The Supreme Court’s Birthright Citizenship Ruling: Constitutional or a Supreme Blunder?

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again demonstrated their fallibility and shortsightedness with their recent 6-3 decision regarding “birthright” citizenship just like their infamous 2010 “Citizens United” blunder, which essentially declared that the U.S. government was “for sale”, which has turned our nation from a democratic constitutional republic into a neo-fascist corporatocracy and surveillance state.  

Originally the 14^th Amendment (adopted in 1868) was intended to offer citizenship to all formerly enslaved individuals in order to aid their full  integration into the society. It was never intended to provide legal cover for individuals attempting to sneak in our country in direct violation of both our immigration policies  and defiance of our national sovereignty or allow individuals born elsewhere to evade the steps to become a U.S. citizen while obtaining legal residency via a child born in the U.S., even if the parents are here in violation of our immigration laws.   

There’s no disagreement that a child born on U.S. soil of foreign parents should be entitled to American citizenship. However, should that still apply if the parents are here illegally, in violation of migration laws, and with no other intent than that of securing citizenship for their child in order to remain in the United States themselves? Thus, it appears the Supreme Court got lost among the trees and failed to see the forest much like it did with their 2010 Citizens United blunder.

America, like every other nation, has a strict immigration policy and process for anyone wishing to settle here. It also adheres to international law when it comes to asylum seekers. It’s worth mentioning that economic immigration (ie: finding a job or a better paying job) is NOT accepted as a legitimate reason to seek asylum.  

The United States also has the legal right as a sovereign nation to establish borders and enforce those borders. No different from any other country, including those from where these migrants originate (which, by the way, are far more stringent and brutal than anything we would impose).

The question now is what, if anything, we can do about it? The most obvious answer would be federal judicial term limits (as well as mandatory retirement at age 65). Restricting the amount of time an individual can remain on the Supreme Court would ensure the justices remained relevant not only of the current laws of this land, but also cognizant of the current political, economic, and social trends, as well as the mood of the country.

One justice latter admitted that a major reasons for the passage of Citizens United was their limited knowledge about money in politics.  I submit they may be equally ignorant when it comes to the cost of illegal immigration and the burden it imposes on the average taxpayer.

 As an aside, in case you were wondering, Congress itself conservatively estimates that the cost of illegal immigration in the United States is $183 billion dollars, up 37% since 2017. To put it another way, that’s roughly $8,776.00 per illegal immigrant annually. That’s how much you and I are paying out in tax dollars. The Supreme Court’s ruling just increased that costs that we must bear.

A second option, aside from mandatory term limits,  would be to transfer the costs of illegal immigration from the taxpayers to the responsible parties. Specifically, that means billing their country of origin the cost of absorbing their citizens. Now, I know some of you cynics out there are probably saying that they’ll never pay it, and you’re probably right.

However, to ensure that they do pick of the cost, we need only to deduct the cost from the foreign aid the U.S. State Department sends them annually. Not only does it keep some of our tax dollars at home, it provides a bit of “encouragement” for them to address the issue of illegal immigration from their end.

As an example, Mexico, which is the country of origin for most illegal immigrates, receives about $200 million dollars in foreign aid (remember again, that’s our tax dollars). Of that, $45.5 million goes directly to humanitarian aid which is supposed to address the immigration issue. By offsetting the cost to U.S. taxpayers, we would save that $8,776.00 we spend on each illegal immigrant, we also give them an added incentive to do more to prevent it on their end.

 As an aside, Nicaragua gets about $30 million each year in U.S. foreign aid. Honduras receives bout $200 million of our tax dollars annually in foreign aid  while El Salvador gets $230 million.  That’s a whole lot of money we---the American Taxpayer---could save by offsetting the costs.

Of course, we could impose a fine of the parents and require them to enter into a mandatory citizenship program which also requires that they learn English, and obtain gainful employment though a "Green Card to Citizenship" program, otherwise face deportation. Unfortunately, given today's political climate, this is unlikely to happen.   

Regardless of whether judicial term limits are imposed or we start passing on the cost illegal immigration back on to the country of origin, one thing is for sure. The American Taxpayer can not continue to bear the costs for governmental incompetence. We are not their “cash cow” to use whenever and however they want.

Issues like illegal immigration should be addressed by voters at the ballot box, along with other long term tax matters. Government (as well as both political parties) are supposed to represent us. Instead, it serves Wall Street. It’s past time that we remind them of that. What do you think?

 

The Cost of the Border Crisis Testimony to the House BudgetCommittee…May 8, 2024

Birthright Citizenship

Supreme Court upholds birthright citizenship on Constitutionalgrounds

Justices Reject Trump’s Effort to End Birthright Citizenship

Birthright Citizenship Under the U.S. Constitution

Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and the 14th Amendment: Surprising Facts You Didn't Know

 Everybody knows at least the basics of what Abraham Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation" was about. Once upon a time (before the dumbing down of public education), students everyone in the U.S. had to memorize at least a portion of it. In some schools, all of it, along with the Preamble of the Constitution. and the Gettysburg Address. It was part of the Civics program which went hand-in-hand with our history classes (which have also largely gone by the wayside).

Of course, if you know anything about the proclamation then you should be familiar with the 14th Amendment which was passed by Congress in 1868. Well, I'm going to provide you with some interesting and often overlooked facts about both which you probably didn't know.  I suspect that it may come as a shock for some of you. So, let's start with Lincoln's famous Emancipation Proclamation first.  

Contrary to popular belief, slavery was not the primary or sole reason for the start of the Civil War. However, it was seen as an important issue especially among certain groups, including Quakers, abolitionists, and some evangelical groups. One of the more famous abolitionist was, of course, John Brown, who attempted to spark something of a revolt with his ill-fated raid on a arms depot at Harpers Ferry, Virginia in 1859.

The question of slavery was a serious issue even before the Civil War with a majority of the states wanting to put an end to it, while the South refused, citing its dependence on the use of slaves. During our revolution for independence from the British, it was commonly accepted that without the support of the South the war would be lost (and indeed, the war was ultimately decided in the South), Therefore, the Northern representatives were left with no choice but to except the hated institution...for now.

Shortly after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. the importation of slaves into the U.S. was signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson in 1807 (becoming enforced in 1808) again caused a major riff between the industrialized Northern states and the largely agricultural Southern states. The riff came to a head  by the early 1800's and the United States came very close to ceasing to be.

However, a solution was reached in 1850 known as the "Great Compromise"  dealing with the admission of slave states into the union. It was engineered by Senator John C. Calhoun (D-SC),Senator Henry Clay (Whig-KY), and Senator Daniel Webster (Federalist-MA). Sadly, the "Great Compromise" is often overlooked in most history classes, and while it didn't "save" the nation as such, it did prolong the bloodiest war in U.S. history.

The issue of abolition was an important factor leading up the Civil War, thanks to individuals like Brown, Fredrick Douglas, Harriet Beecher Stowe, and John Quincy Adams, it was never the central cause despite what we're taught in our watered down and often distorted history classes in high school (or sometimes, even in college; all of which are intended to fit into a particular political agenda).

The key issues were more about economics and admission of free vs. slave (these are where slavery comes in), tariffs, and ultimately, the supremacy of the Federal government. This was more than interpretation of the Constitution's 10th Amendment. ("...the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"), it was whether the states or the Federal government would be dominant.

Many Northern senators believed that the Federal government held all power not expressly assigned to the states as mentioned in the Constitution.  Most Southern senators said that the states held all governing powers not expressly given to the Federal government. That issue wouldn't be resolved until the final outcome of the Civil War.

Personally, based on my read of statement in question, and knowing how the Founding Fathers loathed a strong Federal government (and government in general), I tend to side with the South on their interpretation of the amendment, but that's just me. It should be noted that the descendants of most of the Founding Fathers also agreed with the South's position. So, what did Abraham Lincoln think about slavery as an issue and how did this affect his Emancipation Proclamation of 1863?

While campaigning for the presidency, Lincoln repeatedly said that he had no intention of trying to end  or interfere with slavery as an institution. That may come as a surprise to many people, especially those who've been taught to see Lincoln as a second coming of Moses, however, that wasn't the case, at least in the beginning. 

Even after winning the election, Lincoln said in his First Inaugural Address to the nation on March 3, 1861 that the Federal government "held no authority to interfere with the institution of slavery where it already exists". He went on to say that, as president, he wouldn't seek to interfere with any state's right to govern the institution.

That doesn't mean that Lincoln agreed with slavery as an institution ("I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, then nothing is wrong"). His first and primary goal was the preservation of the union. Secondly, he wanted to restrict (if not outright ban) the entry of pro- slave territories into the union as new states. Nevertheless, despite his best efforts, he failed. before he even had begun. The first state to secede was South Carolina in November 1860 following Lincoln's election. Other states soon followed until there were 11 in total, forming the Confederate States of America (CSA).

While all of the states were slaveholding, four states that held slaves didn't secede ---Maryland, Kentucky, Delaware, and Missouri (in anticipation of their leaving, Kentucky and Missouri were given stars on the Confederate flag). As an aside, did you know that several Native American tribes sided with the Confederacy? In 1861 the Cherokee, Chickasaw, Choctaw, Seminole, Muscogee (Creek) all signed agreements of support in exchange of being guaranteed title to territories west of the Mississippi River.

 The War between the States began (officially) on April 12, 1861 with the assault on Ft. Sumter in Charleston Harbor (with South Carolina having seceded in 1860, the fort was viewed as foreign occupiers on their territory). The war was naively expected by both sides to be over in a matter of weeks. Bull Run, Shiloh, and Antietam soon removed the nation from that illusion.

By the time of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, the war had gone worse than expected by the North. Unless something dramatic was done to strategically shift the balance of power, the best outcome that could be expected was a draw.  

As in nearly every conflict down through history, the ability to successfully wage war rests on the economy's ability to sustain the effort. The South's ability to wage war rested on its agriculture. According to the last census before the war in 1860, there were approximately 4 million slaves in the South, making up roughly 30% of its population (compare that to the West Indies where about 85% of the entire population were enslaved).

It should be pointed out that only a few landowning families--mostly large plantations--- owned any slaves. The overwhelming majority of Southerners were too poor to own any slaves at all.  Nevertheless, if, somehow, the South's economy could be disrupted, Lincoln thought, then perhaps the war could be brought to a close.

At this point in late 1862, Lincoln had to accept that despite his promises not to interfere with the institution of slavery, the country was at war with itself,  men were dying daily (the average was 504 per day), and the abolitionists hadn't gone away. If anything, they had grown in number and become a powerful political force. It was time for Lincoln to play his trump card.

On January 1, 1863 Lincoln delivered the "Emancipation Proclamation". It's often overlooked by nearly everybody that the proclamation didn't end slavery in America as claimed. The proclamation freed those enslave only in the states which had seceded from the union and were now a part of the Confederacy ("...that all persons held as slaves within the rebellious states are, and henceforward are free").  But what about the slaveholding states which remained part of the union?

It meant that those slaveholding states which didn't secede, regardless of their sentiment, were excluded from the proclamation. Thus slavery continued in Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, and Missouri until the end of the war (the tribes which sided with the South were unaffected. Native American tribes long held slaves of all races  before, during, and after the war).

The second interesting observation is that despite Lincoln's decree, those states which had legally (at the time) left the union, were now part of a independent and separate nation known as the Confederate States of America with its own president (Jefferson Davis), its own Congress and Constitution, its own legal system and currency. and so forth.

That meant that President Lincoln was attempting to impose a unlawful degree on an defacto independent nation! It would be like a President issuing a decree to Canada or Mexico! The decree therefore had no legal standing, and no doubt Lincoln knew it. But if it could hamper the South's war efforts, it was worth the bluff. and it worked

At first slowly, then in droves as word spread, slaves began to abandon their fields and head north or to the western territories. Even though slavery comprised a small percentage of its population, the effect was cataclysmic for the South. With crops being left to rot in the field and the economy now in turmoil, soldiers began deserting to harvest the crops in order to prevent their families from starving. 

This left the South's military further undermanned. In addition there was diminishing food and supplies reaching  Confederate troops, whose supply lines were overstretched already. It give the North the edge it needed.  By 1865 the war was over and the South lay in ruins. It would be decades before it would recover. In some ways it never has. 

Following the war, the 14th Amendment essentially codified Lincoln's "Emancipation Proclamation",  along with the 13th which formally abolished slavery as an institution, was passed in 1868.  thus ensuring all those previously held as slaves were now fully U.S. citizens with all the rights which go along with it. The 15th amendment, passed in 1869, provided for the right to vote (it, however, excluded all Native Americans).  The trio of amendments prevented (at least on paper) any states from denying equal rights to all those held in slavery. 

The 14th also forbid any former member of the U.S. government who participated with the "rebellion" from public office and denied any and all compensation incurred by the Confederate government, including loans or contracts (as well as slaveholders, meaning they wouldn't be compensated for the loss of their slaves).

As an aside, Confederate soldiers were eventually allowed compensation for service connected injuries and pensions for Confederate widows as early as 1867 by the state whom they served. The Federal government expanded existing military benefits in two Congressional Acts to cover Confederate soldiers and their widows. One in 1927 and the other in 1957, long after many were dead. 

It should be pointed out that 28 of the existing 37 states were needed to ratified the amendment in order for it become law (which they received), but did you know that despite the passage of the 14th Amendment by Congress in 1868, several states didn't ratify it until later (in some cases, much later)? While most states ratified the law in 1868, several notable states held out. The 14th Amendment wasn't ratified by Texas or Mississippi until two years later, in 1870. 

Three of the slaveholding border states which didn't secede  decided to take their sweet time about it.   Delaware ratified it in 1901. Maryland got around to it in 1959 (as did California which had become a state in 1850).  But the "winner" was Kentucky. It waited until March 18, 1976, nearly 108 years later! The fourth slaveholding  border state, Missouri, was the 17th state to ratify the amendment in 1868 along with West Virginia, another slaveholding border state.

Lastly, I think it's important to point out that while the 14th Amendment provided equal rights and protection under the law to all former slaves as well as children born of foreign parents (legal or illegal), Native Americans weren't granted the same rights until 1924. That's 56 years after the passage of the 14th Amendment. 187 years after America's independence.

The  "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924", or the "Snyder Law" as it became known, was signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge (R) on June 2, 1924. It finally gave equal rights and protection under the law to all Native and Alaskan Americans. A sad commentary on "land of the free and home of the brave" don't you think? Never assume your freedoms are necessarily guaranteed or protected by anyone.

 

If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read anotheropinionblog.com. It helps beat the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!

 

National Archives: Emancipation Proclamation

 

The Roles of State and Federal Government

 

Kentucky's Abraham Lincoln

 

14th Amendment: Citizenship Rights, Equal Protection,Apportionment, and Civil War Debt

 

Ratification of Constitutional Amendments

 

There were 4 million enslaved people counted in the 1860census...

 

What Is the Snyder Act of 1921 and who does it apply to?

 

 

 

 

 

Pulling the Trigger: Abortion Post Roe v. Wade

On Friday, June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision which may ultimately prove to be as decisive as the first volley fired at Concord and Lexington in April 1775 or the First Battle of Bull Run in July 1861. The court, by a five to four decision along ideological lines, voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has stood since 1973, giving women the right to end a unwanted pregnancy.  

A majority of Americans, 54% to 28%, regarded the court's decision a mistake equivalent to Citizens United and further demonstrated the folly of lifetime appointments and the disconnect it creates with the American People, technology and society.  In another poll, 70% of the respondents said that a woman's decision to get an abortion should be private matter between a woman and her doctor.

The nearly 50 year old decision was based on the 14th amendment (and to a lesser extension, the 9th amendment which serves as a "catch all" amendment) and was based on the issue of privacy.  These same laws were used to guarantee the rights and citizenship of former slaves because of its "citizenship clause". It  is also cited to justify citizenship for so-called "anchor babies". That is, children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil.   

The 14th amendment was used in the 1954 case of Brown v. Board of Education which dealt with racial discrimination under its Equal Protection Clause, and in 2015, it was used to strike down state laws opposing mixed race and same sex marriages under the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses.

Prior to Roe v. Wade, each state regulated their own abortion laws. Some states were fairly liberal, essentially allowing abortions on demand, while others restricted it to cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother was endangered or if something catastrophic was wrong with the child which would affect its quality of life, while some prohibited it altogether.

In states where there were restrictions, it also meant that those with the financial wherewithal could afford to obtain a relatively safe abortion while the working class and poor were often forced to seek out "back alley" procedures which were typically unsafe and unsanitary (in some cases, women crossed or were smuggled into Mexico for the illegal procedure) and provided nothing for pain.. 

It wasn't unusual  for a woman to be physically injured during the procedure, leaving them with internal injuries, infections like sepsis, sterile, or dead.

Some women purchased certain drugs, which caused violent cramps, bleeding, and vomiting, from questionable sources to end their unwanted pregnancies. These drugs could be just as deadly.  Roe v. Wade was intended to end these procedures and provide safe alternatives.

The decision ending Roe v. Wade, will again put the decision back into the hands of the states in what's known as "trigger laws".  In 26 states (including Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas, and Missouri ), these laws will take effect immediately, while in others there is a waiting period ranging from five to 30 days. In a few states, the laws must be reviewed and amended if necessary before taking effect (it's worth nothing that in some states, their abortion laws date back to the early 1930's).

The ending of Roe v. Wade marks another serious break in the United States, which is already deeply divided. Approximately 2/3 of Americans supported Roe v. Wade. 58% of those polled said they hoped their state would enact more progressive abortion laws, while 51% wanted their state to become a "safe haven" for women seeking an abortion.

Thus, the Supreme Court has now joined Congress and the Presidency in disregarding the opinions of the majority of the American People. Is it any wonder that the Supreme Court has a 25% approval rating?  As an aside, the approval rating of Congress is a dismal 20% (it was a record low of 18% in May 2022) while Biden's is currently just 38% (VP Kamala Harris has a rating of 35%).  

As a result of the Roe decision, the approval rating for the Supreme Court dropped from 40% to 25% among Independents (America's largest political bloc), from 30% to 13% among Democrats, and yet it actually rose among Republicans from 37% to 39%.

It's worth nothing that the court's decision, which many consider to be a women's issue, came down primarily along ideological lines with the five conservative justices (four men and one woman) voting to undo Roe v. Wade while the four liberal justices, which  included two women, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissenting ( it's worth noting that Justice Clarence Thomas is considered the most conservative while Sonia Sotomayor is the most liberal).  

In addition, it should be pointed out that Justice Stephen Breyer was appointed by President Clinton, and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan were appointed by President Obama.  Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the court's majority opinion, and Justice Clarence Thomas were appointed by President George H. W. Bush. Chief Justice John Roberts was appointed by President George W. Bush. President Trump appointed three— Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

Many conservatives, notably among the Far Right, considered this to be a moral, and therefore, a religious issue more so than a ideological one. Their argument was that abortion, regardless of the circumstances to be morally wrong, and thus in conflict with their religious beliefs.

There may be a grain of truth in this. The court consists of six Catholics, one Protestant, and two Jews. The lone Protestant, Trump appointee Neil Gorsuch, was raised Catholic but converted to "Catholic-lite" Episcopalianism. Justice Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent and the most liberal justice, has said that she considers herself more of a "cultural Catholic" than practicing Catholic. 

Nevertheless, the Vatican has stated that any politician or judge who supported abortion, which is banned by Canon Law, could be refused communion or possibly even excommunication. Apparently five of the Catholic justices weren't taking any chances.

The Left, on the other hand, saw Roe v. Wade more of a economic and social issue which provided women with the control over their body and by being a federal law, made abortion legal, affordable, and providing a degree of safety as well as privacy.

Of course, some states, with considerable pressure from conservative Right to Life groups, attempted to hamstring the federal law by requiring a waiting period, mandatory pre-procedure counseling, and viewing images of the fetus before being allowed to proceed with the procedure.  

So, what does this all mean? Since 1973, there has been an estimated 63 million abortions performed in the United States. The National Right to Life Committee has claimed that for every 1000 live births, there are 193 abortions. Yet contrary to popular opinion, most of these were not "on demand" forms of birth control as some have alleged.

The renown Guttmacher Institute conducted an intensive study of why women had abortions found that 74% said having a child at that time would interfere with their work, education, or ability to take of a dependent. 73% cited economic reasons while 48% didn't want to try to raise a child on their own. 4 in 10 said they were done with their childbearing and didn't want any more children while 1/3 admitted that they weren't emotionally ready to have child yet.

With Roe v. Wade becoming law in 1973, the number of adoptions available significantly decreased, especially among middle and upper class white women. Adoptions rose from 91,000 in 1957 to 175,000 by 1970. But by 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade, they had dropped to 130,000 and continued to drop.

In the 1970's, 9% of single women surrendered their children to adoption. By the 1980's, that figure had dropped to 2% of single females giving their children up for adoption, which further dropped to 1% by the 1990's and on.  It's also worth noting that most of the women interviewed stated that it was less emotionally stressful to have an abortion than it was giving up their child for adoption.

Our America of 2022 is not the same America of the 1970's. There will likely be more states willing to allow abortions, at least at some level, than there was the years prior to Roe v. Wade. There are more conception options available, such as the "morning after pill", not to mention dozens of birth control devices and reversible procedures available. If you are going to be sexual active, then you need to take responsibility for your actions and use some form of protection. There's now no longer any excuse not to.

However, it's not really about birth control or even abortions is it? It comes down to who has the final say over one's own body---the individual? The state? Or is it some group attempting to impose its religious and moral values onto others? That, in my opinion, is what the argument has really been about all along.

With the undoing of Roe v. Wade, should there now be an attempt to expand this reversal of privacy and individual choice to include birth control (as some religious groups have promised to do since they believe all forms of birth control are "immoral"), or attempt to apply it to interracial or same sex partnerships and marriages (which some oppose for the same reason), I think you will see the final tear in this nation's fabric.

It's ironic that at the same time, we are seeing efforts by the Left to prohibit or further restrict gun ownership, which also comes down to a matter of privacy, personal choice, and self-protection under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Somehow I can't see conservatives standing by and allowing it to happen, and yet isn't turnabout seen as "fair play"?    

I struggle with abortion for several reasons, least of all depriving a healthy infant the wonders of life (none of those reasons involve religion by the way).  However, I believe there are exceptions, such as rape, incest, the endangerment of the mother's life, or something catastrophic which would seriously impair the child's quality of life. I can't condone late term abortions either unless, again, the mother's life is endangered or the child's quality of life is impacted.

But, to be clear,  I don't believe I or anyone else has the right to tell anyone, especially a stranger whose circumstances I know nothing about or someone of the opposite gender, what they can or can't do with their body, regardless of whether I agree or not (otherwise, it follows that women should be able to require men to get vasectomies for instance). I will, of course, be more than happy to give my opinion should they ask!

 Lastly, I don't believe any individual, group, or religious institution has the right to impose their religious beliefs or ideas of morality onto anyone else, particularly when they are neither married or have children. That's no different than what the Taliban has done in Afghanistan. 

If you want to know more, please take a look at the links below. If you enjoyed the article, please consider passing it along to others and don't forget to subscribe. It's free! Lastly please be sure to "like" us on whatever platform you use to read A/O. It helps with the algorithms and keeps our articles in circulation. Thank you!  

 

 What does overturning Roe v. Wade mean? Supreme Court decision's implications

Confidence in U.S. Supreme Court Sinks to Historic Low

The Religion of the Supreme Court Justices

The political leanings  of the Supreme Court justices

Trigger Law

Guttmacher Institute: Reasons U.S. women have abortions

Why So Many Women Chose Abortions Over Adoptions

New poll finds Americans oppose striking down Roe v. Wade bya 2 to 1 margin

The New England Journal of Medicine: Perilous Politics: Morbidityand Mortality in the Pre-Roe Era

What's the Truth Behind Republican Claims of Supporting Black Civil Rights?

I tend to get a lot of political advertising from all sides. With what I do, it's to be expected. Lately though, I've been receiving one in particular from different groups claiming to be "non partisan", but clearly they are toeing the Republican Party line. Each claim certain historical accomplishments often attributed to the other party, which made me a bit curious, and so I decided to check each of them out. The claims, in various formats, basically read as follows, the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery represented 100% of Republicans supported this while only 23% of Democrats did. The 14th Amendment, which gave citizenship to freed slaves. 94% of Republicans supported this while no Democrats did. The 15th Amendment, which gave the right to vote to all native born had 100% of Republican support and no Democrat. Finally, the Affordable Care Act (aka "Obamacare"), which had no Republican support but did have 86% of Democrat support. The obvious implication here is that while the Democrats usually get the credit, it was the Republicans who actually deserve the kudos. So, let's examine these to see what the truth is.

The 13th Amendment to the US Constitution declared "...neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction", and thus formally ended slavery in the United States, which had previously been enshrined in Article 1 Section 2 of the Constitution, aka the "Three Fifths Compromise" of 1787 (the compromise was to keep Southern States from having too much influence on the presidency). The 13th Amendment was passed by the Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified by the States on December 6, 1865. Many attribute the amendment as a response to Lincoln's 1863 "Emancipation Proclamation" following the Battle at Gettysburg Pennsylvania which, despite popular myth, only freed slaves in the States which had seceded, while leaving slaves held in the Border States and elsewhere in bondage. The proclamation was viewed as illegal since the Confederate States were at independent coalition, and thus Lincoln's edicts held no legal or binding authority. Secondly, the reason for the proclamation was to make the slaves leave the fields and force Confederate troops to leave the front lines and tend to fields in order to prevent mass starvation, especially of their family, friends, neighbors, and yes, even the slaves. But who actually supported it?

There were 183 members of Congress present. It would take 122 "aye" votes for the bill to pass however, eight decided not to vote and abstained. That meant 117 was needed to pass the bill. Of the Republicans present, all of them voted in favor along with 16 Democrats. The final count was 119 to 56; just enough to pass. President Lincoln signed the resolution of February 1, 1865 (he would be assassinated on April 14, 1865. His Vice President, Andrew Johnson, followed him as President). Several states did not ratify the amendment until years later (Kentucky, for instance, was a slave holding border state which didn't ratify the 13th Amendment until March 18, 1976---yes, 1976). So how about the 14th Amendment?

The purpose of the 14th Amendment was to insure that all former slaves were given the right to vote. The law would be passed by Congress on July 9, 1868, during the so-called "Reconstruction Era" which sought to impose economic punishment on the South. Previously, Congress had pass the "Civil Rights Act of 1865" which gave full citizenship to anyone regardless of race, color, previous condition of either slavery or indentured servitude as an effort to incorporate all former slaves into the Union. Mostly moderate Republican encouraged President Johnson to sign the bill, but Johnson vetoed it on March 27, 1866. The reason given for the veto was that freed former slaves weren't accounted for in 11 of the 36 states (these represented former the Confederate States. However, Johnson favored rapid reentry of Southern States back into Union without or without any protective rights being given to former slaves). Nevertheless, three weeks later his veto was overridden and the measure became law. However, the 14th Amendment did not include Native Americans. They wouldn't be given citizenship until the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. Again, not all the States ratified the amendment, but a sufficient number did to ensure passage (eventually most all of the States would pass the amendment with Kentucky being the last with its ratification on March 30, 1976...seriously). The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was enacted prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment on April 9, 1866, also under the Johnson Presidency, in order to insure the rights of all former slaves and those held in bondage were protected.

So, the answer is that yes, the majority of Republicans supported the passage of the 14th Amendment, however, there was a group known as "Radical Republicans", led by Lincoln's Secretary of State, William Seward, Horace Greenly, Thaddeus Stevens, John Fremont, and Ulysses S. Grant. The liberal leaning Radical Republicans were strongly opposed to slavery but were not abolitionists. They led the Reconstruction against the South and were often opposed to the moderate Lincoln Clique and the more conservative Johnson. The Democrats were largely opposed to the 14th amendment, partly because many were Southern sympathizers , and opposed some of the more ambiguous language concerning the nature of the citizenship and equality clauses (we continue to struggle with the language of this and the next, the 15th, amendment. Individuals have often hidden behind the wording and obtained citizenship through the use of "anchor babies").

The 15th Amendment, the last of the so-called "Reconstruction Amendments", was ratified on February 3, 1870. It too sought to convey the right to votes on all citizens despite race, color, or previous conditions of slavery or servitude. With the election of Republican (and leader of the liberal "Radical Republicans") Ulysses S. Grant as President, the GOP had determined that their future was tied to the fate of black voters, who had registered primarily as Republicans by this point while the Democratic Party continued to have deep roots in the "unreconstructed" South and where Democrat legislatures remained opposed to many of the changes imposed on the South through the Republican led "Reconstruction", especially as it related to full black citizenship and voting rights. The 15th Amendment was a compromise between the moderate and liberal Republicans on one side and the more reactionary Democrats on the other regarding issues voting rights. The amendment further banned any restrictions pertaining to race, color, and nature of a person's pervious servitude, but was ultimately adopted on March 30, 1870 (Southern legislatures would, starting around 1890 and continuing through the first decade of the Twentieth Century, begin implementing a series of "hoops" for blacks to jump through such as literacy tests and poll taxes, while poor whites would be often exempted through a "Grandfather Clause" incorporated into the law. Again, while hard numbers appear to difficult to find, it appears that moderate and "Radical" liberal Republicans were the key backers while Democrats mostly opposed the amendment as they had the others.

Moving forward in time over a century and a half, we come to the Affordable Care Act or as it's more commonly known, "Obamacare". There has been previous attempts at providing some form of nationalized healthcare going back decades (even Republican President Eisenhower had discussed it) which had been repeatedly shot down thanks to primarily to hospital, doctor, and insurance lobbyists. While they applied their "advise" and money most liberally, the Republicans were most open to their arguments ( In 1993, the Sunlight Foundation published a report documenting the tight ties between Washington politicians of both parties and the healthcare industry). In 1993, under President Bill Clinton (D), a committee headed up by his wife, Hillary Clinton, attempted to push through passage of a universal healthcare reform bill which was soundly defeated by a Republican House, although Senate Republicans submitted their own version which required individuals, but not employee, to purchase insurance with a fine for non-compliance. A bipartisan compromise bill which protected some transferability of existing healthcare coverage for those who had lost or change their jobs. Under President Obama (D), the proposed law was repeatedly dealt setbacks by leading Republicans. However, in November 2009, the AFA resulted in several "DOA" counter proposals and a filibuster. The Senate voted 69 - 39 to end debate on the bill and to the filibuster. The bill then passed, also 60 - 39, with all Democrats and two Independents voting in favor (Kentucky's Jim Bunning did not vote). It then passed on to the House where it passed by a vote of 220 - 215 with the passing vote being led by Democrats. 34 Democrats votes "Nay" with the rest, 134 votes, being comprised of House Republicans (four Senate members didn't vote). President Obama signs the bill in March 2010 with an effective start date of January 1, 2014.

Republicans opposition to the AFA continued along with others. Unions (such as the Teamsters, AFL/CIO, Unite-Here, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Laborers' International Union of North America) opposed it as well for being "unfair to marketplace competition" . The Tea Party, business and healthcare associations as well as other conservative groups opposed the bill as well (the conservative Heritage Foundation had originally proposed a "Single Payer Plan" which was popular among who opposed the AFA). However in November 2011, in a most unusual measure, 26 States and the National Federation of Independent Businesses brought the matter before the Supreme Court based on arguments that elements of the AFA are unconstitutional. However, the Supreme Court upholds major provisions of the bill (if interpreted and applied as a tax).

So, what do we have here? How accurate is the claim that the Republican Party supported major civil rights legislation over the heads of Democrats, while opposing the Affordable Healthcare Act? Well, based on the information available, it seems to be fairly accurate and generally happened "as advertised". However, there are a few provisos that must be factored in as well. First of all, the so-called Civil Rights Act of 1864, which included the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments all took place during the Civil War and during the Reconstruction Era. The Republican Party was nearly brand new; a coalition of the former Whigs and other third parties. Politically, it consisted of liberal (or "radicals"), moderate/centrists, and conservative members. Lincoln and his clique were moderates. Johnston, who followed Lincoln, was conservative leaning (he later got in trouble with his party as moderate and liberal Republicans as he became the first president to be impeached. He would be acquitted by one vote), and "Radical" Republican U.S. Grant. This is a very different party from today's Republicans who successfully purged all liberal and moderate Republicans (who they sarcastically called "RINOs, "Republicans in Name Only", starting in the 1980's under Ronald Reagan. Today, there's not enough "RINOs" to drown in a teacup (the Democrats, who also purged their moderates, calling theirs "DINOs, Democrats in Name Only) . So, while the overall argument is true, we're comparing cherries to sour grapes (or would you prefer plums to prunes?).

The Republicans who opposed Obamacare (AFA), were more of the modern breed. They ranged from very conservative to hyper conservative/Religious Right. Most of those who opposed Obamacare but supported a Single Payer Plan were among the last of the moderates. Also, the moderate and liberal Republicans of the Lincoln Era, grouped around their party chief, but they also voted for what they believed was best not just for their party, but what was best for the nation. The more modern Republican (and Democrat) parties still tend to support their party boss, and thus vote along partisan lines with little regard to the needs of the country. But just as importantly (perhaps more so), they vote in accordance with wishes of their paymasters---the lobbyists who are employed by corporations. Over time, we've gone from our democratic republic as bequeath to us by our Founding Fathers to a defacto Oligarchy; the elite 1% and their corporate interests. The Republicans or Democrats can pretend (as they do during elections) that they are "arm-in-arm" with ordinary Americans. They aren't. If they are "arm-in-arm, we need to watch our backs for the knife in their hand. The majority of Americans, mostly former moderate Republicans and Democrats, are now registered as Independents and they make up the largest voting bloc in the country, followed by Democrats and lastly, Republicans (within the next 10 years---if not sooner---there will be more Indies than Democrats and Republicans combined).

There you have it. Question authority, always think for yourself, and then speak up and speak out. By the way, I hope to provide you in a upcoming article with information regarding both parties support of more recent bills, such as Women's Suffrage, the right to organize, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts.



The 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/13thamendment.html


The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/ourdocs/14thamendment.html


A Short History of the 14th Amendment
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/multiamerican/2011/01/06/7518/a-short-history-of-the-14th-amendment/


Background of the 15th Amendment
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h415.html


The Affordable Care Act history
http://affordablehealthca.com/history-affordable-care-act/