Showing posts with label history. Show all posts
Showing posts with label history. Show all posts

Thursday, October 1, 2009

On this day in 1967: Thurgood Marshall, took the oath of office to become the first African American member of the US Supreme Court.

Start:     Oct 2, '09
Location:     Washington, DC
Born the great-grandson of a slave, his original name was Thoroughgood, but he shortened it to Thurgood in second grade because he disliked spelling it. His father, William Marshall, who was a railroad porter, instilled in him an appreciation for the Constitution of the United States and the rule of law.[1] Additionally, as a child in Baltimore, he was punished for his school misbehavior by being forced to write copies of the Constitution, which he later said piqued his interest in the document.

Before becoming a judge, he was a lawyer who was best remembered for his high success rate in arguing before the Supreme Court and for the victory in Brown v. Board of Education. He was nominated to the court by President Lyndon Johnson.

Marshall received his law degree from the Howard University School of Law in 1933 where he graduated first in his class. He then set up a private practice in his hometown of Baltimore. The following year, he began working with the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Baltimore. He won his first major civil rights case, Murray v. Pearson, 169 Md. 478 (1936). This involved the first attempt to chip away at Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial discrimination in public places in the United States. Marshall represented Donald Gaines Murray, a black Amherst College graduate with excellent credentials who had been denied admission to the University of Maryland Law School because of its separate but equal policies. This policy required black students to accept one of three options, attend: Morgan College, the Princess Anne Academy, or out-of-state black institutions. In 1935, Thurgood Marshall argued the case for Murray, showing that neither of the in-state institutions offered a law school and that such schools were entirely unequal to the University of Maryland. Marshall and Houston expected to lose and intended to appeal to the federal courts. However, the Maryland Court of Appeals ruled against the state of Maryland and its Attorney General, who represented the University of Maryland, stating "Compliance with the Constitution cannot be deferred at the will of the state. Whatever system is adopted for legal education now must furnish equality of treatment now". While it was a moral victory, the ruling had no real authority outside the state of Maryland.

Marshall won his very first U.S. Supreme Court case, Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 227 (1940), at the age of 32. That same year, he was appointed Chief Counsel for the NAACP. He argued many other cases before the Supreme Court, most of them successfully, including Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944); Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948); Sweatt v. Painter, 339 U.S. 629 (1950); and McLaurin v. Oklahoma State Regents, 339 U.S. 637 (1950). His most famous case as a lawyer was Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that "separate but equal" public education was unconstitutional because it could never be truly equal. In total, Marshall won 29 out of the 32 cases he argued before the Supreme Court.

President John F. Kennedy appointed Marshall to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in 1961. A group of Democratic Party Senators led by Mississippi's James Eastland held up his confirmation, so he served for the first several months under a recess appointment. Marshall remained on that court until 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him Solicitor General.

On June 13, 1967, President Johnson appointed Marshall to the Supreme Court following the retirement of Justice Tom C. Clark, saying that this was "the right thing to do, the right time to do it, the right man and the right place." Marshall was confirmed as an Associate Justice by a Senate vote of 69-11 on August 31, 1967. He was the 96th person to hold the position, and the first African-American. President Johnson confidently predicted to one biographer, Doris Kearns Goodwin, that a lot of black baby boys would be named "Thurgood" in honor of this choice (in fact, Kearns's research of birth records in New York and Boston indicates that Johnson's prophecy did not come true).

Marshall served on the Court for the next twenty-four years, compiling a liberal record that included strong support for Constitutional protection of individual rights, especially the rights of criminal suspects against the government. His most frequent ally on the Court (indeed, the pair rarely voted at odds) was Justice William Brennan, who consistently joined him in supporting abortion rights and opposing the death penalty. Brennan and Marshall concluded in Furman v. Georgia that the death penalty was, in all circumstances, unconstitutional, and never accepted the legitimacy of Gregg v. Georgia, which ruled four years later that the death penalty was constitutional in some circumstances. Thereafter, Brennan or Marshall dissented from every denial of certiorari in a capital case and from every decision upholding a sentence of death. In 1987, Marshall gave a controversial speech on the occasion of the bicentennial celebrations of the Constitution of the United States. Marshall stated,
"the government they devised was defective from the start, requiring several amendments, a civil war, and major social transformations to attain the system of constitutional government and its respect for the freedoms and individual rights, we hold as fundamental today."

In conclusion Marshall stated: "Some may more quietly commemorate the suffering, struggle, and sacrifice that has triumphed over much of what was wrong with the original document, and observe the anniversary with hopes not realized and promises not fulfilled. I plan to celebrate the bicentennial of the Constitution as a living document, including the Bill of Rights and the other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights."

Although he is best remembered for his jurisprudence in the fields of civil rights and criminal procedure, Marshall made significant contributions to other areas of the law as well. In Teamsters v. Terry he held that the Seventh Amendment entitled the plaintiff to a jury trial in a suit against a labor union for breach of duty of fair representation. In TSC Industries, Inc. v. Northway, Inc. he articulated a formulation for the standard of materiality in United States securities law that is still applied and used today. In Cottage Savings Association v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, he weighed in on the income tax consequences of the Savings and Loan crisis, permitting a savings and loan association to deduct a loss from an exchange of mortgage participation interests. In Personnel Administrator MA v. Feeney, Marshall wrote a dissent saying that a law that gave hiring preference to veterans over non-veterans was unconstitutional because of its inequitable impact on women.

He retired from the Supreme Court in 1991, and was reportedly unhappy that it would fall to President George H. W. Bush to name his replacement.

Thursday, September 17, 2009

The Wrong Side of History

The all-white crowd gathered round, seething with anger about change, which they felt was being shoved down their throats.

Some pumped demoralizing signs into the air, others shouted down anybody they didn’t feel were on their side. It didn’t take long for the name-calling and insults to commence.

“Somebody started yelling. Lynch her! Lynch her! I tried to see a friendly face somewhere in the crowd — someone who maybe could help. I looked into the face of an old woman and it seemed a kind face, but when I looked at her again, she spat on me.”

These are the words of Elizabeth Eckford. She is not talking about town hall protesters or tea baggers. Eckford, one of nine black students to integrate Central High School in Little Rock, Ark., was recalling how hundreds of white protesters — with backing from powerful politicians — tried to block her and eight other children from entering a public school in 1957.

They became known as the Little Rock Nine.

Protesters faced by the nine youths repeatedly warned that if blacks were allowed into “their schools” (much like the “their country” sentiment currently being echoed) it would harm their children.

It is ironic that thousands of angry, mostly white protesters converged on Washington last weekend at the same time I happened to be reading Cooper v. Aaron, a 1958 Supreme Court case stemming from the Little Rock Nine. The case is about Arkansas Democratic Gov. Orval Faubus and his refusal to obey federal orders to integrate the state’s schools. His defiance caused Republican President Dwight Eisenhower to send in federal troops to force Faubus to follow the law.

Chaos erupted. Vitriol and rowdy demonstrations spread not only throughout Arkansas, but across the country.

The nation was so polarized that it was nearly impossible for most people to foresee what many now take for granted: Integration would benefit the whole country, not just a particular demographic group.

We also now know that those screaming protesters were on the wrong side of history.

Some may ask what the Little Rock Nine story has to do with the current health care debate, especially when the apparent villain in the case was a Democrat and the hero, a Republican.

Here’s a clue: This column is not really about race. It’s about the way history repeats itself, and about our place in it.

Faubus’ opposition to allow black children to integrate Arkansas schools was politically motivated: He risked losing political support if he sanctioned integration, even though it was the right thing to do. Just like Republicans now risk losing political support if they show agreement with President Obama’s health care ideas — or any of his ideas, for that matter.


Click here to continue.

Friday, September 4, 2009

Goldwater lost THIS fight...

I'm no Goldwater fan -- not by a long shot. But in the 60's, Goldwater and a few Republicans had the cojones to denounce the lunatic fringe in the fevered swamps of the Right. Today, as far as I can tell, the Republican National Committee works with them.

What would Goldwater say today?


"... on religious issues there can be little or no compromise. There is no position on which people are so immovable as their religious beliefs. There is no more powerful ally one can claim in a debate than Jesus Christ, or God, or Allah, or whatever one calls this supreme being. But like any powerful weapon, the use of God's name on one's behalf should be used sparingly. The religious factions that are growing throughout our land are not using their religious clout with wisdom. They are trying to force government leaders into following their position 100 percent. If you disagree with these religious groups on a particular moral issue, they complain, they threaten you with a loss of money or votes or both. I'm frankly sick and tired of the political preachers across this country telling me as a citizen that if I want to be a moral person, I must believe in 'A,' 'B,' 'C,' and 'D.'

Just who do they think they are? And from where do they presume to claim the right to dictate their moral beliefs to me? And I am even more angry as a legislator who must endure the threats of every religious group who thinks it has some God-granted right to control my vote on every roll call in the Senate. I am warning them today: I will fight them every step of the way if they try to dictate their moral convictions to all Americans in the name of 'conservatism.' "

Source: Congressional Record, September 16, 1981

Friday, August 28, 2009

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude

Rating:★★★★★
Category:Books
Genre: Nonfiction
Author:ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE,
Discourse on Voluntary Servitude
The Discours sur la servitude volontaire
of
ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE,
1548
Rendered into English by
HARRY KURZ

[Published under the title
ANTI-DICTATOR]

New York: COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS: 1942.

DEDICATION

COPYRIGHT 1942
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY PRESS, NEW YORK
First printing, January, 1942
Second printing, June, 1942
[Copyright not renewed, so now in public domain.]

Foreign agents:
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, Humphrey Milford, Amen House, London, E.G. 4, England,
AND B. I. Building, Nicol Road, Bombay, India

http://www.constitution.org/la_boetie/serv_vol.htm

The Central question is; why do people consent to their own enslavement?
To overcome tyranny and oppression all one must do is withdraw consent and support.
The most important insights gathered from the text are humans are free by nature.
It is also true "in the beginning men submit under constraint and by force; but those who come later obey willingly and without regret". Custom then becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude.
I've found the text heroic in nature and insightful especially for a Black man here in the wilderness of north america

Friday, August 21, 2009

On this day in 1914: Japan declares war on Germany in World War I

Start:     Aug 23, '09
Location:     Europe
World War I, also known as the First World War, the Great War, and the War to End All Wars, was a global military conflict that embroiled most of the world's great powers, assembled in two opposing alliances: the Triple Entente and the Triple Alliance. More than 70 million military personnel were mobilized in one of the largest wars in history. The main combatants descended into a state of total war, pumping their entire scientific and industrial capabilities into the war effort. More than 15 million people were killed, making it one of the deadliest conflicts in history.

The immediate or proximate cause of war was the assassination on June 28, 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, by Gavrilo Princip, a Serbian nationalist. Austria–Hungary's resulting demands against the Kingdom of Serbia activated a sequence of alliances. Within weeks the major European powers were at war; their global empires meant that the conflict soon spread worldwide.

By the war's end, four major imperial powers—the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman Empires—had been militarily and politically defeated, with the last two ceasing to exist as autonomous entities.The revolutionized Soviet Union emerged from the Russian Empire, while the map of central Europe was completely redrawn into numerous smaller states. The League of Nations was formed in the hope of preventing another such conflict. The European nationalism spawned by the war, the repercussions of Germany's defeat, and the Treaty of Versailles would eventually lead to the beginning of World War II in 1939.

A multimedia history of World War I: http://www.firstworldwar.com/

Thursday, August 20, 2009

On this day in 1968: Marine James Anderson, Jr. is 1st black Medal of Honor winner

Start:     Aug 21, '09
Private First Class Anderson's company was advancing in dense jungle northwest of Cam Lo in an effort to extract a heavily besieged reconnaissance patrol. Private First Class Anderson's platoon was the lead element and had advanced only about 200 meters when they were brought under extremely intense enemy small-arms and automatic weapons fire. The platoon reacted swiftly, getting on line as best they could in the thick terrain, and began returning fire. Private First Class Anderson found himself tightly bunched together with the other members of the platoon only 20 meters from the enemy positions. As the fire fight continued several of the men were wounded by the deadly enemy assault. Suddenly, an enemy grenade landed in the midst of the Marines and rolled alongside Private First Class Anderson's head. Unhesitatingly and with complete disregard for his personal safety, he reached out, grasped the grenade, pulled it to his chest and curled around it as it went off. Although several Marines received shrapnel from the grenade, his body absorbed the major force of the explosion. In this singularly heroic act, Private First Class Anderson saved his comrades from serious injury and possible death.

Tuesday, August 18, 2009

Obama ≠ Marxist

Hey! Did you hear what President Barack Obama is doing now?

 

You didn’t hear this from me, but President Obama is negotiating another big giveaway of taxpayer dollars, this time to the health care and pharmaceutical industries as part of his health care bill. I shit you not!

 

Evidently, these new dollars are following after a lot of old dollars which the President already gave away to some banks, and then to some companies that make insurance, and then to some other companies that make cars. 

 

I have to admit, I get a little bit mad when I hear this stuff, because I’m a taxpayer, and I was planning to use some of those dollars to buy beer.

 

So I watched my television. I listened to my radio. The people there, they knew just what to call President Barack Obama.

 

001
 

Wait… what? Marxist?

 

As the great Inigo Montoya once said: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

 

As much as I hate to do this, I think it might be time for a little review. Try and follow along with me:

 

002
 

“Marxism” is a word that comes from the name “Karl Marx.”

 

Karl was a very hairy European dude who lived a long, long time ago. Karl saw the world in black and white. He divided everybody up into two (2) groups:

 

009

 

The people on the left, in the chains? That’s the Proletariat. These are the good guys. People like you and like me. Karl said we’re the ones who do all the real work.

 

The people on the right, with the bags of money, are the Bourgeoisie. They are the bad guys. People like your boss’ boss’ boss. There’s only a few of them, but they make the Proletariat do all the work, and then they take all the money.

 

Karl says this is what happens in an industrial capitalist society. He meant us.

 

Karl said this. Not me. But a Marxist would still believe that today.

 

So get this: Karl wanted to take money from the Bourgeoisie and give it to the Proletariat (now with money, on left).  

 

004

 

See the arrows?

 

Then he would send the Bourgeoisie (in flames, on right) to Hell. (I’m paraphrasing.)

 

Now that is Marxism! Marxists want this stuff.

 

Recently, our industrial capitalist society was popping along as usual when – suddenly and without warning – the Bourgeoisie lost all their money. It just disappeared one day. No one was quite sure where it had gone.

 

005

 

But then Barack Obama came along. He took money from the Proletariat (on left) and gave it to the corporate Bourgeoisie (still on right, with money) to make up for the money they’d misplaced.

 

003
 

As you can see, this is not Marxism. Look at the arrows, Barack! They’re going the wrong way, stupid!

 

This is bass-ackwards from Marxism.

 

A real Marxist would HATE this!

 

I know what you’re thinking: But if Barack Obama is not a Marxist, then what the hell is he?

 

007

 

What do you call a system where most of the common folk work their fingers to the bone all day long and then have to hand over the fruit of their labors to a bunch of rich corporate dudes sitting around in castles?

 

Well?

 

There’s gotta be a name for it:

 

feud