[Vision2020] Send in the Clowns

Tue Apr 10 08:35:55 PDT 2012

I had hopes that Republican candidate for Sheriff, Rick Henderson, would
remove the Rosa Parks fairy tale  posted on his blog.  It seemed briefly
last night that he had.  But apparently, the words of his hero, Richard
Mack, are sacred and once again the ludicrous version of how a
constitutional sheriff <http://www.rickforsheriff.com/>  would have handled
the issue of forcing African Americans to sit in the back seats of a public
bus are proudly presented.   What a steaming pile of (fill in the blank).

"An illustration of what a constitutional sheriff should do is given below:
"What would a constitutional sheriff have done in 1955?" Mack asked the
crowd.

When the call came in to the Montgomery County, Ala., sheriff's office that
a black woman was refusing to move to the back of the bus - as required by
law - the sheriff would have arrived on the scene and talked to Rosa Parks.
"Ma'am, what's the problem," a constitutional sheriff would have asked her,
Mack said. Told she had taken an empty seat and just wanted to be left
alone, the constitutional sheriff would have sat down next to her, ridden
with her to her stop - and, once off, for good measure taken her into a
whites-only restaurant so she could buy sandwiches for her and her husband.
He'd have then escorted her home, Mack said - asked if her husband was armed
and could defend his family if anyone upset by what had happened came around
and threatened them - and ordered extra patrols of the house. "Remember,
segregation wasn't a tradition, it was the law of the land," Mack said.
"Rosa Parks taught us what you do with stupid laws." Richard Mack"  <
http://www.rickforsheriff.com>

By definition, a constitutional sheriff defends and enforces both the
federal and state constitution.  In Alabama that would place them in an
interesting dilemma. Although there is a strong (and familiar) preamble, it
rapidly goes downhill from there.

"We the people of the State of Alabama, in order to establish justice,
insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to
ourselves and our posterity, invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty
God, do ordain and establish the following Constitution and form of
government for the State of Alabama.".

The Alabama constitution is "At 340,136 words, . . . 12 times longer than
the average state constitution
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_constitution_%28United_States%29> , 40
times longer than the U.S. Constitution
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Constitution> , and is the longest
still-operative constitution anywhere in the world. (The English translation
of the Constitution of India
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_India> , the longest national
constitution, is about 117,369 words long, a third of the length.) (all
quoted reference to the Alabama constitution are found
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama ) 

Further, "The extreme length of the current constitution is both because of
and the cause of heavy centralization
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centralization>  of power in the state
government, leaving very little authority to local units. Counties cannot
even legislate on local issues, requiring the state legislature, and ipso
facto uninvolved parts of the state, to pass local laws.

The constitution addresses many issues that are dealt with by statute in
most other states. The most notable issue is taxation
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation> . Unlike most other states, a large
portion of Alabama's tax code is written into the constitution. Besides
prohibiting local governments from passing any ordinances
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_ordinance>  on tax issues, this
necessitates its amendment over minor taxation issues. Adding to the problem
is the requirement that a proposed amendment of any sort must be unanimously
approved by the legislature; otherwise it must be submitted for a statewide
vote. This has resulted in local county or municipality related amendments
being overwhelmingly approved in the affected area, but rejected statewide

Discrimination

The document has been heavily criticized for discriminatory elements, many
of which have been made moot <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mootness>  by
amendments to the federal constitution or United States Supreme Court
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court>  decisions.

The President of the Constitutional Convention
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_convention_%28political_meeting
%29>  stated in his inaugural address
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inaugural_address>  that their intention was
"within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States> , to
establish white supremacy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_supremacy>  in
this State." (Day 2 of 54
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/misc/history/constitutions/1901/proceedi
ngs/1901_proceedings_vol1/day2.html> ) Section 181
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24572
1.htm>  required the use of literacy tests
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Literacy_test>  to enroll voters, while
Section 180
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24572
0.htm>  grandfathered in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause>
anyone who served in the military, or descended from them; these have since
been outlawed by the Voting Rights Act
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act> . Section 194
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24573
4.htm>  requires the payment of 1.50 USD poll tax
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax>  (Worth approximately 37.74 USD by
CPI <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Price_Index> [1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama#cite_note-0> ).

Originally it outlawed interracial marriage
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interracial_marriage>  (Section 102
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24563
7.htm> ), but this provision was rendered inoperative by Loving v. Virginia
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia> . It was finally removed
in 2000 by Amendment 667
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-56987
4.htm> . The constitution still requires racially segregated
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation>  education in the state
(Section 256
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24580
6.htm> ). Although this provision has not been enforced since the 1960s, the
continued existence of these provisions is seen by many as an embarrassment
to the state. A proposal to strike the segregation requirement was defeated
narrowly in 2004 (MSNBC) <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6596687/> . Nearly all
organizations opposing the repeal of the segregation measure pointed to a
provision stating that the state did not provide a right to a state financed
education. Groups opposing the repeal of this amendment claimed that repeal
would lead to court decisions requiring the state to raise taxes.

Section 177 denied
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24571
7.htm>  women the right to vote
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women%27s_suffrage>  by confining voting
rights to "male citizens," but this was rendered unenforceable by the 19th
Amendment
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Cons
titution>  until Amendment 579
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24642
2.htm>  was substituted, which contained no reference to gender.

Section 182
<http://www.legislature.state.al.us/CodeOfAlabama/Constitution/1901/CA-24572
2.htm>  disenfranchized all "idiots and insane persons" (New Jersey
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey>  recently removed a similarly
offensively worded phrase from its constitution
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_State_Constitution> ), men who
interracially married and those convicted of "crime against nature"
(homosexuality). "

Are you getting the picture, Mr. Henderson?  Again, I urge reading the
Plessy v Ferguson decision which was overturned in 1954 (the year before the
Montgomery bus boycott) by Brown v Board. (That  ruling was ignored by all
former confederate states for more than a decade.)  And, while I'm thinking
about it, what are your feelings about Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and
that incredible jackass, Joe Arpaio?  Please answer the Arpaio question
publicly on this forum  as a demonstration of your willingness to be
transparent to your (possible) constituency.  

Rose Huskey

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20120410/42d87054/attachment-0001.html>