Tucson Commemoration of the 50th Anniversary of the 1963 March on Washington
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Announcement from the Tucson-Southern Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce and cosponsors:
More events and contact information below the fold.
Civil & Human Rights
90th Anniversary of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA)
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
You would never know it today by the religious zealots who have hijacked the GOP, but not that long ago the Republican Party had a very active Republican Women for Choice organization, and women for the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which included First Lady Betty Ford. The ERA came up short of passage in 1982, under the deadline established by Congress.
First Ladies Rosalynn Carter and Betty Ford at a rally for ERA, 11/19/1977.
People have forgotten what was at stake in the fight over the ERA. Justice Antonin Scalia has a long history of expressing skepticism toward the
Constitution’s shield against laws that discriminate against women. He he has repeatedly claimed that the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” does not prevent gender discrimination:
“Certainly the Constitution does not require discrimination on the basis
of sex. The only issue is whether it prohibits it. It doesn’t. Nobody
ever thought that that’s what it meant. Nobody ever voted for that. If
the current society wants to outlaw discrimination by sex, hey we have
things called legislatures, and they enact things called laws.”
Justice Scalia is correct. The 14th Amendment was intended to eliminate the vestiges of slavery and racial discrimination in America (freed slaves and Chinese immigrants in California were the focus of the congressional debate). Equal rights for women was not debated by Congress.
President Obama asks the pertinent question
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
In all the media coverage of the George Zimmerman trial, I do not recall anyone posing the pertinent question: "What if Trayvon Martin had been carrying a firearm? Would he have been justified in using deadly force to 'stand his ground' when he was lawfully where he had a right to be and was accosted by George Zimmerman?"
In President Obama's remarks today on Trayvon Martin, he posed the pertinent question. Lawyers are like that.
President Obama: ‘Trayvon Martin could have been me 35 years ago’
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Making a surprise appearance in the White House press room today, President Obama discussed his views on the Trayvon Martin verdict in a remarkably personal manner, speaking extemporaneously, and described how it feels as an African-American to have these "inescapable" experiences. "I think it's important to recognize that the African-American community
is looking at this issue through a set of experiences and a history
that — that doesn't go away," he said. Video below the fold. Full transcript (excerpt):
The reason I actually wanted to come out today is not to take
questions, but to speak to an issue that obviously has gotten a lot of
attention over the course of the last week, the issue of the Trayvon
Martin ruling. I gave an — a preliminary statement right after the
ruling on Sunday, but watching the debate over the course of the last
week I thought it might be useful for me to expand on my thoughts a
little bit.
First of all, you know, I — I want to make sure that,
once again, I send my thoughts and prayers, as well as Michelle’s, to
the family of Trayvon Martin, and to remark on the incredible grace and
dignity with which they’ve dealt with the entire situation. I can only
imagine what they’re going through, and it’s — it’s remarkable how
they’ve handled it.
The second thing I want to say is to reiterate
what I said on Sunday, which is there are going to be a lot of
arguments about the legal — legal issues in the case. I’ll let all the
legal analysts and talking heads address those issues.
The judge
conducted the trial in a professional manner. The prosecution and the
defense made their arguments. The juries were properly instructed that
in a — in a case such as this, reasonable doubt was relevant, and they
rendered a verdict. And once the jury’s spoken, that’s how our system
works.
Arizona GOP all-in on ‘states’ rights’ voter suppression
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Well isn't this special. Governor Jan Brewer, who supported the U.S. Supreme Court striking down the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, nevertheless is still smarting from that same court striking down Arizona's Prop. 200 proof of citizenship requirement to register to vote in Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona.
While it is a certainty that Governor Brewer does not support amendments to the Voting Rights Act which would reinvigorate its preclearance provisions, she does support an amendment to federal law to require proof of citizenship to register to vote for all Americans, not just Arizonans. Arizona's GOP voter suppression knows no limits. Brewer
backs Salmon’s voter-ID bill:
Gov. Jan Brewer wants Congress to allow states to require citizenship
documents from all prospective voters before they can cast a ballot.
Brewer sent a letter Wednesday to U.S. Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz.,
expressing support for a bill the Mesa congressman introduced in
response to a recent Supreme Court decision on the issue. The court
ruled Arizona could demand proof of citizenship from would-be voters
only when they register using state registration forms, not federal
ones.
“The responsibility of state and local governments to protect the
integrity of the voting process is essential to maintaining the
democratic process and protecting the freedom and power of every
citizens’ vote,” Brewer wrote. “I commend your efforts to improve federal law so that only United States citizens are voting. … As a
Governor, I particularly appreciate the respect for states’ rights
inherent in this legislation.”