’s more noteworthy publications on this subject are: School-to-Prison Pipeline: Zero Tolerance for Latino YouthReauthorizing the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act: The Impact on Latino YouthLatino Youth in the Juvenile Justice System; and Latino Youth, Immigration, and the Juvenile Justice System.

  • In 2009, NCLR complained that the proposed Gang Abatement and Prevention Act, which sought to punish violent gang crime more harshly, would have “a disproportionate and negative impact on youth of color, particularly Latino youth, who are subjected to racial-profiling, ‘gang enhanced’ sentencing guidelines, and imprisonment in adult facilities where they are abused, assaulted and ultimately groomed into hardened criminals.” Rejecting “punitive measures designed only to punish and not to reform,” La Raza seeks to “shif[t] the emphasis from punishment to prevention and rehabilitation.”

4) Economy & Workforce

NCLR’s Economy & Workforce program promotes policies to “boost Hispanic employment in good jobs, provide safe and fair workplaces, bridge Latino workers’ education and skills gaps, and offer a secure retirement.” One such policy is the Escalera initiative—created by NCLR in collaboration with (and through the support of) the PepsiCo Foundation and PepsiCo, Inc.—which seeks to “eliminate barriers to employment and economic mobility” by means of career exploration, technology skills development, leadership development, personal development, and academic support. In pursuit of a similar end, NCLR’s Career Pathways Initiative aims to steer “low-skilled and limited-English-proficient” adults toward the “green, health care, and customer service sectors.”

5) Education

NCLR’s Education program is dedicated to “increasing educational opportunities, improving achievement, supporting college-readiness, and promoting equity in outcomes for Latinos.” Toward these ends, La Raza offers “capacity-building,” training, and technical assistance to help its Affiliates serve the needs of the Hispanic community “at each critical stage of the education pipeline.”

6) Health & Nutrition

NCLR’s Health & Nutrition (H&N) program seeks to address the “widespread lack of health insurance and [the] inadequate supply of language services [that] currently … prevent Latinos from gaining access to quality care.” It also aims to “eliminate the incidence, burden, and impact of health and environmental problems in Latinos.” In pursuit of these goals, NCLR’s Office of Research, Advocacy, and Legislation conducts policy analysis and advocacy at the federal level.

  • One of the most significant aspects of the H&N program is its strong opposition “to any legislation which would inhibit immigrant access to health care because of mandates that require inquiry or documentation of immigrant status.” In other words, it favors healthcare benefits for illegal aliens.

7) Immigration

NCLR’s Immigration program calls for “comprehensive immigration reform” that would encourage “the 12 million undocumented people in our country to come forward, obtain legal status, learn English, and assume the rights and responsibilities of citizenship”; “crac[k] down on unscrupulous employers whose practices undermine conditions for all workers”; “unclo[g] legal channels to reunite families and allow future workers to come in with the essential rights and protections that safeguard our workforce”; and enact “proactive measures to advance the successful integration of new immigrants into our communities.”

  • The Immigration program supports the DREAM Act, which would provide a path-to-citizenship for long-term illegal immigrants who first came to the U.S. as minors, have a relatively clean criminal record, hold a high-school diploma or GED, and are not older than age 30. The DREAM Act also contends that illegal immigrants who wish to attend college in their state of residence should be eligible for the same, heavily discounted tuition rates that are available to in-state students who are legal residents.
  • NCLR advocates immigration reform based on a grant of “earned” amnesty that would confer legal status upon illegal aliens.
  • In 1990 NCLR published a report, authored by Cecelia Muñoz, asserting that Congress had a “moral obligation” to repeal the “unconscionable” employer sanctions (against those who hired illegals), which were “inherently discriminatory” and “infringe[d] upon the civil rights of Americans.” The report also advocated “a second legalization program” for illegal immigrants who came to the United States after the enactment of the 1986 amnesty.
  • NCLR strongly opposed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, a welfare-reform bill that: required recipients of certain welfare benefits to begin working after two years of receiving those benefits; placed a lifetime limit of five years on benefits paid by federal funds; and tightened enforcement of child-support compliance. NCLR’s major complaint was the fact that the law banned new legal immigrants from receiving federal public benefits during their first five years in the United States.
  • In 2001, NCLR formed focus groups to study how the American public felt about the word “amnesty”as it pertained to  immigration policy. After the focus groups reported that the public’s reaction was extremely negative, La Raza national director Raul Yzaguirre advised then-Mexican President Vicente Fox to avoid using the term ever again. He urged Fox instead to employ such euphemisms as “regularization,” “legalization,” “normalization,” “permanence,” “earned adjustment,” and “phased-in access to earned regularization.”
  • In 2003, NCLR joined the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee in a failed lawsuit the tried to prevent federal authorities from entering immigration information into a national crime database—and to prevent local police officers from accessing that data.
  • NCLR is adamantly opposed to permitting local and state police to enforce immigration laws, on the theory that such officers are not adequately trained in the complexities of those laws and thus are likely to abuse their authority. In 2003 and 2005, for example, La Raza warned that the proposed Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act would “result in higher levels of racial profiling, police misconduct, and other civil rights violations.”
  • In 2006, NCLR opposed what it described as a “punitive” bill that sought to control the flow of people illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border. Nonetheless, La Raza rejects the notion that it is an “open-borders advocate,” stating that it has “repeatedly recognized the right of the United States, as a sovereign nation, to control its borders.”
  • NCLR opposed President Bush’s signing of the “Secure Fence Act of 2006,” which authorized the construction of 700 miles of new fencing along the U.S.-Mexico border.
  • At many of the massive “pro-immigration” rallies that NCLR members attended in 2006, their signature slogan was: “La Raza unida nunca sera vencida!” (“The united Race will never be defeated!”)
  • In 2007, NCLR commissioned the Urban Institute to conduct a study on how the children of illegal immigrants are negatively affected when their parents are apprehended in workplace immigration raids. The findings were published in a report titled Paying the Price: The Impact of Immigration Raids on America’s Children, which said that such children commonly exhibit “depression,” “post-traumatic stress disorder,” “separation anxiety,” “aggressive behaviors,” “sleep patterns that are changing,” “changes in appetite,” and “exaggerated mood swings.” One child, said the report, “was diagnosed with having suicidal thoughts.”
  • In 2007, NCLR opposed the state of Oklahoma’s tough, enforcement-first immigration laws, which cut off welfare benefits to illegal aliens, stiffened sanctions against employers who hired illegals, and strengthened cooperation and information-sharing between local and federal authorities.
  • In April 2010, Arizona—a state that had experienced an explosion in serious crimes committed by illegal aliens—signed into law a bill deputizing state police to check with federal authorities on the immigration status of criminal suspects whose behavior or circumstances seemed to indicate that they might be in the United States illegally. The heart of the law, which explicitly disallowed racial profiling and was a mirror image of longstanding U.S. federal law, was this provision: “For any lawful contact [i.e., instances where an officer questions or detains someone who has violated some law, usually a traffic infraction] made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency … where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.” Citing this law as evidence that many people were now “under attack just for being Latino,” NCLR initiated a boycott against Arizona to discourage other states from enacting similar laws.
  • NCLR portrays illegal immigrants as vital contributors to the American economy. As La Raza staffer Michele Waslin has put it, “Important sectors of the labor market are increasingly dependent on undocumented workers.”
  • NCLR believes that illegal immigrants should be permitted to obtain driver’s licenses, on the theory that such a policy would improve public safety and lower insurance costs.
  • La Raza lawyers have waged a relentless assault on local and national efforts to enforce existing American immigration laws by promoting “sanctuary city” policies that prevent police from checking the immigration status of criminals, verifying resident status in the workplace, or securing the nation’s borders.

8) Wealth Building

NCLR’s Wealth-Building (WB) program, lamenting that “Latino families own just nine cents for every dollar owned by White families,” features a Housing and Community Development component and a Wealth-Building Policy Project devoted to “helping low-income Latino households build wealth through tangible assets, such as homes, cars, and savings.” Specifically, the WB program seeks to help Latinos purchase their first home, avoid foreclosure, access their tax refunds, and make prudent financial decisions. It also lobbies for policy changes that would “hold banks and lenders more accountable to Latino families for their services, protect against deceptive lending practices, and increase access to financial products and decision-making tools.”

  • The foregoing objectives are rooted in the premise that lending institutions commonly try to exploit Latinos. As a logical outgrowth of that premise, NCLR has long pressured banks to lower their qualification standards for home loans to Hispanic borrowers. When large numbers of banks ultimately succumbed to such pressure (which was augmented by similar mandates from the federal government), there was a dramatic spike in the number of subprime loans that were issued to Hispanics (and, for the same reason, to African-Americans). Thus the stage was set for the housing market crisis of 2008, which in turn caused Hispanics as a whole to lose fully two-thirds of their net worth.
    (For details about the correlation between watered-down mortgage-lending standards and the housing-market crisis, click here.)
  • NCLR has also sought to partner with banks that conduct business with illegal aliens.

NCLR’s Charter Schools

NCLR supports a network of some 115 charter schools across the United States, to provide Hispanic children with “a better educational option than the nearby traditional public schools.” A number of these charter schools openly advocate ethnic separatism and anti-American, anti-white attitudes. Some examples:

  • The Mexicayotl Academy in Nogales, Arizona is “structured and developed around the concepts of identity, culture, and language.” It supports local ethnic lobbying efforts “to right social injustices by educating the community and helping create social change.” Under the heading “Greatest Achievements,” the school’s website once listed a visit the school had received from the Marxist academic fraud Rigoberta Menchu.
  • La Academia Semillas del Pueblo is a Los Angeles public school that teaches children “Aztec math” and the Mexican indigenous language of “Nahuatl.” The school’s principal, Marcos Aguilar, is an ethnic separatist who believes that “the White way, the American way, the neo liberal, capitalist way of life will eventually lead to our own destruction.”
  • The Aztlán Academy in south Tucson, Arizona seeks “to integrate a meaningful Chicano Studies program into [students’] lives, language, and academics, as a means of developing their intellects as well as their pride and self-esteem.” (“Aztlán” is the separatist name for the Southwestern United States—an area that, according to such separatists, rightfully belongs to the government and people of Mexico.)
  • The Dolores Huerta Preparatory High School in Pueblo, Colorado is named after the Latina labor-union activist who is a board member of the Democratic Socialists of America.
  • The Academia Cesar Chavez Charter School in Saint Paul, Minnesota, supports the federal DREAM Act, which would provide a path-to-citizenship for long-term illegal immigrants who first came to the U.S. as minors, have a relatively clean criminal record, hold a high-school diploma or GED, and are not older than age 30. The DREAM Act also contends that illegal immigrants who wish to attend college in their state of residence should be eligible for the same, heavily discounted tuition rates that are available to in-state students who are legal residents.

Aztlan Civil war

Aztlan and the Question of “Reconquista”

According to the late Rep. Charlie Norwood (R-Georgia), NCLR teaches that “Colorado, California, Arizona, Texas, Utah, New Mexico, Oregon and parts of Washington State make up an area known as ‘Aztlán’—a fictional ancestral homeland of the Aztecs before Europeans arrived in North America.” Norwood stated that La Raza views this region as the rightful property of the government and people of Mexico, and thus seeks to bring about a Mexican “Reconquista” (“Reconquest”) of these southwestern states. But such a reconquest “won’t end with territorial occupation and secession,” Norwood added. “The final plan for the La Raza movement includes the ethnic cleansing of Americans of European, African, and Asian descent out of ‘Aztlán.’” Norwood also characterized NCLR as “a radical racist group … one of the most anti-American groups in the country, which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West.”

John Stone, president of the U.S. Freedom Foundation and former chief of staff to Rep. Norwood, similarly maintains that NCLR has ties to a number of separatist Reconquista groups.

In 2007, La Raza’s website stated explicitly that NCLR’s mission is the “empowerment of our gente [people] and the liberation of Aztlán.”

NCLR, however, says it is a “misconception” to believe that it has ever, at any time, endorsed “the notion of a ‘Reconquista’ or Aztlán.’” 

illegal immigration rally phoenix-july-31-2010

La Raza’s Support of Separatist Groups

While claiming that it “has never supported, and does not support, separatist organizations,” NCLR acknowledges that in 2003 it provided the Georgetown University chapter of MEChA—an openly separatist Chicano student group—with a$2,500 grant. But NCLR defends that grant by asserting that MEChA’s “primary objectives are educational—to help Latino students finish high school and go to college, and to support them while at institutions of higher education.”

NCLR’s Motto

It has been widely reported that NCLR’s official motto is “Por La Raza Todo, Fuera de La Raza Nada,” which means “For The Race Everything, Outside the Race Nothing.” But NCLR says it “unequivocally rejects this statement, which is not and has never been the motto of any Latino organization.”
We can stop hate
The Premise That America Is Racist, Hateful, and Discriminatory

NCLR has succeeded in defining, on its own terms, the parameters of the immigration debate by smearing critics of its agendas as “anti-immigrant” racists. Typical was a 2008 campaign called “We Can Stop the Hate.” Launched by NCLR with the assistance of the Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), this campaign was overtly designed to silence critics who raised alarms about mass illegal immigration into the United States, and who opposed amnesty and open borders. The La Raza campaign portrayed such concerns as the “rhetoric of hate groups, nativists, and vigilantes.”

Some additional illustrations of NCLR’s bedrock belief that America is inherently racist and unjust:

  • NCLR calls for lawmakers to expand the coverage of hate-crimes legislation and toughen the penalties therein, “in part because such crimes are often used to deter racial, ethnic, or religious minorities from living where they choose.”
  • NCLR periodically holds educational seminars and roundtables to “expose and explore the causes of discrimination against Afro-Latinos and Indigenous Latinos.”
  • In 1994, NCLR released Out of the Picture, the first extensive content analysis of prime-time TV portrayals of Hispanics. According to NCLR, this production documented “both the severe under representation as well as the excessively negative portrayals of Latinos on network television.”
  • NCLR supports affirmative action (i.e., racial and ethnic preferences) in higher education and the business world.
  • NCLR supports increased funding for “affordable housing” (i.e., taxpayer subsidies for low-income people’s housing costs) and “programs to combat housing discrimination.”
  • NCLR rejects Voter ID laws as “barriers to voting” that disproportionately affect non white minorities and the poor. As such, La Raza denounces such laws as an “absolute disgrace.”
  • NCLR contends that there is a great need for enhanced “gender pay equity” in the workplace, a claim rooted in the demonstrably false premisethat women are routinely paid less than their equally qualified and credentialed male counterparts.

Opposing Assimilation

NCLR opposes legislation that would make English the official language of the United States. Former La Raza president Raul Yzaguirre once declared that “U.S. English”—America’s oldest, largest citizens’-action group dedicated to preserving English as the national tongue—“is to Hispanics, as the Ku Klux Klan is to blacks.”

Strongly supportive of bilingual education and the provision of bilingual ballots for Spanish-speaking voters, NCLR in 1998 joined other left-wing groups in filing a lawsuit designed to prevent Proposition 227, California’s ballot initiative for bilingual-education reform, from becoming state law.

NCLR Leadership and Major Figures

NCLR is governed by a Board of Directors that includes 21 elected members who are “representative of all geographic regions of the United States and all Hispanic subgroups.” The organization also receives guidance from a Corporate Board of Advisors, which consists of senior executives from 24 major corporations and their liaison staff. These corporations are: AT&T, Bank of America, Chevron, Citi, the Coca-Cola Company, Comcast Corporation, ConAgra Foods, Ford Motor Company, General Mills, General Motors, Johnson & Johnson, Kraft Foods, McDonald’s Corporation, MillerCoors LLC, PepsiCo, Prudential, Shell, State Farm Insurance Companies, Time Warner Inc., Toyota Motor North America, UPS, Verizon, Walmart, and Wells Fargo. Moreover, NCLR has an Affiliate Council composed of executive directors and senior executive staff members from 12 community-based organizations affiliated with La Raza.

NCLR’s president since 2005 has been Janet Murguía, who worked in Bill Clinton’s White House from 1994-2000, ultimately serving as deputy assistant to the president. Murguía was subsequently the deputy campaign manager and director of constituency outreach for the Gore/Lieberman presidential campaign of 2000. In 2001, Murguía joined the University of Kansas as executive vice-chancellor for university relations. When Arizona voters in 2004 approved Proposition 200, a public referendum requiring state residents to prove citizenship before registering to vote, and to prove citizenship or legal immigration status before applying for public benefits, Murguia characterized the measure as “anti-immigrant.” Moreover, Murguia contends that “hate speech” should “not be tolerated, even if such censorship were a violation of First Amendment rights.”

la raza illegal aliens racism

Other major figures in NCLR history, in addition to those previously mentioned, include Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who is a longtime member of La Raza) and Cecilia Munoz (a longtime policy analyst with the organization).

NCLR’s Think Tank

NCLR administers a Policy Analysis Center that it describes as America’s preeminent Hispanic think tank. The Center’s broad-based agenda encompasses such issues as immigration, education, free trade, affordable housing, health policy, and tax reform.

NCLR’s Partners and Allies

NCLR works closely with the American Civil Liberties Union and the the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It also shares major agendas and values with Latino Justice PRLDF (formerly the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund), and the League of United Latin American Citizens. Further:

  • NCLR has participated in a series of campaigns in conjunction with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights Education Fund, “calling on all Americans to be tolerant of diversity.”
  • NCLR has participated in a number of joint initiatives with the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, Leadership Education for Asian Pacifics, and the National Urban League, to “identify and denounce hate crimes and other acts of intolerance.”
  • NCLR has participated in public-service campaigns with the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, the Children’s Defense Fund, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and other partners to “prevent housing discrimination against minorities, families with children, and individuals with disabilities.”

Viva La Raza Obama

Support From Barack Obama

During his presidential campaign in 2007 and 2008, Barack Obama addressed NCLR, lauding the organization for its “extraordinary” work.

Obama NCLR

NCLR’s Funders

NCLR receives more than two-thirds of its funding from corporations and charitable foundations; the rest comes mostly from government sources. Among the foundations that have supported the organization are the Aetna Foundation, Allstate Foundation, the American Express Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the AT&T Foundation, the Bank of America Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, the Fannie Mae Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the HKH Foundation, the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Nathan Cummings Foundation, the Open Society Institute, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Verizon Foundation, and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation.

In addition, as of February 2011, some 30 major corporations were officially listed as financial supporters of NCLR. One of the organization’s most noteworthy corporate funders is Citigroup:

  • On March 5, 2003, Citigroup announced a $105 million strategic partnership with NCLR. The core component of this partnership was Citigroup’s pledge to provide up to $100 million to finance the creation of affordable housing and community facilities in areas with large Hispanic populations. Meanwhile, the Citi Foundation awarded NCLR a $5 million grant to support the group’s community-development initiatives in Hispanic neighborhoods.
  • In 2008, Citigroup and the Citi Foundation gave a $1 million grant to NCLR, to support the latter’s efforts to build the capacity of its nearly 300 state and local affiliates nationwide.
  • During 2008-09, the Citi Foundation donated some $1.75 million to NCLR, which used part of the money to fund its Preserving Neighborhoods and Creating Homeowner Opportunities initiative. This program helps NCLR affiliates acquire, maintain, and repurpose foreclosed, vacant, bank-owned properties in urban  communities with high foreclosure rates and large concentrations of Latino residents. The initiative began in Phoenix and later expanded to such places as Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, and the District of Columbia.

Defund La Raza Tax Dollars

In 2011, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that federal funding for NCLR and its affiliates had skyrocketed since President Barack Obama had hired its longtime senior policy analyst, Cecilia Muñoz, to be his director of intergovernmental affairs in 2009. During Muñoz’s first year in the White House, government funds earmarked for La Raza totaled approximately $11 million—far above the $4.1 million figure for the previous year. Fully 60 percent of that $11 million came from the Department of Labor—headed by Hilda Solis, who has close ties to the La Raza movement. Further, in2010 the Department of Housing and Urban Development gave NCLR $2.5 million to fund its housing-counseling program; the Department of Education contributed almost $800,000 to NCLR; and the Centers for Disease Control gave approximately $250,000.

Moreover, NCLR affiliates nationwide collected tens of millions of government grant and recovery dollars in 2010. An NCLR offshoot called Chicanos Por La Causa, for example, saw its federal funding nearly double to $18.3 million following Muñoz’s appointment. Ayuda Inc., which provides immigration law services and guarantees confidentiality to assure illegal aliens that they will not be reported to authorities,took in $600,000 in 2009 and $548,000 in 2010 from the Department of Justice. (The group had not received any federal funding between 2005 and 2008.)

WEBSITE: NCLR

COL. MASON: Right to Reform, Alter or Abolish

Post Navigation

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 8,187 other followers