Roberts' Nomination and Black Citizenship
Roberts’ Nomination and Black Citizenship
By Alton H. Maddox, Jr.
Given President-select George Bush’s pledge to put this country solidly back in the hands of white, male plutocrats and kleptocrats, you would expect the Black community to already be in a goal line formation. Bush and his crew are on the field and have called for a quarterback sweep. Instead of being on the field as defenders, the Black community is sitting in the stands.
We want it both ways. When the Senate is debating Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.’s nomination to the Supreme Court as a chief justice, we are not citizens but when we seek reparations, we choose the Supreme Court over the World Court. Lawsuits seeking reparations have been filed in federal courts. The final arbiter will be the future, Chief Justice John Roberts.
Although it is our fate which hangs in the balance, we have chosen Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to save us from Roberts’ agenda. He is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy is no Sen. Charles Sumner of Mass who authored and pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Out of the Tilden-Hayes Compromise, Justice Joseph Bradley agreed to get the Supreme Court to invalidate it. This Reconstruction legislation was stronger than the Public Accommodations Law of 1964.
The Civil Rights Cases, decided in 1883, limited the authority of Congress to legislate in the areas of civil rights and it will be revisited after Bush packs the Supreme Court. When Congress, in 1964, passed legislation prohibiting private discrimination in public accommodations, it chose the Commerce Clause rather than the Fourteenth Amendment to support this legislation. This constitutional by-pass raises serious questions about the validity of Black citizenship and congressional authority to prohibit private discrimination.
Supreme Court nominee, Judge Roberts, will give Wall Street, the Catholic Church and the Federalist Society representation on the Supreme Court. This society is already of the view that Blacks should be unable to enjoy any constitutional protection and, as a common-law court, the Supreme Court is unable to give persons of African ancestry the same rights as whites.
Common-law rights, and not the Constitution, give whites the right to be free of private discrimination in the use of inns, public conveyances and places of amusement. As a common-law court, the Supreme Court should have ruled sua sponte or at least ab initio that Blacks, as a matter of law, are entitled to enjoy the same common law rights as whites instead of waiting on Congress to decide our fate every ninety years or less.
In the meantime, five justices have already laid the foundation to weaken the power of Congress to regulate commerce and, therefore, public accommodations and racial profiling. The Rehnquist Court needs Judge Roberts, as chief justice, to continue its assault on the Commerce Clause and on individual rights.
Soon, the Supreme Court will tell Blacks to stay away. The Supreme Court signed 79 opinions during its last term but only two cases addressed racism, namely; jury selection and prison segregation. This means that at least six justices have dismissed racism as a viable issue in the United States. Judicial representation, on the other hand, would enhance the opportunity for judicial review.
It helps white supremacy that Black leaders are engaged in self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. No pressure is on Bush 43 to make the Supreme Court a democratic body. Sometimes, a dissenting voice on the Supreme Court can be as powerful as a majority opinion. See Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Democrats are getting ready to lead Blacks on a wild goose chase. Black buffoons had hoped to make cameo appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee talking loud and saying absolutely nothing. The issue for Blacks is not Roberts but the lack of a person committed to Black rights sitting on the Supreme Court. Gay rights and abortion are ancillary issues and give rise to focusing on trees rather than the forest.
The American Bar Association has joined the fray. It has found Roberts to be well-qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. This is not surprising. The ABA knowingly barred Blacks from joining this association until after Brown v. Bd. of Educ. The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1939, in part, because of the exclusion of Blacks from the ABA. Charles Hamilton Houston was made an officer of the NLG at its first annual meeting.
Even though Blacks are not raising the issue of a lack of representation on the Supreme Court, the Constitution itself is the main problem. Blacks will never be able to get beyond racial oppression as long as the Supreme Court is seeking to ascertain the intent of kleptocrats who authored the “Supreme Law” in secret meetings. The entire document is designed to oppress, forever, persons of African ancestry.
Judge Roberts proclaim to be an originalist. Intent itself is not alien to the law. It pervades the law. It runs the gamut from donative intent, testator’s intent, predatory intent, intent of the parties, intentional torts, constructive intent and criminal intent. A specific intent is integral to construing the words of a document or the acts of a person. Construing the intent of the founding fathers is no exception.
Kleptocrats authored the Constitution. They all harbored criminal intent. The Reconstruction Amendments, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are incompatible. It should be contrary to public policy to use criminal intent to define the rights of descendants of enslaved Africans. It is also illegal to employ the Constitution as a backdrop to interpreting the existing Reconstruction Amendments.
These kleptocrats met secretly in Philadelphia to conspire against Blacks, Indians and women. This criminal conspiracy was put in writing and it is still the basic document and Supreme Law of the Land and has continued to deprive these historically-oppressed persons of human rights for more than two hundred years with no relief in sight. Original intent and strict construction are the two tools of constitutional construction employed to maintain oppression.
Original intent, perforce, is criminal intent and it explains why virtually all Supreme Court decisions relating to historically-oppressed groups, some of which are seemingly favorable, have always been controversial and unsettled. Unless and until Blacks seeks a declaration of their legal status in a legally-recognized, international forum, Uncle Sam will be calling our shots through or from the Supreme Court. Where are the militant nationalists?
Every nationally-prominent Black minister in this country has a vested interest in making sure that we remain under Uncle Sam’s jurisdiction. Some of them are even licensed to be militant rhetoricians. In other words, we can pick our poison. Black leaders come in all flavors but, like an ice cream store, there is only one owner.
None of the Black leaders will dare to emulate Malcolm X. If so, they would already be ancestors. As a matter of fact, they refuse to emulate Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. It is not in the personal interest of any Black leader to follow the teachings of a revered ancestor. List a Black leader and match the ancestor that this leader is following. This is called mission impossible.
If you witnessed the testimony of Judge Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senators asked him to name the ancestor in whose footsteps he is walking. He listed Justice Robert Jackson who hired the late Chief Justice Rehnquist as his law clerk. The point is that whites revere their ancestors and they employ their hidden minds in all governmental decisions.
On the other hand, Blacks reject their ancestors and follow the walking dead, some of whom have contributed to the deaths of our ancestors. The walking dead believe in living high off the hog. They trade empty, militant rhetoric for your money. In other words, they pick your pockets. Stated again, the walking dead is a class of suspects in the assassinations or murders of some of our ancestors. Whites behave differently. They get rid of any person involved in the death of a “revered,” white ancestor.
If Roberts becomes the chief justice, you can expect him to apply criminal intent to any federal question concerning descendants of enslaved Africans and employ the logic of his mentor, Rehnquist, who always sought to restrict access to federal courts in civil right cases, limit the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment and expand states’ rights. In addition to expanding presidential powers, Judge Roberts will also embrace his mentor’s objectives.
Fill-in-the-Blank
For each of the following Black leaders, identify the ancestor of whom footsteps the Black leader is walking in:
1. Sen. Barack Obama _________________________
2. Rev. T.D. Jakes _________________________
3. Marc H. Morial _________________________
4. Cong. Maxine Waters __________________________
5. Min. Louis Farrakhan __________________________
6. Cong. John Conyers __________________________
7. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson __________________________
8. Julian Bond __________________________
9. Rev. Al Sharpton __________________________
10. Dorothy Height __________________________
By Alton H. Maddox, Jr.
Given President-select George Bush’s pledge to put this country solidly back in the hands of white, male plutocrats and kleptocrats, you would expect the Black community to already be in a goal line formation. Bush and his crew are on the field and have called for a quarterback sweep. Instead of being on the field as defenders, the Black community is sitting in the stands.
We want it both ways. When the Senate is debating Judge John G. Roberts, Jr.’s nomination to the Supreme Court as a chief justice, we are not citizens but when we seek reparations, we choose the Supreme Court over the World Court. Lawsuits seeking reparations have been filed in federal courts. The final arbiter will be the future, Chief Justice John Roberts.
Although it is our fate which hangs in the balance, we have chosen Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont to save us from Roberts’ agenda. He is the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Leahy is no Sen. Charles Sumner of Mass who authored and pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Out of the Tilden-Hayes Compromise, Justice Joseph Bradley agreed to get the Supreme Court to invalidate it. This Reconstruction legislation was stronger than the Public Accommodations Law of 1964.
The Civil Rights Cases, decided in 1883, limited the authority of Congress to legislate in the areas of civil rights and it will be revisited after Bush packs the Supreme Court. When Congress, in 1964, passed legislation prohibiting private discrimination in public accommodations, it chose the Commerce Clause rather than the Fourteenth Amendment to support this legislation. This constitutional by-pass raises serious questions about the validity of Black citizenship and congressional authority to prohibit private discrimination.
Supreme Court nominee, Judge Roberts, will give Wall Street, the Catholic Church and the Federalist Society representation on the Supreme Court. This society is already of the view that Blacks should be unable to enjoy any constitutional protection and, as a common-law court, the Supreme Court is unable to give persons of African ancestry the same rights as whites.
Common-law rights, and not the Constitution, give whites the right to be free of private discrimination in the use of inns, public conveyances and places of amusement. As a common-law court, the Supreme Court should have ruled sua sponte or at least ab initio that Blacks, as a matter of law, are entitled to enjoy the same common law rights as whites instead of waiting on Congress to decide our fate every ninety years or less.
In the meantime, five justices have already laid the foundation to weaken the power of Congress to regulate commerce and, therefore, public accommodations and racial profiling. The Rehnquist Court needs Judge Roberts, as chief justice, to continue its assault on the Commerce Clause and on individual rights.
Soon, the Supreme Court will tell Blacks to stay away. The Supreme Court signed 79 opinions during its last term but only two cases addressed racism, namely; jury selection and prison segregation. This means that at least six justices have dismissed racism as a viable issue in the United States. Judicial representation, on the other hand, would enhance the opportunity for judicial review.
It helps white supremacy that Black leaders are engaged in self-aggrandizement and personal enrichment. No pressure is on Bush 43 to make the Supreme Court a democratic body. Sometimes, a dissenting voice on the Supreme Court can be as powerful as a majority opinion. See Harlan’s dissenting opinion in Plessy v. Ferguson.
Democrats are getting ready to lead Blacks on a wild goose chase. Black buffoons had hoped to make cameo appearances before the Senate Judiciary Committee talking loud and saying absolutely nothing. The issue for Blacks is not Roberts but the lack of a person committed to Black rights sitting on the Supreme Court. Gay rights and abortion are ancillary issues and give rise to focusing on trees rather than the forest.
The American Bar Association has joined the fray. It has found Roberts to be well-qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. This is not surprising. The ABA knowingly barred Blacks from joining this association until after Brown v. Bd. of Educ. The National Lawyers Guild was founded in 1939, in part, because of the exclusion of Blacks from the ABA. Charles Hamilton Houston was made an officer of the NLG at its first annual meeting.
Even though Blacks are not raising the issue of a lack of representation on the Supreme Court, the Constitution itself is the main problem. Blacks will never be able to get beyond racial oppression as long as the Supreme Court is seeking to ascertain the intent of kleptocrats who authored the “Supreme Law” in secret meetings. The entire document is designed to oppress, forever, persons of African ancestry.
Judge Roberts proclaim to be an originalist. Intent itself is not alien to the law. It pervades the law. It runs the gamut from donative intent, testator’s intent, predatory intent, intent of the parties, intentional torts, constructive intent and criminal intent. A specific intent is integral to construing the words of a document or the acts of a person. Construing the intent of the founding fathers is no exception.
Kleptocrats authored the Constitution. They all harbored criminal intent. The Reconstruction Amendments, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are incompatible. It should be contrary to public policy to use criminal intent to define the rights of descendants of enslaved Africans. It is also illegal to employ the Constitution as a backdrop to interpreting the existing Reconstruction Amendments.
These kleptocrats met secretly in Philadelphia to conspire against Blacks, Indians and women. This criminal conspiracy was put in writing and it is still the basic document and Supreme Law of the Land and has continued to deprive these historically-oppressed persons of human rights for more than two hundred years with no relief in sight. Original intent and strict construction are the two tools of constitutional construction employed to maintain oppression.
Original intent, perforce, is criminal intent and it explains why virtually all Supreme Court decisions relating to historically-oppressed groups, some of which are seemingly favorable, have always been controversial and unsettled. Unless and until Blacks seeks a declaration of their legal status in a legally-recognized, international forum, Uncle Sam will be calling our shots through or from the Supreme Court. Where are the militant nationalists?
Every nationally-prominent Black minister in this country has a vested interest in making sure that we remain under Uncle Sam’s jurisdiction. Some of them are even licensed to be militant rhetoricians. In other words, we can pick our poison. Black leaders come in all flavors but, like an ice cream store, there is only one owner.
None of the Black leaders will dare to emulate Malcolm X. If so, they would already be ancestors. As a matter of fact, they refuse to emulate Dr. Martin L. King, Jr. It is not in the personal interest of any Black leader to follow the teachings of a revered ancestor. List a Black leader and match the ancestor that this leader is following. This is called mission impossible.
If you witnessed the testimony of Judge Roberts before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the senators asked him to name the ancestor in whose footsteps he is walking. He listed Justice Robert Jackson who hired the late Chief Justice Rehnquist as his law clerk. The point is that whites revere their ancestors and they employ their hidden minds in all governmental decisions.
On the other hand, Blacks reject their ancestors and follow the walking dead, some of whom have contributed to the deaths of our ancestors. The walking dead believe in living high off the hog. They trade empty, militant rhetoric for your money. In other words, they pick your pockets. Stated again, the walking dead is a class of suspects in the assassinations or murders of some of our ancestors. Whites behave differently. They get rid of any person involved in the death of a “revered,” white ancestor.
If Roberts becomes the chief justice, you can expect him to apply criminal intent to any federal question concerning descendants of enslaved Africans and employ the logic of his mentor, Rehnquist, who always sought to restrict access to federal courts in civil right cases, limit the purview of the Fourteenth Amendment and expand states’ rights. In addition to expanding presidential powers, Judge Roberts will also embrace his mentor’s objectives.
Fill-in-the-Blank
For each of the following Black leaders, identify the ancestor of whom footsteps the Black leader is walking in:
1. Sen. Barack Obama _________________________
2. Rev. T.D. Jakes _________________________
3. Marc H. Morial _________________________
4. Cong. Maxine Waters __________________________
5. Min. Louis Farrakhan __________________________
6. Cong. John Conyers __________________________
7. Rev. Jesse L. Jackson __________________________
8. Julian Bond __________________________
9. Rev. Al Sharpton __________________________
10. Dorothy Height __________________________
posted by Attorney Alton Maddox at 4:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home