posted
I can't believe there are people who are against this.
quote: By JAY REEVES, Associated Press Writer
BIRMINGHAM, Ala. - Civil rights activists say racism is behind opposition to a ballot measure that would strike language requiring segregated schools and poll taxes from the Alabama Constitution.
Ousted chief justice Roy Moore and other critics contend the measure is a backdoor attempt to raise taxes for schools. But leaders of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference said Wednesday their claims were a "smoke screen" to hide a racist agenda for political gain.
"It's an attempt to divide blacks and whites by race," said Spiver Gordon, an SCLC board member. "In 2004, it's a disgrace we still have vestiges of segregation in our constitution."
Christian Coalition of Alabama President John Giles denied racism had anything to do with opposition to the measure. Giles said he and other critics are concerned that a section of the proposal could open the door to "judicial activism."
"When you swing that door open there is unlimited opportunity for mischief," Giles said.
The measure passed the state Legislature without a dissenting vote and will be voted on statewide Nov. 2. It would delete unenforced sections of the constitution that mandate racially segregated schools and allow for poll taxes, which were once used to discourage blacks and poor whites from voting.
But the proposal also would strike language that says there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. The section was added in 1956 in a bid to prevent court-ordered integration of the state's public schools.
Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools.
Giles said he supports eliminating racist language from the Constitution, but worries that the section of the amendment dealing with education could lead to more court intervention in schools, even private Christian academies.
"It's a trial lawyer's dream," Giles said.
Gov. Bob Riley said he has had several attorneys look at the measure — although he would not name them publicly — and none saw any substance to the concerns expressed by opponents.
"To say this is a way to raise taxes is wrong," Riley said.
posted
A more accurate title for this thread would be "Some oppose making education a constitutional right." And I think that view is understandable.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"But the proposal also would strike language that says there is no constitutional right to an education at public expense in Alabama. The section was added in 1956 in a bid to prevent court-ordered integration of the state's public schools.
Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools."
What I think is fascinating is that these people are attempting to gloss over existing racist language because to remove it would -- *gasp* -- require that the state start educating its children. God forbid.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know how amendments to the Alabama constitution work. Are they like the U.S. Constitution, where Amendments are just new provisions that supersede any previous ones they contradict? Or do they actually change the text of the Constitution, so that the superseded parts are no longer there.
If it's the latter, I oppose the amendment, simply because I think it's good that we be reminded of our historical sins. That's why I'm glad the 3/5 clause is still there, even though it has no force since the 13th Amendment. We need to be able to face up to the hypocrisy in our past, and having the language be in the document which shapes our government forces us to do that.
All this is premised on the new amendments having no actual effects, given that those provisions of the Alabama constitution no longer have legal force.
If the amendments are new language added to the document, leaving the old language intact, then I favor the amendments as a way for the state to acknowledge that they now espouse these ideals, not just follow them because they have to.
posted
I don't think responding to non-racist critisms of legistlation (like taxes) with an accusation of racism is really a good idea, even if it's true. Respond to the critism (like Tom did ... if bluntly ), don't accuse someone of poor motives.
quote: Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools.
um, so?
-o-
Dag, I will, of course, bow to your greater knowledge, but I seem to recall, from when I was in school, having copies of the constitution that had sections printed but struck through with horizontal lines, because they were superceded or whatever by later ammendments. I would assume that an ammendment to Alabama's constitution would behave the same way. (Unless I am simply mistaken.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But Hobbes, the problem is that in this day and age, virtually nobody says I oppose this because it harkens back to a better time when we knew how to keep n*ggers in their place. People with a racist agenda will find some way of pushing it that is not as overtly racist. But the language that these people worry about removing was placed in there in response to the threat of desegregation, so saying there is some other compelling reason to keep it seems disengenuous.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know there are some states where amendments are something like, "Replace the first sentence in Art. IV, Sec. 3 Clause 2 with X."
Then, when people read the "current" state constitution, they see only the new language. Many state constitutions are amended so often that a marked up version would be impossible to read.
The marked up versions of the U.S. Constitution are basically edited versions mainly intended for students. The official Constitution still has the superseded language in it.
If you look at the language Madison used to introduce the original bill of rights, it was written as a markup. Here's an excerpt:
quote: The amendments which have occurred to me, proper to be recommended by congress to the state legislatures are these:
First. That there be prefixed to the constitution a declaration--That all power is orginally vested in, and consequently derived from the people.
That government is instituted, and ought to be exercised for the benefit of the people; which consists in the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right of acquiring and using property, and generally of pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety.
That the people have an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform or change their government, whenever it be found adverse or inadequate to the purposes of its institution. Secondly. That in article 2st. section 2, clause 3, these words be struck out, to wit, "The number of representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty thousand, but each state shall have at least one representative, and until such enumeration shall be made."[1] And that in place thereof be inserted these words, to wit, "After the first actual enumeration, there shall be one representative for every thirty thousand, until the number amount to after which the proportion shall be so regulated by congress, that the number shall never be less than nor more than but each state shall after the first enumeration, have at least two representatives; and prior thereto." Thirdly. That in article 2st, section 6, clause 1, there be added to the end of the first sentence, these words, to wit, "But no law varying the compensation last ascertained shall operate before the next ensuing election of representatives." Fourthly. That in article 2st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses, to wit, The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience by in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable.
The people shall not be restrained from peaceably assembling and consulting for their common good, nor from applying to the legislature by petitions, or remonstrances for redress of their grievances.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
No person shall be subject, except in cases of impeachment, to more than one punishment, or one trial for the same office; nor shall be compelled to be a witness against himself; nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor be obliged to relinquish his property, where it may be necessary for public use, without a just compensation.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
The rights of the people to be secured in their persons, their houses, their papers, and their other property from all unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated by warrants issued without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, or not particularly describing the places to be searched, or the persons or things to be seized.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, to be informed of the cause and nature of the accusation, to be confronted with his accusers, and the witnesses against him; to have a compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor; and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.
The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution. Fifthly. That in article 2st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2, be inserted this clause, to wit:
No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or the freedom of the press, or the trial by jury in criminal cases. Sixthly. That article 3d, section 2, be annexed to the end of clause 2d, these words to wit: but no appeal to such court shall be allowed where the value in controversy shall not amount to___dollars: nor shall any fact triable by jury, according to the course of common law, be otherwise re-examinable than may consist with the principles of common law. Seventhly. That in article 3d, section 2, the third clause be struck out, and in its place be inserted the classes following, to wit:
The trial of all crimes (except in cases of impeachments, and cases arising in the land or naval forces, or the militia when on actual service in time of war or public danger) shall be by an impartial jury of freeholders of the vicinage, with the requisite of unanimity for conviction, of the right of challenge, and other accustomed requisites; and in all crimes punishable with loss of life or member, presentment or indictment by a grand jury, shall be an essential preliminary, provided that in cases of crimes committed within any county which may be in possession of an enemy, or in which a general insurrection may prevail, the trial may by law be authorised in some other county of the same state, as near as may be to the seat of the offence.
In cases of crimes committed not within any county, the trial may by law be in such county as the laws shall have prescribed. In suits at common law, between man and man, the trial by jury, as one of the best securities to the rights of the people, ought to remain inviolate. Eighthly. That immediately after article 6th, be inserted, as article 7th, the clauses following, to wit:
The powers delegated by this constitution, are appropriated to the departments to which they are respectively distributed: so that the legislative department shall never exercise the powers vested in the executive or judicial; nor the executive exercise the powers vested in the legislative or judicial; nor the judicial exercise the powers vested in the legislative or executive departments.
The powers not delegated by this constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively. Ninthly. That article 7th, be numbered as article 8th.
posted
Then call them disengenuous, but calling someone racists when they objections aren't directly linked to racism seems like a very bad idea. For one, maybe they're not. For two, even if they're just trying some non-racist reason to not like it, doesn't mean that reason is a bad one. And if, as in this case, it is, then argue that point instead of accusing them of motives you can't possibly know they have. What if you honestly believed this was a bad idea, and then the community declared you racist because of it, even if you had totally unrelated reasons for no liking it?
quote: Opponents claim that part of the amendment could lead to higher property taxes by letting courts declare that education is a constitutional right and then order spending increases for underfunded public schools.
God forbid that underfunded schools (that probably have higher Black populations) get increased funding.
Dag, while I agree that we need to be reminded of our past so as not to repeat it, as it stands now segregation is state policy in Alabama. I don't think people need to be reminded of segregation everytime they look at their current edition of the Alabama constitution.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course, if judicial taxation is their concern (and it's not that far-fetched), it would be easy to rectify with a few simple changes to the amendment. Not that that could be done in time before the election.
Which, I suspect, is the point.
quote:Dag, while I agree that we need to be reminded of our past so as not to repeat it, as it stands now segregation is state policy in Alabama. I don't think people need to be reminded of segregation everytime they look at their current edition of the Alabama constitution.
I know - this is strictly an opinion. I don't even have research to back it up. I'd much rather see the state vote on some resolution saying, "We acknowledge our past history of segregation and hereby condemn and repudiate it."
posted
I strongly object to the opponents of this plan being labled racist, when their objections have nothing at all to do with race.
There are plenty of legitimate, concerned citizens who object to this for precisely the reasons given in the article that have absolutely no motivation due to racism.
For the record, I plan to vote for the amendment, I am glad that segregation in our schools is a thing of our past - but it angers me that people are dismissing the concerns of others by conveniently labeling them racists. Take the race out of it - and deal with their objections on its merits. If you don't agree, or feel as Tom has stated, that's fine. But it's insulting to assume they are motivated by race when they have been quite up front about what their actual concerns are.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And, this is not something new that just came up because of the segregation amendment. The Alabama Christian Coalition position statement on education is below:
quote:We believe that education is one of the most important methods for investing in Alabama's future. While public education is important, there are many other valid mediums for educating our children. Competition is good for any market and education is no different. Simply putting more money into the education budget is not the answer to more quality education.
We support school vouchers, tax credits for parents and home schools.
No matter what the amendment had in it, the minute it was construed as possibly giving more government control over school funding, the CCBama would oppose it.
Edit: Wanted to add what they have to say about judicial powers.
quote:We believe that our founders designed our form of government as a republic due to their belief that this form of government provides the greatest individual freedoms and the surest check on governmental power.
We support limited government, a strong separation of powers and strict constructionist judges.
Again, the opposition to this amendment is in keeping with their positions and beliefs.
[ October 22, 2004, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: Belle ]
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Who said anything about home and private schools?
The CCBama is concerned that striking that language could lead to judicial activism, which they oppose, and could lead to more government control over school funding, which they also oppose.
They may be right, they may be wrong, I don't really know. Nor do I care - I am not basing my vote on the amendment on what the CCBama says. But, they have stated why they oppose the amendment, it's a valid reason as they see it, and it's in keeping with their areas of policital activity. Therefore, I think it's very disingenous to label them racists.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why post the position statement on education? Where's the relevance?
And since when do states not have control over educational funding?
-o-
By the way, the word disengenuous means insincere, not candid, dishonest, etc. It does not mean mistaken. Since I am the one who used the word here first, I am interpreting your use of it as a reply to me. Do you seriously mean to claim that I don't really believe that those people are being disengenuous, but I'm only pretending to? Could you elaborate on that?
Or do you merely believe I am wrong. I don't mind being wrong. I often am. But I am not dishonest.
(Or are you merely snipping at me because of your dislike for me?)
-o-
Also note that your post was the very first one on this thread giving serious backing to their position (though as you say, you will vote for the ammendment). And since you posted it, I have not insulted you, but politely asked you for elaboration on specific points.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The fear is twofold, I assume: 1) That the state courts will recognize a state constitutional right to education. 2) The state courts will subsequently raise property taxes in districts where the education being provided does not equal the court's interpretation of that right.
Again, if this is the real fear, and if the people proposing the amendment don't have this as an agenda (I don't think they do), then a wording change could easily fix it for both sides.
Or the opponents could get an amendment ready for next election specifically denying the state courts the power to raise taxes.
Of course, this is assuming the court hasn't already had this power explicitly removed - I know nothing of the Alabama state constitution.
I'm not defending the CCBama, I'm not a member of them and I don't vote based on what they say.
I could care less what you think about their positions.
I simply think it's wrong to call people racists when it's undeserved.
I posted their position on education to show that their general position is toward more local control over education and a support of education choice. Their record shows that they consistently oppose anything that gives more governmental control over education. They lobby for local control and education choice, not big government education.
It's not meant as an attack or a specific reply to you. I don't dislike you - I don't know where you got that? Because I have very divergent views on school funding and teacher salaries than you do? Since when did different opinions on one subject automatically indicate dislike of a person?
I really don't understand your response to me. I'm very confused.
I have one point to make here - only one - I think it's wrong for people, like the SCLC to label all opponents to this amendment racist, simply because they oppose it. They may have very good reasons for opposing it that have nothing to do with race. I think the CCBama has adequately explained why they oppose it and it has nothing to do with race. I'm angry at the SCLC and their like, for their attacks on the people who genuinely oppose the amendment. I'm not angry at you, or any other hatracker, I'm angry at the people in the article that are making these racism charges.
I am, I admit, completely befuzzled at your message to me and your attitude toward me? Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I interpreted your odd usage of the word "disengenuous" as an attempt to throw my own words back at me. Perhaps I was mistaken.
FWIW, I don't think you are aware of my views on school funding in their entirety. Just because I am a public school teacher does not make it safe to assume that I agree with everything the NEA, for instance, says. But increasing funding to underfunded schools does not strike me as a bad thing.
I am confused by how such an increase in funding would take away from parents the right to have their children receive their education from other sources. I am also confused by the thought that this gives the state more control over public education, since it seems to me that the state has all the authority it needs or wants already.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I share your confusion - I don't agree that this amendment is a bad thing.
I hope you understand that I wasn't attacking you or anyone else here - I do wish you weren't so reactionary to my posts, it seems you interpret a hostility in them that is not intended.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The love of competition and the hatred of taxes are the roots of all kinds of evil. Tom summed up my point.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bear in mind that after Brown vs. The Board of Education that Alabama and other deep south states virtually gutted their public school systems in order to prevent their children from having to go to integrated schools.
The upshot of that was that a virtual public schools system was created in the form of private academies that were paid for by what amounts to voluntary school taxes. In some cases public schools were actually closed due to lack of funds, and then sold to private schools for a dollar. So the public schools simply became private schools; same building, same teachers, same people paying the bills, except that instead of calling it "taxes," they called it "voluntary donations."
While a lot has changed since those times, the state of Alabama has inherited this legacy, and they want to keep their public school taxes down so that they can continue to afford to support private schools. This in turn keeps public schools underfunded, and maintains the myth that public education is a failure.
Since these schools don't fall under government guidelines they don't have to provide special education, they aren't prevented from requiring religious participation (Roy Moore is one of the prominent names in opposing the change), they don't have to accept any student that they don't want in their schools. And yes, this means that most black students attend failing (underfunded) public schools, while only those black students that are a "credit to their race" are able to get into the private academies.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
), don't accuse someone of poor motives.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
