Letter to Political Science Professor David T. Canon on Constitutional Law

Table of Contents

1. Introduction

2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force

3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats

5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers

6. Post-Script

Content

1. Introduction

      The following is an edited version comprised of excerpts from three e-mails which I sent to Professor David T. Canon, who teaches political science at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, and taught me some time between 2005 and 2009.
     The e-mails were sent on January 21st, 2021.

     My conversation with Professor Canon began when I sent him the following infographic, which I published several weeks ago, on January 3rd, 2021.

     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

     I suggested that the infographic could serve as a valuable teaching tool for his political science students, when it comes to learning different viewpoints regarding Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the United States. This is the section of the Constitution which outlines the powers of Congress.

     Professor Canon told me that if my interpretation of the Constitution were taken seriously, then the U.S. Air Force, laws allowing police to tap terrorists' phones or track them on the internet, and First Amendment protections for broadcast media and internet publications, would not be allowed to exist.
     Canon also said that the U.S. would be unable to compete and deal with the modern world, if the Constitution were not written in order to be interpreted broadly - and evolve with time - instead of narrowly.
     Canon also made reference to the Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland - which established the constitutionality of the First National Bank - as a precedent recognizing the legitimacy of applying the Necessary and Proper Clause to create new departments which may not have been specifically authorized in Article I Section 8.

     I wrote the following responses, to explain my own view of how the Constitution should be interpreted with regard to the duly delegated powers of Congress. In these three e-mails to Professor Canon, I aimed to articulate a view of constitutional interpretation which combines left-wing and right-wing views.
     I believe that the best way forward, to achieve needed reforms to the body of federal law (the U.S. Code), is to pursue constitutional amendments that will achieve reforms by enshrining them in the Constitution permanently.
     This strategy would be used in place of: 1) temporary measures, 2) Band-Aid solutions, 3) executive orders, 4) presidential signing statements, 5) parliamentary procedures which eliminate the need for supermajorities unfairly, 6) overuse of presidential authority to reorganize the executive branch, 7) inappropriate congressional delegation of powers to the president or to independent or private agencies, and 8) other questionably constitutional ways to pass laws.
     I support adopting the structure and rhetoric of the originalist interpretation of the Constitution, and using it to advance the legal goals which are held by the progressives and the Left. That is, only those which do not conflict with a libertarian interpretation of the traditional originalist viewpoint; i.e., one which strongly values individual civil liberties, freedom of expression, and due process.

     The first segment of text below, consists of the text from the first two e-mails. Excerpts from the second e-mail have been attached to the first e-mail, and are seen in [brackets].

     The second segment of text consists of the third e-mail. That e-mail was written after reviewing the facts of McCulloch v. Maryland.

     The section headings were not included in the original e-mails.

2. First and Second E-Mail, Part 1: On the First and Fourth Amendments, Technology, Security, and the Air Force

     I do not believe that Congress's powers preclude an air force. Nor do I believe that changing technology necessitates new laws or new powers, or means that old powers need to be updated or expanded.

     It is easily justifiable to have an Air Force, or even a Space Force, because Article I Section 8 specifically calls for providing for the common defense.

     My view is that the Necessary and Proper Clause do not give Congress its current powers. The mainstream view today is that Congress can basically give itself whichever powers it deems necessary and proper for promoting the public welfare. My view is that Congress has only those powers which the people grant it, which are necessary and proper in regards to pursuing the ends specifically enumerated in Article I Section 8.

     The fact that an Air Force isn't mentioned there, doesn't mean that the common defense clause doesn't cover airborne military operations.

     The fact that terrorists use the internet or the phone, doesn't mean that the Constitution prevents police from getting a warrant from a judge which specifically allows them to get phone records or internet records. [Parts of the Patriot Act may have been appropriate, due to new technologies, but only if they did not violate due process protections. And the Department of Homeland Security could have been much more easily justifiable as Constitutional if its powers had been exercised by the Department of Defense, or the Department of Justice, which existed since the 1790s.]

     The fact that terrorism laws needed to be updated, justified a small percentage of what the Patriot Act accomplished. But by and large, the need to update those laws, was used to [justify] overturn[ing] Habeas Corpus [and ignoring the due process rights of people accused of terrorism].

     You're correct that the Constitution doesn't allow police to tap phones. But that's a good thing, and the limitations imposed by the Constitution should have prevented wiretapping. The fact that technology is changing, doesn't mean we should validate the Patriot Act, and give up struggling against the treasonous Alien and Sedition Act, which has more or less created a free speech chilling effect upon the expression of political speech, and upon activism and protect.

3. First and Second E-Mail, Part 2: Elastic Clause and Commerce Clause Interpreted Overly Broadly

     I understand the view that our society would be held back, in some sense, but I don't buy it. The voting booth is not a time machine. I do believe that several constitutional amendments are needed, but based on my reading of history, constitutional amendments have not been the major reason why the federal government has expanded.

     You're correct that the Commerce Clause, and the Necessary and Proper Clause – and also the General Welfare Clause – have been broadly interpreted, and that that's one of the causes. Another is Congress handing its constitutional powers over to the president without cause (as in the power to make war). Another is the reorganization authority of the president. This power to reorganize executive departments, has been interpreted to allow the president to “reorganize” entire sectors of the economy into-under his control, after Congress has assumed it has powers it doesn't have, and hands it over to the president. [The presidential power to reorganize cabinets is not supposed to extend to powers which he did not already have. But it has been used that way.] And as long as the Supreme Court doesn't stop them, this keeps going.

     As I explained in the infographic, the military powers justify occupying lands essential to defense. Occupying land justifies managing it, and farming on it. Farming on land justifies regulating food and agriculture, establishing an F.D.A., and regulating environment and energy at the federal level.

     So I'm actually saying that there is a constitutional rationale for federal departments not originally prescribed by the Constitution. I'm just saying that Democrats aren't currently using the best argument for growing the government. That's why the E.P.A. is toothless.

     That's why I'm suggesting that people study Article I Section 8, and the views I've expressed in this letter. I think we should be expanding the Unenumerated Rights protected by the 9^th Amendment, instead of the Unenumerated Powers of Congress (which arguably don't exist). I think this will lead to more successful, and more permanent, legislation, as opposed to the temporary fixes and Band-Aid half-solutions.

     Teaching people how to interpret the Constitution for themselves, would be a lot more effective than teaching people that the Constitution is an outdated document. It's true that the Constitution does leave slavery in place, because of the 13^th Amendment, but that amendment can itself be amended. There hasn't been a new amendment in 29 years. It's time we not only amend the Constitution, but also teach people how to amend it (a process which has historically taken as short as 6 months). If people had been less afraid of the Constitution, maybe the 13^th Amendment would have been fixed by now.

     Until Article I Section 8 is amended - in a way that specifically authorizes the Congress to exercise sole authority on the issues of environment, energy, health, retirement, welfare, and education; and in a way that the states cannot intervene with federal regulations – I predict that the E.P.A. and H.H.S. will remain largely powerless whenever there is a Republican president, and that Social Security will remain unstable.

4. First and Second E-Mail, Part 3: Advice for Democrats

     These programs and departments are financially unstable because they are founded on ground which is not constitutionally firm. It is not the Republicans which have prevented Democrats from having the federal government do what they want, but rather, it is the Constitution which has established these limitations.

     Until Democrats learn to be proficient in constitutional interpretation, I predict that the E.P.A. will remain toothless, environmental laws and health insurance programs will be easy to overturn, the Democrats will continue to waste years and trillions of dollars on programs that presidents can easily ignore, and governors and the Supreme Court will continue to veto and reject unconstitutional new uses of power by the Congress.

     The time for Democrats to scream like babies in the congressional chamber, demanding that a vote be taken which they are not allowed to take (i.e., regulating gun control, therein violating the limits set by the Second Amendment) is over.

     Democrats need to understand how Congress's powers are granted – and understand different views about where its authority comes from - and they need to use better justifications for empowering the Congress to take action. I assure you, there is a way to do that.

     Until that happens, the Democratic Party will be giving the impression, to young legislators and activists, that if they want the federal government to have a new power, all they need to do is beg really, really hard for the Congress to start doing it. Instead of citing, in the bill, specifically, where in Article I Section 8 the authority comes from, for Congress to do it.

     The Necessary and Proper Clause / Elastic Clause, the General Welfare Clause, and the Commerce Clause, are not sufficient to justify the current set of powers currently wielded by the federal government. They have all been interpreted in too broad a manner, while the definitions of the terms “regulate” and “welfare” have been widely debated.

     If Congress has these powers, then what are the powers of the state governments? Solely to hire police, in order to enforce the uniform federal law which Congress hands down? Are there no issues, or sectors of the economy, which the states have sole or exclusive authority to regulate?

     I was under the impression that all powers not expressly delegated to the Congress are reserved to the states or to the people (10^th Amendment), and that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution shall not be construed to deny or disparage the rights retained by the people (9^th Amendment). The idea that the federal government can legislate upon any and all things that are mentioned - or even barely referenced in passing - in the Constitution, then we destroy what the 9th Amendment was supposed to protect.

      The fact that the federal government has the authority to "establish Post Roads" does not mean that it has the authority to build and maintain a National Highway System. Establishing post roads is different from building them. Just like the exclusive federal authority to establish a uniform set of rules regarding naturalization, does not mean that the federal government has to enforce those rules. Or establish I.C.E. for those purposes. And it doesn't mean that the federal government gets to regulate immigration however it pleases. The states still retain some authority. If liberals weren't afraid of the Constitution, one of them would have thought of this by now. By now, sanctuary states and sanctuary cities could have been obviously constitutional, and independent so that the federal government doesn't fund them. But we don't have that because we insist on preserving monarchical, tyrannical levels of executive power in the presidency, and corrupt misinterpretations of the Constitution by Congress.

     If we go on thinking that the federal government can do whatever it wants, then we should expect someone to be elected every 4 or 8 years who promises to either dismantle these unconstitutional programs, or else use them for evil. Perhaps it is best that they be dismantled peacefully, before they can be used for evil, or left powerless, by a future administration.

     If you disagree with me, then I will run into the congressional chamber - like a progressive legislator, or a right-wing gun nut - and scream to the federal government, until they grant themselves a new power to take away your coffee mug, and give it to me. With the rationale that it vaguely (generally) promotes my well-being, so it qualifies as general welfare. That was a joke, but this is what liberals think the General Welfare Clause actually means. They don't care that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause, and Due Process, would stop me from taking your coffee mug, for doing nothing but disagreeing with me. They only know that those limitations were imposed by slave owners, therefore government should be able to steal from anyone it pleases and give it to anyone else! And that is why we have both social welfare and corporate welfare.

     This shit has got to stop. If you don't want people running into Congress screaming with guns, then we will have idiot Democratic legislators screaming for new authorities to take the people's rights away. We need a more robust and comprehensive teaching and debate concerning Article I Section 8.

     I hope I have expressed at least one thought here, which is not typical of the "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution. I believe that natural rights, human rights, and civil liberties would be viewed as one and the same, if we fully understood and adopted the sentiment contained within the 9th Amendment.

5. Third E-Mail: McCulloch v. Maryland and Congressional Banking Powers

     The Supreme Court was correct to establish that agencies which are necessary and proper to create, because of the powers enumerated in Article I Section 8, are constitutional. I do not dispute that.

     But it could be argued that the First National Bank was not authorized by Article I Section 8 in the first place, because a central bank would not have been necessary to exercise all the banking powers listed therein.

     The banking powers delegated to Congress consist of:

     - the authority to coin and issue currency (done by mints)
     - the authority to regulate bankruptcies (done by Congress)
     - the authority to lay and collect taxes, (done by Congress & the I.R.S.)
     - the authority to borrow money "on the credit of the United States".

     A bank is arguably not "necessary and proper" to put into effect those four powers. Borrowing money on the credit of "the United States" might even refer to Congress itself.

     That might not make sense. But there are only a few entities which could be saddled with public debt: 1) Congress, 2) the Treasury Dep[artmen]t, or 3) the people. And it is popularly said and taught that the people do not directly own the public debt.

     But then again, Congress may not own the debt, because congressional oaths of office are not taken in writing, which calls into question whether congressmen have any financial obligation to support the Constitution or represent their constituents.

     Additionally, the fact that the Congress has the power to do something, does not necessarily mean that it should. We have a national bank, not to pay our bills, but to manage being in debt. The fact that Congress has authority to borrow money on the credit of the United States, does not necessarily mean that the Congress should exercise that authority. Can does not equal should.

6. Post-Script

     Please see the following articles, which I wrote, to learn more about how I believe Article I Section 8 of the Constitution should be interpreted:

     - "How to Easily and Permanently Memorize the Enumerated Powers of Congress" (February 2020)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/02/how-to-easily-and-permanently-memorize.html

     - "What is Congress Allowed to Do and What is it Not Allowed to Do (Without an Amendment)?" (January 2021)
     http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2021/01/what-is-congress-allowed-to-do-and-what.html

E-Mails Written on January 21st, 2021

Introduction Written on January 22nd, 2021

Published on January 22nd, 2021

Questions About Race Relations and Racial Politics in America (and a Few Answers)

Table of Contents

I. Introduction

II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)
III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"
IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)
V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party
VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"
VII. Native American Issues
VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration

I. Introduction

     The following 28 sets of questions were written as part of the planning stages of my appearance on  an episode of a public access television show based in Highland Park, Illinois. The topics of that episode are race in America and political correctness.

     I believe that these questions are the most important and relevant questions that need to be asked, in order to produce a thorough discussion of race relations.

     I did not answer all of the questions that follow (I refrained from answering questions #7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14-19, 22-26, and 28). However, my readers should be able to discern my opinion from the way I worded most of those questions.

     In case it's necessary to explain my positions any further, I support political correctness and safe spaces, but only when they don't interfere with the right to free expression and the right to debate what the truth is. And I do believe that Donald Trump is a white supremacist and a racist, and I have criticized (and will continue to criticize) the Trump Administration's immigration policies as reminiscent of the Nazi regime that governed Germany during World War II and the Holocaust.

     Along with many of these sets of questions, I have included links to news articles, so that the reader can learn more about the original context of the news about American racial politics to which I am referring.

II. Definitions of Racism, Prejudice, Discrimination, Stereotypes (etc.)

     1. What is the definition of “racism”? What is the definition of “racial supremacy”?

     Answer: Racism is “Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race, based on the belief that one's own race is superior.” Additionally, the term “racism” is often used as shorthand (or a synonym) for “racial supremacy” and “the belief in, or promotion of, racial stereotypes”.

     Racial supremacy, in particular, is “the racist belief that one's race is superior to others, and that therefore that race should dominate, subjugate, or control other races, or the belief that the superior race is entitled to do so.”

     2. Is the term “racist” being overused? Does calling everything “racist” diminish the seriousness of racial hatred? Why has this term become so popular recently?

     Answer: Because many people lump racial prejudice, racial supremacy / racial superiority, racial stereotyping, and racial discrimination in with racism, and refer to all of those things (as well as making insensitive jokes about race) as “racist” actions.

     The term “racism” has thus become a convenient descriptor for any and all actions which could be described as racially insensitive. The popularity of the word's use in recent years, could owe in part to the fact that the word now refers to a wider and less specific set of arguably racist actions and statements than it used to.

     On the other hand, those who feel that it is appropriate to call a lot of people and things “racist”, do so because they believe that racism is now practiced mostly covertly, as opposed to overtly. The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s-60s featured obvious, public, out-in-the-open discrimination against, and segregation of, African-Americans; not just in private and on business properties, but by the government itself. Some of those who consider racism a serious problem, believe that racism has become harder to detect, and some even believe that we are being subconsciously programmed to support white supremacy, by sectors of our society such as government and advertising.

     3. What is the definition of “racial prejudices”?

     Answer: “Preconceived opinions about race, which are not based on reason or actual experience.”

     4. What is the definition of “racial discrimination”?

     Answer: “Preferential treatment on the basis of race.”

     5. What is the definition of a “racial stereotype”?

     Answer: “A widely held, but fixed and oversimplified, image or idea, of a particular race of people.”

     6. What is the difference between a positive stereotype and a negative stereotype?

     Answer: A negative stereotype is deliberately intended to be hurtful, while a positive stereotype is usually intended as a joke and is usually not intended to offend anyone.

     However, positive stereotypes can still be hurtful, such as the positive stereotypes that “Jewish people are good with money” and “all Asians are good at math”. These ideas are stereotypes about positive traits, but they are still generalizations, so they are still harmful because they contribute to the belief that all members of a certain group are the same.

III. Hispanic-American Issues, Immigration, and "Where Are You From?"

     7. Is it insensitive to refer to Hispanics as “Mexicans”, or as “Spanish people”? Should we be careful about using the term “Mexican” and “Spanish” to describe Latino, Hispanic, or Chicano people who might not even be from Mexico or Spain to begin with?

     8. Former Trump campaign manager Kellyanne Conway was recently criticized for asking reporter Andrew Feinberg “What's your ethnicity?” in response to his asking her to explain Trump's tweet telling four congresswomen to “go back” to their districts. The reporter replied that he was American, but Conway kept asking, because she wanted to know where the reporter's parents were from.

     Was it racially insensitive of Donald Trump to suggest that his critics in Congress “originally came from countries whose governments are a complete and total catastrophe”, when three out of the four people he was criticizing were born in the United States, rather than abroad?

     Is it racially insensitive to suggest that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is “from Puerto Rico” just because her parents are Puerto Rican; and that Rashida Tlaib is “from Palestine” just because her parents are Palestinian? Wouldn't that imply that Ayanna Pressly is every bit as much “from Africa” as Ilhan Omar is? What about a Jewish-American person who was born in America, but has never been to Israel? Where is that person “from”, if not America or Israel?

     Is it racially insensitive to ask someone where their family is from; to keep asking where someone is “from” until they tell you about an ancestor that wasn't born in America? Is it reasonable for someone to be upset or offended by being asked such a question?

Sources:

Kellyanne Conway asks reporter “What is your ethnicity?”:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/conway-reporter-ethnicity-trump

IV. Political Correctness (incl. P.C. Language on College Campuses)

      9. What is the definition of “politically correct”?

     Answer: “Conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities, should be eliminated.”

     10. Some Americans feel that the culture of political correctness has gone too far. Critics of “P.C. language” (politically correct language) say that it causes people to be too cautious about the words they use. They say that worrying about avoiding offending people could make us afraid to speak the truth, and might even cause a “free speech chilling effect”.

     Do you believe that using “politically correct language” is a good way to help promote respectful dialogue about race in America? Or do you believe that P.C. language has gone too far? (And if you think it has gone too far, what are some examples of it going too far, that you object to?)

     11. The conversation about political correctness extends to not only race and ethnicity and nationality, but also to religion, biological sex, and gender identity. Thus, the treatment of transgender individuals, as well as of non-whites, has become an important and controversial issue on college campuses.

     Several years ago, in Toronto, Canada, psychology professor Dr. Jordan Peterson became notorious for refusing to refer to his students by their preferred pronoun, saying “I am not going to be a mouthpiece for language that I detest.” This came at a time when Canada was considering Bill C-16, a proposed bill by the Canadian parliament that would have prohibited gender discrimination on campuses, but also would have required people to use the gender pronouns which others prefer.

     Given that anti-discrimination could potentially threaten the freedom of speech in Canada – and maybe even result in “compelled speech” or “government mandated speech” - is there a realistic chance that the same kinds of laws limiting the freedom of speech on campus, could be implemented at universities here in America?

Source:

Dr. Jordan Peterson on why he won't use people's preferred pronouns:

http://ideapod.com/why-jordan-peterson-wont-refer-to-transgender-people-by-their-preferred-pronouns/

12. What are “safe spaces”?

     Answer: “Places, including some college campuses, which are intended to be free from bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening or upsetting actions, ideas, or conversations.”

     Practices common in “safe spaces” are “trigger warnings” and protections from “micro-aggressions”. Trigger warnings are warnings that information may upset listeners, while “micro-aggressions” are uses of offensive, “aggressive” language, which cause others to feel attacked.

     13. In 2016, the University of Chicago received praise for defending academic freedom and freedom of speech, for announcing that it would not be creating “safe spaces” for students. The university announced that it would not disinvite speakers, invited to speak on controversial topics, if students protested and demanded disinvitation.

     As a reminder, riots broke out in Berkeley in 2017, after the University of California at Berkeley decided not to disinvite controversial “alt-right” speakers, including Milo Yiannopoulos and Lauren Southern.

     Do you believe that the need for political correctness – and so-called “safe spaces” on campus - help college students learn about race in America, history, etc.? Or are you worried that these things shelter students from reality, and from an educational experience that's meant to expose them to ideas that conflict with and challenge their own ideas? What kinds of protections do students need on campus, if any?

Sources:

Riots occur after University of California Berkeley cancels Milo Yiannopoulos event:

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/01/us/milo-yiannopoulos-berkeley/index.html

University of Chicago announces “no safe spaces”:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2016/08/30/so-you-like-the-university-of-chicagos-rejection-of-safe-spaces-for-students-consider-this/?utm_term=.29de2be54271
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9601

V. Racial Politics: Trump vs. the Democratic Party

     14. Do you believe that President Trump a racist? Why or why not?

Why do people think he's racist? What has he said, or done, that indicates that he is a white supremacist?

     15. Is the Trump Administration's immigration policy racist? Is it intrinsically racist to exclude immigrants on the basis of national origin, or is just an issue of the president stressing the need to enforce existing law?

     16. Many defenders of the president have pointed out that some immigration policies - such as separation of children from families, and knocking-over water left for migrants – were started under the Obama Administration. The Trump Administration says it's just enforcing existing laws.

     The Obama Administration has been criticized for setting deportation records. But Obama and Hillary Clinton also supported D.A.C.A. (Deferred Action for Child Arrivals).

     Did the Obama Administration help immigrants? Was Obama's immigration policy good for America? Should Hillary Clinton have done something more to help immigrants, besides just support D.A.C.A., if she expected to prove herself more pro-immigrant than Trump, and win the presidency?

Sources:

Obama sets deportation records:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661

Hillary's mixed record on immigration:
http://www.aol.com/article/news/2017/09/10/hillary-clinton-once-said-illegal-child-immigrants-should-be-sent-back/23203204/

     17. “The Squad” - the quartet of four progressive Democratic legislators whom are all women of color – have become well-known for their outspoken criticism of Donald Trump, and his administration's policy towards immigration, the B.D.S. movement, and other issues. They have even called for his impeachment.

     Trump and the Squad have called each other “racist” back and forth several times, over several issues, especially the issue of whether the treatment of undocumented immigrants at the border is comparable to the conditions seen in Nazi concentration camps. The Squad accuses Trump of racial antipathy against people of Hispanic or African origin; while Trump accuses the Squad of racism for supposedly always making his statements about race, and for their arguably anti-Semitic criticism of the State of Israel.

     Whose statements are “less politically correct”; the president's, or the Squad's? Is it always racially insensitive to compare the treatment of undocumented immigrants to the treatment of victims of the Holocaust, or is it possible to warn people against repeating another potential Holocaust-like situation without diminishing the seriousness of that crime against humanity?

     What could be done to improve U.S.-Jewish and U.S.-Islamic relations, without offending the political, religious, and racial sensibilities of any of those groups?

     18. Statistics show that black home ownership rates did not go up or down from the beginning to the end of the Obama Administration. Unemployment among blacks is down, but that could be due to decreased enrollment in unemployment benefits, and the way unemployment is measured.

     That, and the fact that black homeownership rates are not currently at an all-time high (as Trump has claimed) point to the possibility that the Trump Administration is being “irrationally exuberant” about how much it has improved the financial situation of black Americans. In fact, black homeownership is now at an all-time low.

     Did Obama help African-Americans? Why did the majority of blacks vote for Trump instead of Hillary in 2016? Have African-Americans been doing better economically and financially under Trump than under Obama, or is it still too early to tell?

Source:

Black homeownership at 50-year low:

http://www.nareb.com/african-american-homeownership-falls-50-year-low/

VI. Reparations, Affirmative Action, and "Reverse Discrimination"

     19. Some Americans still feel that the history of slavery, segregation, discrimination, and poverty that have plagued African-Americans, still has too much of an effect on their ability to get ahead in the economy. Many Americans who feel this way, believe that reparations for slavery are an appropriate and necessary response to the financial struggles of black descendants of formerly enslaved people.

     Democratic presidential candidate Marianne Williamson is running on a platform that includes reparations, with an amount of money to be negotiated at a later date ($200-$500 billion), be disbursed over a period of 20 years, for the purposes of reconciliation with the black community, and, as she says, as “payment for the debt that is owed”. The money would be paid to a reparations commission, made up of a panel of black leaders.

     Presidential candidate Andrew Yang has proposed a somewhat similar plan. Yang's “Freedom Dividend” is a universal basic income plan, which will be payable to all Americans who want to participate in it, not just African-Americans. However, Yang says that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. supported the basic income idea, and the Freedom Dividend could become sort of a surrogate for reparations if Yang became president.

     Will reparations help African-Americans recover from slavery, or help them get ahead financially? Or are reparations hurtful to African-Americans' independence and self-esteem because they assume that all black people need this assistance?

     What are some potential obstacles to getting a reparations bill passed in Congress?

Sources:

Marianne Williamson on reparations:
http://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/marianne-williamson-best-defense-reparations-2020-debates.html
http://theweek.com/speedreads/855969/marianne-williamson-slavery-reparations-not-financial-assistance-but-debt-that-owed

Andrew Yang supports basic income, and so did MLK:
http://twitter.com/andrewyang/status/1135578919195877376?lang=en

     20. In 2016, white Texas student Abigail Fisher lost the second of her two U.S. Supreme Court lawsuits (after winning the first) against the University of Texas at Austin, which she alleged did not admit her because of its affirmative action program and its preference for non-white students.

     Affirmative action is a college admission policy which intends to “tip the playing field in the other direction” in order to account for the advantages whites have had in getting opportunities to go to college. Some consider college affirmative action policies “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”. Perhaps the same could be said about reparations.

What is the definition of “reverse discrimination”?

     Answer: “”The practice or policy of favoring individuals belonging to groups known to have been discriminated against previously.”

     To put it another way, “reverse discrimination” is discrimination against members of a social group or class which believes itself to be superior, practiced by members of the supposedly inferior class which usually finds itself discriminated against.”

In modern America, the term “reverse racism” usually refers to alleged discrimination against whites by non-whites.

Source:

Abigail Fisher's affirmative action lawsuit:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-36928990

     21. What are some other practices – aside from reparations and affirmative action - that could be described as “reverse discrimination” or “reverse racism”?

     Answer: One example is the assumption that all white people are racists or white supremacists. Another example is the increasingly popular practice in the Democratic Party of openly and intentionally giving more speaking time to women and non-whites, than to white men.

     22. Are reparations and affirmative action necessary to make up for America's history of unequal treatment of non-whites? Or do these policies themselves perpetuate racism, just in the opposite direction (that is, against whites)?

VII. Native American Issues

     23. In May, Democrats including Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren pulled a bill that would have affirmed the federal reservation designation of tribal lands in Massachusetts, after Trump called the bill “unfair”. Proponents of the bill conjectured that Trump's casino deals in the state, may present a conflict of interest, which could explain Trump's opposition to designating the Mashpee Wampanoag Tribe reservation as trust land.

     What do you think would help Native Americans more; giving them more (or possibly better) land, or giving them casinos? Or will it be necessary to enact some sort of reparations -type bill, to improve relations between the U.S. federal Government and the Indian tribes?

Source:

Trump calls Warren bill on Indian lands “unfair”, Trump's casino deal may present conflict of interest:

http://www.apnews.com/6d236a2b9bd94383b25a86e2de3cdf7f

     24. In October 2018, Elizabeth Warren's DNA results were released, revealing that her ethnic background is between 0.09% and 1.5% Native American. Warren has since apologized to the Cherokee Nation for trying to use the DNA test to justify her claim that she has Native American heritage.

     However, prior to that apology, Warren's critics accused her of exaggerating the extent of her Native American heritage, in order to get special treatment such as a minority college scholarship and political clout.

     Are Warren's critics right? Does Warren have a right to recognize her Native American heritage (as little as it is), or is it racially and politically insensitive of her to move forward with her campaign, given that she has offended the very community she claims to come from?

Source:

Warren apologizes to Cherokee Nation over DNA test:
http://www.cnn.com/2019/02/01/politics/elizabeth-warren-apology-to-cherokee-nation/index.html

VIII. Busing and Black Incarceration

     25. In July, during the first round of debates for the Democratic nomination for president, California Senator Kamala Harris confronted Joe Biden over his opposition to busing of black and white students to public schools. Biden was against school busing in the early 1970s, at a time when President Richard Nixon was urging the desegregation of public schools “with all deliberate speed”.

     Biden has also been criticized for having authored the Clinton omnibus crime bill (The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994), which put one or two million non-violent offenders in jail, most of them black and brown.

     Do these positions on busing and crime control, suggest that Joe Biden is a racist? Can Biden win the presidency, or even the Democratic nomination, if he continues to be dogged by the same sorts of rumors of racism which have followed President Trump?

Sources:

Kamala Harris criticizes Joe Biden over 1970s busing position:

http://www.cnbc.com/2019/07/15/kamala-harris-joe-biden-busing-battle-could-be-win-for-democrats.html
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/6/28/18965923/joe-biden-school-desegregation-busing-democratic-primary

     26. Members of the so-called “Alt-Right” - such as Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos - have gained notoriety for using statistics to dispute claims that blacks are subject to harsh arrests and sentences more often than whites are.

     What are the statistics anyway? Do African-Americans really serve longer sentences than whites, and are they more likely to be killed by police during arrests than white people are? How do these facts compare with statistics about the rates at which blacks commit violent crimes?

     Is it “racist” to point out that violent crimes are disproportionately committed by African-Americans? Or is it more “racist” to fail to consider that the history of racial discrimination and poverty, may have contributed to the current high black crime rates which we are seeing today?

Sources:

Data showing that law enforcement is tougher on blacks:

http://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/?_ga=2.23669560.328588455.1564568723-1721968894.1564568723

http://www.prisonpolicy.org/visuals/race_and_ethnicity.html?gclid=CjwKCAjw-ITqBRB7EiwAZ1c5U3DA-Fab6ROQDJF6ViOgsDtB52nlKrp5HXZcnutSnH0FJPAZ9gqv6RoC_KMQAvD_BwE

     27. Many people wishing to be “politically correct” refer to the imprisonment of black people as “modern-day slavery” and “The new Jim Crow”? Why is that? Why do some people think that slavery never ended, and was never abolished?

     Answer: Considering the high number of African-Americans whom are incarcerated – many of them unable to vote – it's arguable that prisons are continuing the legacy of slavery, albeit under a different guise.

     The facts that most prisoners are forced to work, and unable to vote, mean that they have no freedom but must work (like slaves), while they are counted under the census but their voting power is given to legislators whom they cannot choose (also like slaves).

     The 13^th Amendment prohibited slavery, but permitted “involuntary servitude” as a punishment for committing a crime. But if we consider that many people are in prison for victimless crimes, locking them up – and taking away their freedoms, their vote, and their rights to own property - could hardly be considered a just punishment.

Sources:

Black incarceration and prison labor are “modern-day slavery”:

http://www.history.com/news/13th-amendment-slavery-loophole-jim-crow-prisons

http://www.huffpost.com/entry/america-never-abolished-slavery_b_6777420

     28. What do you think are the most important things that the American people, and/or the U.S. Government, can do, to help promote reconciliation and justice, in a way that heals racial, ethnic, and religious antipathies and divisions?

Written on July 30th and 31st, 2019

Published on July 31st, 2019