Skip to main content

View Diary: R's 14th Amendment fight NOT about immigration? (45 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Anybody who doubts what "States' Rights" is ... (10+ / 0-)

    REALLY all about (and always has been) needs only to think about the following:

    Ronald Reagan opened his campaign as the Republican nominee for the Presidency with a speech praising the importance of "states' rights" in, of all places, the hideously misnamed Philadelphia, Mississippi.

    For those who are too young to remember those events, or have blessedly forgotten about them, Philadelphia, Mississippi is the county seat of Neshoba County, Mississippi.  It is where James Chaney, Michael Schwerner, and Andrew Goodman were briefly jailed before being "released" and then brutally murdered with the active involvement of local law enforcement officials.  Before their bodies were found, local officials dismissed their disappearance:

    Neshoba County Sheriff Lawrence A. Rainey said, "They're just hiding and trying to cause a lot of bad publicity for this part of the state." Mississippi governor Paul Johnson dismissed concern by stating that "they could be in Cuba".

    Local officials refused to prosecute anybody for the murders, so they were prosecuted federally for civil rights violations, with the feds getting a mixture of convictions, acquittals and hung juries, even from a Mississippi jury.  Nobody was ever prosecuted for murder by the State of Mississippi until 2005, when there was the conviction of a single defendant on 3 counts of manslaughter.

    THAT'S where Ronald Reagan chose to begin the Republicans' great love affair with "states' rights."  It's about racism, and it's never been about anything other than the most vicious kind of racism.  When Ronald Reagan opened his campaign with THAT speech in THAT place, and when no prominent Republican expressed the utter disgust that I felt, was when I decided that I could no longer be a Republican.

    •  True. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      States' rights is a nonsense phrase anyway.  The constitution makes it abundantly clear that states do not have rights.

      Of course, when it comes to actually defending the prerogatives of states, the conservatives on the Supreme Court rarely show up.

      The question is not whether the chickens needed replacing, the question is whether the fox should have been guarding them in the first place.

      by happymisanthropy on Sun Aug 08, 2010 at 10:45:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site