As same-sex marriage ascends through the judiciary, GOP lawmakers are working ardently to slow its progress. In an effort to “defend their religious liberties,” Republican legislatures across six states have introduced bills that would discriminate against gay couples. Dylan Scott of TPM’s Editor’s Bloghas the story.
The European Union’s stance against the death penalty is influencing the role of capital punishment in America. Matt Ford of The Atlantic explains how the EU’s embargo on the lethal-injection drug sodium thiopental is “changing how America
executes the men and women it sentences to death.”
Writing for The New York Times, Linda Greenhouse celebrates the life of the late Yale Law School professor Robert Dahl and his “pathbreaking study of the Supreme Court” as a legal and political institution.
Robert F. Kennedy’s tragic presidential run – he was assassinated June 5, 1968 – was also extraordinary in that a major political figure was trying to focus the nation’s attention on the most vulnerable among us, those living in dire poverty. One of his top aides, Peter Edelman was instrumental in RFK’s efforts to arouse the national conscience about poverty. Edelman is now a Georgetown law school professor and a nationally recognized figure, devoted to improving our society by helping the large numbers of Americans who have for far too long been overlooked.
And, until recently, Peter was also ACS’s Board Chair. His term ended this month, but he remains on the Board. His leadership and guidance as Board Chair were deeply appreciated and we will look forward to his continued partnership with ACS for years to come.
Peter’s illustrious career has included not only his work for RFK, but also as Issues Director for the late Sen. Edward Kennedy’s presidential campaign and service in the U.S. Department of Justice as Special Assistant to Attorney General John Douglas.
But Peter above all, has devoted great amounts of energy and time to fighting poverty. If you’ve not done so, you should read Edelman’s 2012 book, So Rich, So Poor for a compelling, albeit disheartening, examination of why ending poverty in this nation has been a constant uphill battle. Bill Moyers called the book a must-read “for anyone who wants to understand why, in one of the richest nations in the world, millions of people, even those with jobs, are teetering just a medical bill or missed paycheck from disaster.”
We’re grateful Peter has given some of his remarkable energies and talent to support and advance the work of ACS.
by Erik Lampmann, Senior Fellow for Equal Justice, the Roosevelt Institute Campus Network. This post is part of an ACSblog symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
In many ways, the March punctuated the Civil Rights Movement. Coming two months after the assassination of NAACP Field Secretary Medgar Evers in Mississippi and one month after a church bombing which led to the death of four young black girls in Birmingham, the convening power of the March was able to unify the voices of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE), and the Negro American Labor Council under one banner.
In the face of mainstream media debates on the merits of the March, its aims, and its successes, it’s important to remember the first march 50 years ago was originally conceived as an economic justice mobilization. It’s entirely accurate to argue that the March was situated within the Civil Rights Movement writ-large. That said, it’s perhaps more accurate to focus on the March’s unparalleled critique of economic inequality.
by William E. Forbath, Associate Dean for Research, Lloyd M. Bentsen Chair in Law, University of Texas at Austin School of Law. This post is part of an ACSblog symposium on the 50th Anniversary of the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom.
Not only conservatives, but we liberals and progressives have forgotten much about the kinds of rights and the kinds of equality demanded by the March on Washington half a century ago today. Conservatives have fastened on the famous line in King’s “I Have a Dream” speech – that one day black children will “be judged, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character” – and tied the March and King’s “Dream” to their color-blind Constitution. But liberals and progressives also have fashioned a story-line that ties the March to a narrower vision than the one that actually animated the organizers and marchers that day. Our standard accounts tend to slight the links that the March forged between racial equality and economic justice. They say that the March focused on the right to vote and an end to segregation and discrimination in employment, education and public accommodations. In that way, they too suggest that the marchers’ main demands for legal change were met.
For conservatives, the March stood for color-blindness, which is already within our grasp, if all of us only shared the courage of the Chief Justice’s convictions about our over-reaching civil rights laws and doctrines. For liberals and progressives, the March stood for the advances in civil rights embodied in the great civil rights statutes of 1964 and ’65. So, for us, too, if only the venerable 1960s civil rights laws were enforced to the hilt, the “Dream” of 1963 would be within reach.
Our standard liberal accounts, in other words, depict the March as a great landmark in what we have come to depict as the hopeful “early” phase of the civil rights movement, demanding the kinds of laws that Congress soon would enact. Only later – in this familiar “early”/ “later” phase narrative of the civil rights movement – did the civil rights movement “go North” and confront for the first time the “intractable problems” of urban poverty and economic deprivation, on which the movement foundered. This is the narrative that informs such liberal classics as the great “Eyes on the Prize” documentary series; one finds it in most constitutional law casebooks; and it also shapes the contrasts President Obama has drawn between the “economic populism” of the New Deal, with its focus on jobs and economic justice, and the 1960s battle for civic equality and an end to Jim Crow, as the core of what the civil rights movement was about.
In fact, however, economic injustice, joblessness and exploitation were squarely on the March on Washington’s agenda back in 1963. If the March is a landmark of the “early” phase of civil rights movement history – its demands a key source for our accounts of the original, core meaning of the movement’s vision of rights and equality, then we must include economic enfranchisement in the original mix. The March’s demands were riveted on what its organizers called the “twin evils of racism and economic degradation.”
As Americans reflect on events a half century in the past, I hope they will consider how it might guide our actions now. In particular, I hope people will think about what Americans still owe the African American community.
On August 28, 1963, the date of the March on Washington, the United States was pervasively discriminatory to a degree not fully appreciated today. African Americans bore a significant burden; in many or most parts of the country, they could not vote, attend public schools with whites, patronize the public accommodations or live in the housing that they wished, or hope to be hired for a broad range of public and private employment.
But African Americans were hardly the only oppressed group. Rape within marriage was no crime, and, although the Equal Pay Act was on the books and would take effect in 1964, employers could get around it simply by not hiring women for good jobs. The idea that gay men and lesbians might legally marry someone of the same sex was absurd; instead, investigation, prosecution, and imprisonment for sodomy were an important part of the business of law enforcement. Un-American immigrants (Africans, Jews and Catholics) were discouraged from immigrating through gerrymandered quotas; Asians were excluded by race. The list of those whose marginalization was justified and defended as obviously correct was long, and included people with mental or physical disabilities, Indians, religious minorities including Jews and Muslims, children born out of wedlock, and single mothers.
America was remade thanks to the bodies and blood of African Americans -- whites and others also participated in the civil rights movement, of course, but, primarily, it was African Americans. The civil rights struggle, exemplified by the March on Washington, had revolutionary consequences. Part of its effect was near-term changes like passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the unsung but perhaps most effective anti-racist legislation of the period, the Immigration and Nationality Act Amendments of 1965, which, by allowing for immigration on a non-racial basis, put America on the path to being a majority-minority nation.