Sunday, August 24, 2008

Civil War II: Is the Confederate South Coming out of Hibernation?

I find it interesting that Newsweek has just published this story. Enjoy and post your comments below.

Southern Discomfort
A journey through a troubled region.

By Christopher Dickey NEWSWEEK
Published Aug 2, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Aug 11, 2008

For as long as I've been alive the old Confederacy has been a land without closure, where history keeps coming at you day after day, year after year, decade after decade, as if the past were the present, too, and the future forever. Cities grew and populations changed in the South, but the Civil War lurked somehow in the shadow of mirror-sided skyscrapers; the holocaust of slavery and the sweet-bitter victories of the civil-rights movement lingered deep in the minds of people on both sides of the color line. Yes there was change, progress, prosperity, and a lot of it. Southerners put their faith in money and jobs and God Almighty to get them to a better place and better times—and for a lot of them, white and black, those times came. The South got to be a more complicated place, where rich and poor—which is pretty much all there was before World War II—gave way to a broad-spectrum bourgeoisie with big-time aspirations. But as air conditioning conquered the lethargy-inducing climate and Northerners by the millions abandoned the rust belt for the sun belt, the past wasn't forgotten or forgiven so much as put aside while people got on with their lives and their business.

Now this part of the country, where I have my deepest roots, feels raw again, its political emotions more exposed than they've been in decades. George W. Bush and Barack Hussein Obama have unsettled the South: the first with a reckless war and a weakened economy, the second with the color of his skin, the foreignness of his name, the lofty liberalism of his language. Suddenly the palliative prosperity that salved old, deep wounds no longer seems adequate to the task.

Last month I set out driving through Tennessee, Georgia and the Carolinas, roughly retracing the deepest scar in the country—the blazing track of total war left by Union Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman in 1864 and 1865. After many years away I was exploring my own blood ties (which include an ancestor named after Sherman by his slave-owning-yet-Unionist parents), but also gauging the tenor of a region that has been critical to every U.S. presidential election since 1932, and may be again. "If you don't win anything in the South, you need 70 percent of the rest of the country," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "If you can win some of the South, that gives you breathing space." Polls suggest Virginia is in play. And the Obama campaign is approaching North Carolina and Georgia as if they might be, although like most people, Black (who is white, and from east Texas, which is deep in Dixie) thinks John McCain will win in both those states if only as the default candidate, the un-Obama.

The South I saw was troubled by changes that go well beyond this "change" election. A generation is growing up with traumas more immediate than those of the 1860s—or the 1960s. Shana Sprouse, 21 and white, and born and raised in Spartanburg, S.C., says she's going to vote for Obama because her 26-year-old boyfriend is racked with cancer and she and he have spent the last two years trying to find ways to pay for his treatment or, now, his hospice. Jobs are disappearing to places that are truly foreign, not mock-strange states like California. New immigrants are introducing brown into a color map that has long been dominated by black and white. There is a sense that a world is ending, maybe not this year but inevitably.

The election, and Obama's candidacy, have focused these anxieties like a lens. I found whites frustrated and indecisive about the campaign, families at odds, generations divided. Many who thought themselves beyond prejudice were surprised by their suspicions of the young black man from up north. Meanwhile, many slave-descended blacks, hugely supportive of the half-Kenyan, half-Kansan, Hawaii-reared Obama, seemed afraid to hope too much, inoculating themselves with pessimism about the chances that any man of color could win the presidency, even this man, even today, or that, if he does, he will survive. As I say, emotions are raw.

People remember what they want to the way they want to, and call it history. That much is true almost any place in the world. But in the South, if people aren't careful, history can start to run their lives, even put them at risk. My father's brother, Tom, was a case in point: in the basement of his split-level home in suburban Atlanta he stored tons of artillery projectiles he'd dug up on Civil War battlefields. Many of them were still live ammunition. "I do worry," he told me in the 1970s. "If this house ever caught on fire, it could do a lot of damage around the neighborhood. You'd hear the last shots fired in the Civil War." (After Tom's death from natural causes in 1987, the core of the collection, duly defused, went to the Atlanta History Center.)

I set off on this trip wondering if Obama's candidacy was helping to pull people in the South together, freeing them of their histories, or pushing them apart. The "postracial" Obama obviously hopes to alter the traditional narrative of race in this campaign and may in fact be doing so, in certain counties of certain states. But in the South, broadly speaking, the past is still too powerful a frame for him to escape fully. This isn't only about black and white, just as the Civil War was about more than slavery. Back then powerful political players in the South saw Obama's fellow Illinoisan Abraham Lincoln as a threat, and a reason for rebellion. All Lincoln's unifying message brought together was the white poor and the white rich, in opposition to him and the blacks whose freedom he sought.

Today the troubling inheritance of the Civil War has been turned into family entertainment. At The Point on Lookout Mountain above Chattanooga, I came across a small group of men who spend much of their spare time and disposable income re-enacting battles and reproducing camp life as it was in the 1860s. ("Civil Wargasms," one of the weekend Confederates at Lookout Point called them.) For many of the hobbyists the delight is in the details, right down to the paper cartridges in their muzzle-loading rifles and handmade buttons on their hot woolen uniforms. "We all know slavery was wrong," says Donald Davidson, whose day job is with the water department in Nashville. "War is not a nice thing. Hopefully we can show we can live together by reliving history like this."

But the subtext of old prejudices keeps creeping in even among the very young. Walking down to The Point one morning, a 12-year-old "private" in this particular Confederate unit told me what he'd heard tell in school about the elections. Next to nothing about McCain. But Obama? "There are too many chances we would take if he became president, you know what I mean?" I said I wasn't sure I did. "I don't know if it's a myth or it's true," said the boy, "but they say that they caught him trying to sneak Iraqi soldiers into the United States."

I remember all the things I heard tell in elementary school in Atlanta during the civil-rights movement of the 1960s, when the schoolyard talk was about a Roman Catholic running for president, and the threat that he'd be putting nigras (which is what you said if you were halfway polite) in Atlanta schools. Certainly much of the similar talk you hear now comes from the obvious suspects, people like Dent Myers, a relic collector and self-caricaturing bigot in Kennesaw, Ga., north of Atlanta. (His shop, Wildman's, is full of the crazy literature of the unreconstructed South, as well as guns, swords, Ku Klux Klan hoods and scurrilous bumper stickers.) Dent argues that when Southerners criticize Obama, "They say, 'He's a Muslim, he's a mulatto Muslim, or quadroon Muslim … [only because] they don't want to use the old N word."

Yet even a third cousin of mine in the mountains of North Carolina, an independent-minded Democrat who voted for Gore in 2000 and Bush in 2004, said he can't bring himself to vote for Obama, either. Why? "Because I believe he is a Muslim," said my cousin. Not so, I said. He was raised a Christian and is a practicing Christian. My cousin shook his head. "I just don't believe him," he said.

I couldn't take my eyes off the plastic baby. On a back road outside Monroe, Ga., a crowd of more than 100 people had gathered to commemorate the last mass lynching in the United States, which happened at a place called Moore's Ford, on July 25, 1946. Slowly an old Lincoln Continental rolled into view, only to be confronted by a pair of armed men ordering it to stop. Then out of the woods on both sides of the road, more gun-toting whites emerged. They pulled two black men out of the back of the car. The two black women inside screamed. One of the women told the attackers she knew who they were. Now she was pulled from the car, too, and the other woman with her. Struggling, screaming, crying, the four were wrestled down to a small clearing below the road and shot dead, and shot again, and again. Then, as another actor poured stage blood, a plastic doll was pulled from beneath the shirt of one of the women to represent the fetus said to have died on that killing ground with its mother. The tableau was repulsive, and riveting.

Blacks are no less susceptible to their history than whites in the South, only theirs is the memory of the civil-rights era—whereas Confederates say, "Forget, hell" their mantra is, "Never forget." Obama's candidacy is, wittingly or not, resurrecting the hope and fear and suspicions of those bloody years. The campaign's Southern strategy depends crucially on registering and getting to the polls hundreds of thousands of black voters. Enthusiasm is not a problem among African-Americans, whether in cosmopolitan Atlanta, the fields of Oglethorpe County or a raucous Baptist church in Savannah. The sense of opportunity, of dreams tantalizingly close to fulfillment, is overwhelming. But so is the skepticism, the knowledge deep within one's bones of the likelihood, if not the inevitability, of disappointment. Obama couldn't win, not in the South—or, if he could, they wouldn't let him. And that's the dark side of the hope: it's reminding people of their doubts about a white power structure that some think has never really atoned for its sins.

Bobby Howard, who was standing on the sidelines of the Moore's Ford re-enactment, has spent more than 40 years looking into the unsolved lynchings, "hoping that we can bring some kind of finality," as he put it. Many people in the area thought they knew the names of the culprits, at least four of whom are still alive, according to Howard. But "turning them in would be like turning in the fathers of the county," said Brian Arrington, managing editor of the local Walton Tribune. "If you walk around, the names of the streets are the names of some of the suspects."

The July re-enactment, sponsored by the Georgia Association of Black Elected Officials, was part carnival, part church service, part rally. Politicians invoked Obama's name again and again, always to applause. But he is a background to their cause, incidental to their narrative of pain, and they sometimes describe him in terms almost as condescending as affectionate. One called him "the little black boy who is going to be president of the United States [because] God has fixed it that way."

This narrative, too, resists change. Richard Rusk, son of former secretary of State Dean Rusk, is part of a committee that had a plaque erected at the corner of the road where the Moore's Ford murders occurred. He did not go to the re-enactment and was not happy with what he heard about it. The baby ripped from the womb is not a known fact, just a widespread, highly potent political rumor. "We want to stay with truth we can prove," he said. But Moore's Ford has created its own storyline now, its own truth.

Of course, it's easy to forget how much of what makes up the Southern mind, especially now, has nothing to do with race. At a Starbucks on Providence Road, in one of the richest neighborhoods in Charlotte, N.C., financial consultant James Ruane, 58, talked about the gleaming city he moved to from Pennsylvania 30 years ago. Charlotte is built on banking and financial service industries that started and grew as something self-consciously regional, he said. "After the Civil War, during the Reconstruction," said Ruane, "the North neutered this place." All the money was in New York. That's where Southern businesses had to go to get it, and often they weren't welcome, even a hundred years later. So the bankers of Charlotte—the founders of Wachovia and what's now called the Bank of America—set out to change that. And as they built their businesses they built their city, almost from the ground up.

Most Southern cities are, to all intents and purposes, new metropolises created by and helped to create the new white middle class in the region after World War II. For the first time, college educations started to be commonplace in the states of the old Confederacy. As incomes grew, suburbs sprawled. At the beginning of this trip, in fact, I almost got lost several times looking for the Dickey family homestead in north Georgia. Driving on roads that might once have led to the dangerous backwoods my father, James Dickey, wrote about in his 1970 novel "Deliverance," I came across vacation cabins and swimming pools instead; no outhouses, certainly, only a growing number of hot tubs and Jacuzzis. The river my father used to canoe in search of the wild in the early 1960s, the Coosawattee, is now mostly submerged beneath a lake, while its upper reaches and its main tributary, the Cartecay, are lined with housing developments. PADDLE FASTER, I HEAR BANJO MUSIC, say the T shirts that ominously reference the movie version of "Deliverance." Now, every summer weekend, kayakers and rafters clot around the rapids like rush-hour traffic on the once wild streams in these mountains.

Merle Black at Emory and his twin brother, Earl Black, at Rice University in Houston have argued in the several books they've published together that a rising business class was key to the South's transformation into a Republican bastion in the last half of the 20th century. The split-levels and ranch houses were filled with people who shared the attitudes and values of small towns and family farms. They mistrusted government, especially the federal government, and they resented any politician who might tax away their newfound prosperity. What the Black brothers call "the most spectacular example of partisan realignment in modern American history" came about because of the GOP's "Southern strategy," which dates back to Dwight D. Eisenhower and culminated in the re-election of Ronald Reagan in 1984. The idea was to appeal to the South's newly prosperous suburb-dwellers while using unsubtle talk about "states' rights" and "quotas" to touch nerves earlier galvanized by unreconstructed racists like Alabama Gov. George Wallace.

These white, Christian, middle-class Southerners, the core of Republican strength in the region, are as disconcerted as anyone by the country's current economic turmoil. But that doesn't make them any more amenable to change. While they may be unenthusiastic about McCain (in 10 days' traveling I did not see a single bumper sticker with his name on it), they are leery of Obama's liberalism if not his skin color. "They just don't believe him when he says he'll only tax the richest 1 percent," said Merle Black. Perhaps even more important, they belong to an aspiring class whose members imagine, or dream, they might yet make it into that stratospheric bracket. "Southerners," said Black, "don't identify with where they are but where they want to end up."

Too often for these voters' conservative tastes, the Democratic Party comes across as "preachy," according to Black. He cited a recent appearance by Obama in Powder Springs, Ga. A woman in the audience complained about having to deal with immigrants who spoke Spanish but no English. Obama said they'd learn eventually, but she ought to want an educational system that would teach her kids Spanish. Southerners, said Black, really do not like being told what they ought to want.

Even though the downturn is hitting the South hard—Wachovia Bank in Charlotte announced it will lay off more than 10,000 employees, while Volkswagen's recent decision to open a plant in Chattanooga was greeted with almost as much enthusiasm as the Second Coming—the allegiance of the white business and professional class to the Republican Party seems unshakable. "I think if there were a better economy more people would take a risk on Obama," said Patricia Murtaugh Wise, a lawyer from Nashville sightseeing with her kids at Atlanta's landmark Varsity Drive-In restaurant. Her friends are blaming Bush more than his party, she said. "I'm not sure people are saying, 'Because Bush got us into this, let's vote for a Democrat.' I think people are saying, 'Let's get a new person in there'."

If democrats have hopes for making serious inroads into this Republican bloc, they are probably long term. "As the society becomes more diversified, there's a huge opportunity for the Democratic Party," said Merle Black. Native-born Southerners are a shrinking part of the population, while the numbers of people who are foreign-born like those Spanish speakers, or foreign-born like Yankees, are growing.

" La migra! La migra! " shouted 6-year-old Brenda as I approached the dilapidated trailer where she lives with her mother and siblings and at least one cousin in upstate South Carolina. She thought I might be from Immigration and Customs Enforcement. But nobody ran or hid, at least that I could see. Uber, a 22-year-old cousin, said the family had come up from Guadalajara, Mexico, over the last few years. They are among millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, who have moved to the South since the 1990s, heading to Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee for jobs in poultry processing, light manufacturing and construction. Brenda's family does yard work, cuts flowers. "The labor here pays more and it's not so heavy as in Mexico," her mother, Magdalena, explained in Spanish.

The seams in their mobile home were rusted. The driveway in front was covered with aluminum beer cans that one of the older sons flattened by rolling over them with a car, which makes them easier to store and sell as scrap. Brenda's family were among the poorest residents in the poorest section of a poor town. But Brenda and her 3-year-old brother, Kevin, were born in the United States and are American citizens. Brenda speaks English and is starting school. "First grade," she said from behind her mother's skirt. When the elections of 2020 roll around, she'll be able to vote.

Never in the last century and a half has the South been home to so many people who were born and who continue to live outside its history. A Census report estimated that the South's Hispanic population nearly tripled between 2000 and 2006, more than in any other U.S. region; nearly 60 percent of this population was foreign-born. These newcomers have little interest in re-enacting the Civil War, no reason to revive the emotions of the civil-rights movement. They did not move here for iced tea or a more leisurely pace of life. The South to them is future, not past.

In Savannah, Ga., I stopped a pair of women in saris and a young teenage boy pushing a stroller, who were reluctant to talk. Their English was not good and my Hindi nonexistent. They glanced over their shoulders at a young man on a bench who wore casual clothes and a neatly trimmed beard, their in-law. His name was Zuber Malik, from a small city north of Mumbai, he said. He was 29 years old and already had lived and worked in Rhode Island and Wisconsin "in the convenience-store business," when he saw a Dairy Queen franchise up for sale in Glennville, Ga. (population: 3,700). He'd read that Warren Buffett had bought the parent company "and I thought, 'Oh, yes!' " That would mean capital and advertising. His notional idea of the South appealed to him, too. In his hometown in India they still grew cotton. So he came, and then, he said, he prospered. His first child, less than a year old, was born an American. And Zuber, whose wife wears a hijab, or head covering, said he has no problems as a Muslim in the South. "We all believe in God," he tells people. "It says on our dollar bill we believe in God."

Piyush (Bobby) Jindal, the young governor of Louisiana whose parents were Hindu immigrants from India, is an obvious example of how fast assimilation can take place and success can follow for those with educational and economic advantages. At the same time xenophobia, fear of job competition and suspicions of "illegal aliens"—which translates as "criminals" pure and simple in many minds—all work against Hispanic peasants struggling to join the ranks of other upwardly mobile North Americans. Gladys, a 42-year-old maid from El Salvador who fled the war in her country in 1983 (and preferred that her last name not be published) spent most of the last two decades in the Los Angeles area before moving to North Carolina with her two teenage children in 2006. "There is a lot of prejudice," she says. "You hear it when you go to the market, you hear it in the post office. People say they don't want us."

It's not hard to find old-time tensions running very close to the surface. One Saturday last month, in the little town of Crawford, Ga., next to the old train station where the tracks have long since disappeared, cheerleading squads, tae kwon do teams and a troupe of aspiring 3- and 4-year-old ballerinas entertained local crowds at a rally. Whites, blacks and a handful of Mexicans strolled among stands selling barbecue and funnel cakes. Supporters of local political candidates handed out fans bearing their names. A black church group signed up prospective voters. A local schoolteacher and a retired college professor, both of them white, staffed a booth for Obama well supplied with posters and propaganda. (McCain's partisans as such, and as usual, were nowhere to be seen.)

Bill Fincher was working the crowd, as the Republican candidate for county sheriff. He described himself as "very much a conservative" and George W. Bush as his "idol." He'd also, Fincher said, been described as a racist. He was in drug enforcement for a while, and rounded up a crack-dealing network. Everybody in it was black. That was part of the problem. Then, a few weeks ago, a white supporter of his had hung up a noose near a road that leads into a neighborhood that's mostly black. "He had had a lot of property thefts, and he wanted to say any thief is going to be hung," Fincher said. About 175 people came out to protest, and the press got hold of the story.

Fincher, though, seemed genuinely affronted by the charge. "All it is is a ploy to try to get the African-Americans to turn on you," he said. He claimed he didn't really believe in partisan politics when it came to local offices. His mother was an elected county tax commissioner for 27 years, and she was a Democrat. He always voted for her, he said. "I wanted to eat at home!"

He also said that his parents worked hard and he was raised by a black woman, and now that she's old and ailing, he cooks Thanksgiving dinner for her. When an African-American woman who knew him walked by and said hello, Fincher threw his arms around her and gave her a big hug.

Those who have lived long enough to experience the Old South, the New South and the deeply uncertain present-day South know just how long it takes to move the society here. But they know, too, that it does move. William Carter Jr., was born in 1927 in North Charleston, S.C. He lived through the worst days of Jim Crow in the South, and he served in the segregated U.S. armed forces in World War II, which was a moment of awakening for so many black men. You learned not to be afraid, he said. "When you come back home you have the same feeling: 'I'm a man. I'm not a boy no more'." Carter worked as a TV technician for Sears and devoted himself to his duties as a deacon of the church. Now 80, he is president of the National Baptist Deacons Convention. Perhaps because he had seen so much of the past, had seen so much that had changed, and so much that had not, he was sanguine about the future of a black presidential candidate. "Obama is going to win," he said. And if he does not? "Then he is preparing the way for the next."


Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/150576/page/1

Little Known Victims of the War in Iraq


By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.


One group of victims of the War in Iraq seldom talked about is American Women. Not women at home, waiting patiently for their husbands to return from duty, but female soldiers who are fighting alongside of their male counterparts. The reports of military rape are staggering and it is rarely discussed by political analysts.

Like the Vietnam War, America is seeing an increased population of War veterans who are returning home with mental disorders. Because of the lack of funding as a result of the funds spent on the “War on Terror,” the vast majority of the soldiers who come home from Iraq are not given the opportunity to have counseling and treatment and are released back into the general population. Logic would conclude that if the government does not combat the problems that soldiers may have when they come home from Iraq, the government is probably not addressing the problems that are occurring in Iraq.

One case of the government’s inability or refusal to deal with the problem of military rape was that of Private Lavena Johnson. Private Johnson, a black, 20 year old Missouri native, died in Iraq in 2005. The official cause of death was listed as a suicide. When the army contacted Private Johnson’s family, the listed cause of death did not sit right with them. Her father in particular became suspicious of what the army told him. Private Johnson’s family demanded that the Army release the autopsy reports. While the Army may have baulked at the request, the Freedom of Information Act forced the Army to release the records. It was discovered that at the time of Private Johnson’s death, she had a “broken nose, black eye, loose teeth, burns from a corrosive chemical on her genitals, and a gunshot that seemed inconsistent with suicide.” This made Private Johnson’s family all the more suspicious.

Upon further investigation, many of the claims the Army made to the Johnson family have turned out to be inconsistent. The Army reportedly told the Johnson family that Private Johnson was found with a gunshot wound to the head in her barracks. There have been other reports that she was originally found in a contractor’s tent. The mysterious chemicals that were found on her genitals are also theorized to have been put there to cover up DNA evidence of a rape. Private Johnson was right handed. The gunshot wound was reported to be in the left side of her head and her hands tested negative for gunshot residue.

Whatever motive the Army has in sending inconsistent information to the Johnson’s family, the fact remains that there is a problem in Iraq that is rarely reported. In Private Johnson’s case, a concerned father’s questioning has forced the government to “look into” the case further. There are several cases of potential rape, however, that are not fully investigated. In late July, the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held a hearing on sexual assaults in the military and the way that the government is investigating and prosecuting these matters. Some statisticians state that rape in the military is becoming a serious problem with some 29% of veterans claiming that they have been sexually assaulted during their time of service. If these statistics are correct, women are more likely to be raped by fellow soldiers than killed in battle. The biggest question coming out of the hearings is, if the government won’t protect the Private Johnson’s of the world against rape by fellow soldiers, who will?

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Tribute to Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones


By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD


Napoleon Hill states “lack of loyalty is one of the major causes of failure in every walk of life.” In representing her constituents in Cleveland, Ohio to being a strong advocate for Senator Clinton in her bid to be the Democratic Presidential nominee in 2008, no person can say that Ohio Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones did not embody the very essence of the word. I, like most of America, is saddened today with the news of Congresswoman Tubbs Jones suffering a cerebral aneurysm as she drove in her home district in Cleveland Heights, Ohio on Tuesday evening.

She was born in Cleveland, Ohio on September 10, 1949. Congresswoman Jones graduated from Cleveland's public schools. Also, she received her undergraduate degree from Case Western Reserve University, graduating with a degree in Social Work from the Flora Stone Mather College in 1971. In 1974, she received her Juris Doctorate from Case Western Reserve University School of Law. In 1981, Congresswoman Jones was elected judge of the Cleveland Municipal Court in 1981. Subsequently, she served on the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County from 1983 to 1991.

In 1990, she ran for Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio replacing Mary Cacioppo, the winner of the Democratic Primary, who withdrew for health reasons. She narrowly lost that race to Republican incumbent J. Craig Wright.

In 1998, she was the first African-American woman to be elected to Congress from Ohio. She has been reelected four times with no substantive opposition. Along with many other accomplishments, she is what Maya Angelou would call a Phenomenal Woman.

If you are listening in spirit, Congresswoman Stephanie Tubbs Jones, we appreciate you and your work and hope people realize that exhibiting loyalty is not a curse, but a blessing for those who serve in the public and legal arena. May God bless you and keep you and your family in this tragic time.

Monday, August 18, 2008

Senator Obama v. Justice Thomas: Black on Black Hate?

Conservatives Slam Obama’s Answer About Supreme Court Justices at Saddleback Forum
by FOXNews.com
Monday, August 18, 2008

A former law clerk for Clarence Thomas is leading a pack of critics who say Barack Obama’s comments about the Supreme Court justice reveal the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s ignorance and misunderstanding of the Constitution.

A weekend event at the 22,000-member Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, Calif., was meant to give both Obama and John McCain a chance to address questions of importance to the large evangelical community. Church Pastor Rick Warren, known for his bestselling book “The Purpose-Driven Life,” posed the series of questions to each candidate, which were aimed at getting to their personalities, foibles and leadership styles.

During the symposium, Obama said he would not have nominated Thomas to the bench because “I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.”

Obama then added that he would not have nominated Justice Antonin Scalia because they disagree, not because of any intellectual deficiencies. Wendy E. Long, currently counsel to the The Judicial Confirmation Network, called Obama’s responses about the bench “ludicrous.” Long released a statement saying the remarks demonstrate Obama contradicts himself in his “own alleged criteria” for high court nominees.

”Obama started to say that Justice Thomas didn’t have enough ‘experience’ for the Supreme Court. In mid-sentence, when Obama realized that he himself has far less experience for the presidency than Justice Thomas had for the court in 1991, he shifted and said Justice Thomas ‘was not a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time,’” said Long, a former Senate aide whose conservative group works to get “highly qualified” justices confirmed to the bench.
“This is all reminiscent of (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid’s comment several years ago that Justice Thomas was ‘an embarrassment to the court’ and that his opinions ‘were poorly written’. Reid was exposed as the ignoramus then, and the Congressional Black Caucus asked him to stop using ‘stereotypes and caricatures,’” she continued.
Reid is among several critics who have called Thomas’ written opinions lightweight and suggested that he wants to abandon the principle of “stare decisis” — standing by precedent — and reinvent the wheel with every case.

The topic of several biographies, Thomas, who was confirmed to the court by a 52-48 margin, has also been described as disinterested because he does not ask questions during oral presentations before the court. The justice has defended himself against the criticism, it as an effort to demonstrate respect for the attorneys presenting their cases.

“Reasonable Supreme Court observers of all political stripes, who do not necessarily agree with Justice Thomas’ jurisprudence, consider his work to be scholarly and of top quality. And yet Senator Obama is, sadly, unable to acknowledge even that much about an intelligent, wonderful and kind man who broke racial barriers to rise to the very top of the legal profession,” said Helgi Walker, a former associate counsel to President Bush and former law clerk for Thomas.

Long and others said Thomas has repeatedly proven critics wrong about his intellectual capacity and repeated previous defenses that much of the criticism of Thomas is because he is a black conservative.

“Apparently, Obama can do no better than to recycle discredited statements of Harry Reid when it comes to Justice Thomas. Like other liberal elites, Obama cannot stand it when a black man strays from the ideological plantation and refuses to implement liberal policies through the courts. But Obama will never point out any intellectual deficiencies in Justice Thomas’s work, because he can’t. Justice Thomas’s opinions consistently reveal faithfulness to the Constitution, judicial modesty and deference to the will of the people in our representative democracy. That is opposed to everything that Obama and the liberals are trying to do in grabbing power from the people and giving it to the courts,” she said.

“It’s precisely because Justice Thomas has proven himself such a faithful steward of the Constitution that Barack Obama says he wouldn’t have nominated him,” said Ed Whelan, president of the Ethics and Policy Center and a former law clerk to Scalia. “If he is elected, Obama is a sure bet to appoint liberal judicial activists eager to invent farfetched constitutional ‘rights’ that entrench the left’s agenda on issues like same-sex marriage, stripping God out of the Pledge of Allegiance, child pornography, partial-birth abortion, and national security. It’s Obama who lacks the experience and judgment for the position that he seeks.”

Long did not offer comment to McCain’s response to the same question in which he said, “with all due respect,” he would not have nominated Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens.


“Well, I think that the president of the United States has incredible responsibility in nominating people to the United States Supreme Court. They are lifetime positions, as well as the federal bench. There will be two or maybe three vacancies. This nomination should be based on the criteria of proven record, of strictly adhering to the Constitution of the United States of America and not legislating from the bench. Some of the worst damage has been done by legislating from the bench,” McCain said.


Left off both candidates’ lists were the nominal moderate in the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, and the newest Justice on the court Samuel Alito.
The nomination of justices to the bench is one of the most important criteria for conservatives in the coming election, and several leaders on the right have said they will swallow their distaste for McCain’s record on other matters and vote for him because they know he will nominate conservative justices.

The Wall Street Journal editorial page also took jabs at Obama’s answer, noting both his and Thomas’ career at the time they reached the highest office of their ambitions. The editorial noted that Obama’s response may have been inartful.


“Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing cliché that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are,” the editorial board wrote.


Long warned that Obama’s response reveals the kind of judges Obama would appoint.
“Obama wants justices who will do his bidding, who will implement the preferred policies of the liberal establishment – not Justices like Thomas, Scalia, Roberts and Alito, who understand that the role of a judge is not to legislate from the bench,” she said.


She also slammed the candidate for saying that he would take the counsel from his wife and grandmother as well as former Sen. Sam Nunn and Sens. Dick Lugar, Ted Kennedy and Tom Coburn.

“Obama’s answer about the three wisest people in his life, upon whom he would rely heavily in his administration, also sheds light on the way he would choose Supreme Court Justices. Obama said he would consult his grandmother, his wife, and Ted Kennedy. This is unlikely to yield the highest quality judicial nominees who understand the Constitution and the role of judges in our constitutional democracy,” Long said.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

McCain v. Obama and the Mortgage Crisis


By: Leland C. Abraham, Esq.

As the campaign trail gets into full swing, one of the topics of great importance is the candidates’ stance on the mortgage crisis. If you are unaware, the adjustable rate mortgage crisis has severely affected the nation’s economy in the last five years. The places especially affected have been America’s coastal states, like California and Florida. The mortgage crisis has affected people from many walks of life.

According to interviews, the main reason why most people agreed to an adjustable rate mortgage was because they were promised that the rate would be fixed for a couple of years and then the rate would drop. This was more attractive than a 30-month fixed interest rate on a mortgage that would never rise nor drop. Unfortunately, mortgage companies made far too many of these loans and because of the Iraq War’s effect on the economy, the interest rates increased instead of decreased as predicted. Because of the change in interest rates, many debtors defaulted on these loans. The houses then were sold at auction for a price far less then the market value. This bottomed out the housing market and had an effect on the economy as a whole.

All presidential candidates promise to do things that will have a positive effect on the economy. Very rarely are these candidates able to deliver on their promises because the economy is not controlled by the president. However, this presidential election is unique in that there are some things that the candidates can do to affect the economy.

First, the real estate market will have to be corrected before America can see an upswing in the economy. Senator Obama stated that one of the things he plans to do in response to mortgage fraud is to boost funding for law enforcement programs aimed at housing fraud by $40 million. He also plans to establish a database of censured or debarred mortgage professionals, so borrowers can easily check the credentials of lenders. Will these measures solve the problem of mortgage fraud? Probably not. There will probably still be lenders that seek out first time buyers and convince them to sign contracts with interest rates that will balloon to a point where the borrower will not be able to pay the note. It may not stop the problem, but it is a start to fixing a problem that has spiraled out of control.

Senator McCain has some ideas pertaining to the Mortgage crises as well. One of the measures that he wants to implement is to create a Justice Department task force that punishes individuals or firms that either defraud innocent home owners or forged loan application documents. This task force would also assist state attorneys in investigating abusive lending practices. Again, probably not going to solve the problem overnight as there is much to fix, but a task force is a good start.

Both candidates have mentioned that they want to go after predatory lenders. In particular, Senator Obama introduced the STOP FRAUD ACT in the Senate and has made it part of his platform. Senator McCain has vowed to do all he can to stop mortgage fraud with his task force. Whether these measures will be successful remains to be seen. One thing that borrowers can do is educate themselves about mortgages and the lending process.

The first step would be to research the lender. The borrower will want to check to see whether the lender is involved in any litigation related to predatory lending or mortgage fraud. Because we now live in the internet age, this can be done online. Online research can be done for free at public libraries who have computer access. Also, when a borrower gets a lending agent, the borrower may want to check all credentials the agent has. The state licensing agencies are usually good with verifying certification information. There can still be things that slip through the cracks, but borrower due diligence will go a long way in fixing the real estate mortgage crisis.

Second, if you have a mortgage loan, please have a lawyer and/or accountant review the terms of the loan agreement for you before you sign. These trained professionals will be able to translate complex language in a contract that you will be able to understand. Also, they will be able to give you legal and/or financial advice to see if this type of investment in real estate is beneficial for you.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Sunday, July 27, 2008

CNN’s Black in America: Is Marriage Really for White People?


By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD


As many of my friends forwarded to me via e-mail a reminder to watch CNN’s two-part special Black in America, I have to tell you the specials made me very depressed and I wonder is the message that CNN is showing to our community is the following: that being black in America is a plague that will never go away. From the alarming statistics as it related to AIDS being the number one killer of black women, the growing number of black men going to prison, and lack of job opportunities even for black men acting as model citizens, I think we need to re-think showing specials of being Black in America through CNN.

Some people might think this is enlightening, but how many specials do you see CNN doing talking about being “White in America,” “Hispanic or Latino in America,” or “Asian in America” and give the same coverage of relevant statistics and personal examples of negative aspects that exist in their respective communities as done for its special Black in America? For example, growing methamphetamine drug abuse and a larger percentage of whites are on welfare will less likely be highlighted if CNN ran a special called “White in America.”

But, what is really appalling is that CNN had the nerve to ask the question in an article, “Is Marriage Really for White People?” on its website recently.[1] Wow! Has 54 years of integration since the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, KS where they reversed the ruling of the Doctrine of Separate but Equal as the federal law of the land in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1954 produced this type of blatant media question to have legitimacy in 2008?[2] Instead of just blaming CNN for publicizing this type of nonsensical question, I want to use this article to highlight some legal and financial advantages of marriage.

Marriage

Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state or by religious authority.[3] The right to marry is a fundamental right that is protected by the constitution.[4] Marriage is an example of how the church and the state are intermingled. Individual states, and not the federal government, has jurisdiction over marriage. However, the state's power to regulate marriage is not unlimited and is subject to constitutional limitations.[5]

All 50 states and one district of the United States have statutes that allow a man and a woman to be married. If you are Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or any other recognized religious practice, the state usually allow couples to apply for a marriage license after performing their religious ceremony for marriage. However, if you do not practice a recognized religious practice, the state government allows couples to get married through a ceremony performed by a government official as well. Usually, this type of civil marriage is performed by a justice of the peace or other recognized government official.

There are advantages to marriage. One is that it results in a civil contract creating a new status. The new status is that a husband and wife are considered one unit instead of two separate units when it comes to legal, financial and social benefits. Once an individual is married, that status terminates only upon death, dissolution or annulment. Listed below are nine categories of the benefits of being married.

Tax Benefits

Married couples can file married filing joint on their federal and state tax returns. This status has the lower taxable rate afforded to it under the Internal Revenue Code and respective state revenue codes. Another tax benefit is that married couples can create a “family partnership” under federal tax laws which allow couples to divide business income among family members.

Estate Planning Benefits

In terms of estate planning benefits, a person can inherit a share of their spouse’s estate. Another benefit is that a person can receive an exemption from both estate taxes and gift taxes for all property you give or leave to your spouse. Another benefit is that married couples can create life estate trusts like QTIP trusts, QDOT trusts and marital deduction trusts. Also, a married couple can obtain priority if a conservator (someone to make financial and/or marital decisions on your spouse’s behalf) needs to be appointed.

Government Benefits

Some of the government benefits you will receive in marriage is that a spouse can receive Social Security, Medicare and disability benefits for each other’s spouse after a certain duration of marriage. Also, a spouse can receive veterans’ and military benefits such as those for education, medical care, and special loans. Married couples can receive public assistance benefits as well.

Employee Benefits

Married couples can obtain insurance benefits through a spouse’s employer. During employment, a spouse can take family leave to care for your spouse during an illness with federal protection. Another benefit is that you can receive wages, workers’ compensation, and retirement plan benefits for a deceased spouse. Also, a person can take bereavement leave if your spouse or one of your spouse’s close relative dies.

Medical Benefits

If married, you can visit your spouse in a hospital intensive care unit or during restricted visiting hours in other parts of a medical facility. Also, you can make medical decisions for your spouse if he or she becomes incapacitated and unable to express wishes for treatment.

Death Benefits

Spouses can consent to after-death examinations and procedures. Also, a spouse can make burial or other final arrangements.

Family Benefits

A married couple can file for stepparent or joint adoption. Also, a married couple can apply for joint foster care rights. A spouse can receive equitable division of marital property if a divorce is finalized. Another benefit is a former spouse can receive spousal or child support, child custody and visitation if a divorce is finalized.

Housing Benefits

Married couples can live in neighborhood zones for “families only.” Also, a married couple can automatically renew leases signed by only one spouse.

Consumer Benefits

Married couples receive family rates for health, homeowners’, auto and other types of insurance. These rates are lower than those for single persons. Also, married couples receive tuition discount and permission to use school facilities. Married couples can participate in other consumer discounts and incentives offered only to married couples or families.

Conclusion

Listed above are nine examples of the benefits of being married. There are more and if interested, please feel free to consult a lawyer, accountant and/or spiritual counselor before you decide to venture into marriage. Also, I want to make it very clear that being married should not be a determination based on race or ethnicity. Never did you hear the Jewish community even pose this question, “Is marriage really for Germans?” while they suffered through the holocaust. They continued to get married because they knew through their faith and their continued existence that it was an ideal thing to partake in even in the midst of turmoil and adversity. Like our Jewish brothers and sisters, we should not allow CNN or our own perceived failings to cloud our judgment into thinking that we are not able to share in things like marriage that are considered to be part of the American dream.

I am 26+ years old and still look forward to marrying a brother in the future. I had an opportunity to walk down the aisle when in college, but I refused to act like a feudal serf being run by a feudal lord when my father treated me exactly like one of the scenes in Eddie Murphy’s comedic hit, Coming to America. I could become bitter and give up hope like many displayed in the CNN special. But, if we continue to view the glass as half empty, we will continue to allow others to dictate our destiny. I for one want to take the opportunity to view the glass as half full and find ways and solutions to statistically make our situation better and even our own personal life more fruitful even in the midst of adversity. If giving our community information regarding the benefits of marriage will help in that effort, then I am willing to serve as that conduit.

Source: http://www.nolo.com/article.cfm/pg/1/objectId/E0366844-7992-4018-B581C6AE9BF8B045/catId/F896EE61-B80C-4FE1-B1687AC0F07903BA/118/304/ART/

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/07/22/single.black.women/index.html
[2] Brown v. Board of Education in Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage
[4] Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978).
[5] Salisbury v. List, 501 F. Supp. 105 (D. Nev. 1980).

Law School Admissions and Race


By: Leland C. Abraham, Esq.


For the past decade, law schools have become increasingly interested in raising their national rankings. The primary way to accomplish this is demanding higher Law School Admissions Test (LSAT) scores. This is a trend that researchers are seeing across the country. However, these law schools are seeing a significant decrease in terms of racial diversity as fewer black applicants are accepted.

The number of first-year black enrollment peaked in 1994 at 3,432. Recently, that number has dropped 13% to 2,975 according to the data from the Law School Admission Council (LSAC), which is the same organization that administers the LSAT. In direct contrast, Asian and Hispanic enrollments have increased: Asians by 44% to 3,759 and Hispanics by 26% to 2,610.

Black applicants are increasingly getting denied at the gate. The main reason for this decline is because law schools are concerned more with the LSAT scores. The average law student’s LSAT score has increased from 154.3 in 2001 to 157.3 in 2005. As a group, black applicants have consistently scored around 10 points lower than the national average. Because there is an increased focus on this one particular area of the application process, black applicants are receiving a big portion of the rejection letters.

There are inherent failures with law schools focusing heavily on the LSAT as a predictor of law school entrance. One thing the statistics do not state is that the LSAT is not an indication of how well an attorney that individual will become. In fact, the LSAT is not a good indicator of how well a law student the individual will become. The LSAT score fails to consider factors such as life experience and how hard an individual is willing to work. A major portion of a student’s success in law school hinges on how hard a student is willing to work.

This trend is detrimental to the law profession and to society as a whole. Blacks make up roughly 13% of the US population, but they are just 6.8% of the 135,000 law students. While the US population is becoming more diverse, the profession that led the effort in breaking through racial barriers (via landmark cases) is becoming increasingly underrepresented by blacks.

Some have indicated that the decrease in the numbers of black law students is due to the fact the blacks are not pursuing law. This could not be further from the truth as the number of black applicants to law school has increased from 8,648 to 10,674 between 2001 and 2004. The number of applicants from all ethnic groups has increased in recent years, yielding record numbers of applicants to law school. This has forced the law schools to be more selective in the students who are admitted. Unchecked, the law school admissions process is mainly focusing on the LSAT as that measure.

Previously, the checks and balances system that law schools employed was to use “race” as one of many predominant factors in the admissions process. However, in 2003, the US Supreme Court held in two landmark cases, Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger that the use of race in admissions must be limited to prevent racial quotas in admissions.[1] If any law schools’ admissions program appears to use racial quotas for admissions of minorities, the current US Supreme Court will likely prevent its use.

To address this growing crisis, the chapters of the National Black Law School Associations (NBLSA) are inviting high school students to campus to discuss the possibility of obtaining the law degree. This is a measure that will get potential students interested in law early in the process. Perhaps by employing this measure, students will begin to seek LSAT prep courses early enough in the process to be competitive with their white counterparts. Jessica Green is a former Black Law Student Association President at the University of Kentucky. Her association invited high school students to the campus. When asked why she decided to employ such a measure, she replied, “Something has got to be done to increase these numbers. If you have a race and criminal justice course and there are no black students in there, I’m concerned about how telling the discussion can be.”

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003). See also Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003).

Friday, July 25, 2008

N-Word: Can We Regulate Public and/or Private Use of It?


By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD


Recently, Rev. Jesse Jackson, Sr., held what he believed to be a private conversation with another black analyst that was surreptitiously taped on an open microphone with Fox News when he referred to possibly castrating Senator Obama for talking down to N’s (or the N-Word) when he believed Senator Obama was grandstanding for support from white voters in supporting President Bush’s faith based initiatives in staged media events. I know most people in the black community and in mainstream America were appalled by the pervasive racial slur used by Rev. Jackson especially after he was one of the main forces leading the effort to bury the use of the N-word in public.

Well, Rev. Jackson is not alone in his use of the N-Word or being caught using the N-Word in precarious situations. Take for instance, Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick and his reference to using the N-Word to describe efforts to remove him from office during a public speech even though he appeared previously at the NAACP Annual Convention to participate in formally burying the N-Word. Better yet and one of my favorite examples is when Rev. Jeremiah Wright used the racial slur during one of his taped sermons at Trinity United Church of Christ to infer that being called an N-Word makes Senator Obama better qualified to be president over Senator Clinton. Comedian Whoopi Goldberg on “The View” used the N-Word to make a point of its private use in the black community or by rappers. Let’s not forget rappers like NAS, Jay-Z, David Banner, 50 Cent, Ludacris, and others who use the N-Word in their rap lyrics.

Well, Jesus states “he (or she) who has no sin, let them cast the first stone.” How many of you can honestly say, that in a whisper, private or public setting, you have not used a racial epithet to describe a situation? I know if my walls could talk, I would probably have a brick house built outside on the patio from all the times I have used any of the infamous racial slurs in a sentence. Unfortunately, on “The View,” Elisabeth Hasselback had trouble understanding the distinct difference between the use of the N-Word in a public or private conversation and the audience it is used before. Either she is gullible or expects that people should live their lives in an ideal world and not have any slip ups in stating racial slurs to one another. Well, just like my momma told me, she did not raise a fool. Unlike Hasselback’s emotional plea to have the world free from using racial slurs publicly or privately, we live in the real world. Racial slurs will always exist and people will always use them.

Recently, the media is only discussing the N-Word as the most controversial racial epithet. But, fair is fair and there are many other racial epithets that exist and our spoken either privately or publicly. Kike is an offensive racial slur about Jews. Spic is an offensive racial slur for Spanish Americans. Wetback is an offensive racial slur for Mexicans who enter the United States illegally. Chink is an offensive racial slur for Chinese. Dago is an offensive racial slur for a person of Italian or Spanish birth or descent. Besides the N-Word, other offensive racial slurs for those of African descent are coon, tom, savage, pickaninny, mammy, buck, samba, jigaboo, nappy headed ho and buckwheat.

But, this article is intended to understand the law as it relates to the use of racial epithets. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”[1] In 1942, the United States Supreme Court held that there are inherent limitations to free speech that do not raise constitutional problems in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire.[2] By incorporation of the Fourteenth Amendment, freedom of speech, press, assembly, and worship are among the fundamental personal rights and liberties protected from invasion by state action.[3]

Free speech is not an absolute right.[4] The United States Supreme Court held that there are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech the punishment of which has never raised any Constitutional problem.[5] Examples of this limitation are words that are lewd, obscene, profane, libelous, and insulting or considered "fighting" words (those words which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace).[6] Also, the Court noted that resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.[7]

Since 1942, many things have changed to impact what is accepted or allowed to be stated in public as it relates to profanity and racial epithets. Even Willie Lynch used the N-Word in his speech in 1712 on the bank of the James River in the colony of Virginia. Now, the N-Word has evolved into a term of endearment and spelled with an ‘a’ instead of ending with an ‘er’ when people of similar backgrounds say it in private or public. For example, the N-Word has evolved into an acceptable public conversation even with people of different races in the hip hop community and in black comedy. What better display of this trend than the movie, Gridiron Gang which is based on a true story of California teenagers at a juvenile detention center gaining self-esteem by playing football. In the movie, both versions of the N-Word were in full effect and at some points during the movie, I could not even tell the difference of whether the N-Word was used as a term of endearment or as an insult. Like the movies, cable television shows like I Love New York and Flavor of Love feature many people saying all types of curse words and racial epithets like the N-Word on a regular basis.

Racial Epithets is considered offensive language. So, regardless of how rappers or comedians perceive the use of the N-Word as a term of endearment, it is still an offensive racial slur like any other racial epithet. Now, can the federal and state government regulate public use of the N-Word? Yes, they can. If you use the word in private among friends or in associations with peers that allow use of the racial epithet, it will be less likely that a court of law would intervene to stop individual’s private use among friends, colleagues and associations.

Public use of racial epithets is a whole different story. Federally, the Federal Communication Commission (FCC) regulates public use of profanity and racial epithets. State governments regulate commercial businesses through their various agencies as well. Many of you are familiar with the Parental Advisory sticker on commercial products that use profanity or racial epithets. Also, movie ratings such as Rated R or PG-13 are used for movies that use profanity and racial epithets. The FCC and state government agencies try to incorporate a delicate balance in its regulation of content for mature or adult audiences and content suitable for children. Adult pornography is a protected constitutional privilege for adults. Within adult pornography, sexual imagery, profanity and sometimes racial epithets can be used because adults are able to discern better what these actions mean than children can.

When profanity or racial epithets have the potential to be heard by children, then the federal and state governments have a right to intervene to protect the health, safety and welfare of children. This is the main reason for the hoopla over the N-Word. Adults are worried about the potential impact that these negative images can have on children who are not fully developed or exposed to what these racial epithets mean in our society. I understand members of the hip hop community who embrace using the N-Word as a right to free speech and think it is a term of endearment. However, adults are concerned about the dark ugly side of the N-Word and the consequences that can come of it if it is allowed to run rampant as previously done in our history.

Do you think children know the ugly side of racial epithets like the N-Word as was used when Emmitt Till was brutally murdered by white racist southern men and called the N-Word in Money, Mississippi on August 28, 1955 all because they alleged that Emmitt Till whistled at a white woman? When white mobs held lynching parties throughout the United States using blacks and calling them the N-Word in the presence of family members and children, is this a term of endearment? The answer is no to both of these questions.

This is the truth about the dark ugly side of the N-Word that adults in civil rights organizations like the NAACP and The National Action Network are concerned about. They were awakened about the horrors of the word and impact to young black girls as Don Imus called the Rutgers’ women basketball team ‘nappy headed hoes.’ Michael Richards’ rant calling audience members the N-Word at the Los Angeles’ Laugh Factory awakened those fears. As the federal and state governments seek to protect the health, safety and welfare of children (and even adults) from profanity and racial epithets, let us continue to work to dialogue in a civil manner about issues on both sides so that we can come to a compromise that protects both adults and children.

As we seek to inform our children about the many facets of the N-Word, habits are hard to break. Many people, like Rev. Jackson, Sr., have used racial epithets, like the N-Word, in private dialogue. I know I have. But, let us continue to work to be mindful of how harmful racial epithets, like the N-Word, are and minimize the impact it can have on our children through creating new habits in lessening its use in public and in private and if necessary, seeking federal and state regulation as well.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] U.S. Const. amend. I
[2] See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 US 568 (1942).
[3] Id. at 571.
[4] Id.
[5] Id. at 572.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Time Magazine: Fast-Tracking Law School




By Kristina Dell


Society might not need any more lawyers, but a growing number of law schools are trying to turn out new ones faster than ever. Northwestern University announced this summer that starting in May 2009, its law school will offer an accelerated J.D. program to be completed in two years instead of the traditional three. The Chicago school, which will continue to offer a three-year program as well, is not the first to let some students fast-track their legal education. The University of Dayton School of Law and Southwestern Law School, in Los Angeles, already have two-year express tracks. But as the first top-tier law school — ranked ninth in the country by U.S. News & World Report — to offer the program, Northwestern could be especially influential in getting other schools to embrace the idea.

"This is a major change, not a minor thing," says Daniel Polsby, dean of George Mason University School of Law, in Arlington, Va. After teaching at Northwestern Law for 23 years, Polsby has asked his faculty to take a look at offering a similarly accelerated program and thinks other schools may follow suit. "The idea is generally a good one and there is going to be demand for it, but how much I don't know," he says.

Northwestern decided to offer the accelerated program after conducting a nationwide two-year study in which focus-group participants were asked how its law school could be made more competitive with other top schools. The suggestions resulted in new required courses (on such subjects as accounting and leadership skills) as well as the launch of the two-year program. "Part of our thinking was to be competitive and open up a whole new market of applicants," says David Van Zandt, dean of Northwestern Law, which is vying for students with its prestigious neighbor, the University of Chicago School of Law.

Northwestern's compressed program requires the same amount of credits as a traditional three-year program. But it squeezes them into five semesters instead of the usual six — the first one taking place during the summer before the start of the first law-school year. Applicants must have at least two years' post-undergraduate work experience, which is meant to attract older candidates who administrators believe will be better prepared to handle the grueling schedule. In addition to the heavier course load, the students get only one summer off — between their first and second years — in which to work and hopefully line up a post-graduation job.

Less time on campus most likely won't mean a break on tuition. While Northwestern has not yet set the costs for its two-year program, administrators have hinted that fast-track students will be paying somewhere around the $128,016 that students shell out over the course of three years to get a J.D. "We generally charge by the degree rather than the time served," says Van Zandt. "The real savings will be the extra year of salary students make by getting out into the marketplace faster." That's around $150,000 and up for most Northwestern Law grads working as first-year associates at top law firms.

The idea of a two-year law program is a response to critics who say the third year of law school is often pointless, since by that stage most law students already have jobs lined up and care more about socializing than getting good grades. Some schools have responded by offering more externships, study-abroad programs and legal clinics to give real-world experience during that third year.

But even proponents of accelerated programs note that there are drawbacks. With only one summer to work, students don't have a lot of time to experiment or figure out the kind of legal career they want to pursue. And those who fall behind in classes don't have much time to catch up. "This is not for everybody," says Lisa Kloppenberg, dean of the University of Dayton School of Law, who has overseen the school's two-year program. "It's very intense."

Critics question whether an expedited education will be a more efficient use of time and money for cash-strapped students or if it will churn out unprepared, inferior litigators with fewer job opportunities. "You want that other year because you will be a better lawyer for the next 50 years with that investment," says Geoffrey Stone, law professor at the University of Chicago. Indeed, the one clear winner in the accelerated approach may turn out to be the school. With its new two-year program, notes Stone, "Northwestern gets more tuition with less teaching."

Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1825863,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

Monday, July 21, 2008

How Damaging is a Lie to the Feds?



By Leland C. Abraham, Esq.


To most people, a simple lie is a means to an end. Generally, that end is to get out of trouble. In most respects, lying to investigators is not that big of a deal. If an officer were to pull you over and ask you routine questions, the accuracy of your answers will probably not matter that much if your case were to go to a trial. However, the story changes when the investigator is a federal agent. This scenario has played out recently with a few high profile celebrities.

The first celebrity of noteworthy attention is Martha Stewart. While most people believe that she went to prison for insider trading on the stock market, few know that she actually went to prison on a perjury charge. Perjury occurs whenever a witness is found to be telling a lie while under oath. While a charge of perjury mainly comes once someone is on the witness stand, there is an exception to this general rule when the potential witness is speaking to a federal investigator. Few people know that speaking to a federal investigator, of any kind, is considered testimony “under oath.” This is across the board with federal investigators, whether they are FBI agents or IRS agents. When federal authorities investigated Martha Stewart for insider trading, she made several false statements to federal investigators. As a result of these false statements, she was charged with committing perjury and sentenced to a term in a federal penitentiary.

Another celebrity case is that of Marion Jones. Amidst the steroid controversy, Marion Jones admitted that she used performance enhancing drugs during her 2000 Olympic campaign. During a previous federal investigation, she told federal investigators that she did not use performance enhancing drugs and she did not know of any source in which athletes may obtain such drugs. Federal investigators were able to prove that her previous statement was untrue. As a result, Marion Jones was sentenced to a term of six (6) months in a federal prison.

Two more celebrities who are being impacted by lying to federal authorities is Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Barry Bonds is charged with perjury as it relates to his use and statements of use of performance enhancing drugs . What about Roger Clemens? Is the issue of race more prevalent in determining when celebrities like Roger Clemens will or will not be charged with perjury? The federal government has made it clear that when an athlete is caught making false statements to a federal investigator, that athlete will be sentenced to a term in federal prison (see Marion Jones). To be consistent in its application of the perjury charge, the pressure should be on the federal government to bring Roger Clemens on perjury charges as well.

Like Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens is an acclaimed baseball pitcher who is accused of using performance enhancing drugs during one of his MVP seasons. During Congressional hearings, Clemens categorically denied using performance enhancing drugs. In fact, Clemens scolded certain members of the press for not giving him the benefit of the doubt in this matter. Clemens also filed a defamation suit against the man who accused him of using steroids. Since the congressional hearings, there has been evidence that suggests that Clemens indeed did use steroids. If this is the case, Clemens would have lied to federal investigators on several occasions, including to congressional members at the congressional hearings. If Clemens did lie to Congress and federal investigators, then he deserves to be brought up on perjury charges and receive a punishment no less than six months in a federal prison as Marion Jones received. However, this is where the issue of race might come into play. Like the disparity in prison sentence to those who distribute and sell cocaine versus crack cocaine, you can only imagine that the punishment, if any, Roger Clemens will receive will be far less than what Barry Bonds will receive and Marion Jones received if convicted of perjury. But, keep your eyes open to see if justice is fair even in the case of lying to federal authorities.


Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

A BANKRUPT AMERICA


By: Leland C. Abraham, Esq.

While many politicians and talk show hosts debate whether America is in a “recession,” one thing is for certain, more people are filing for bankruptcy now than ever. The growing hysteria generated from the subprime mortgage crisis where companies like Bear Stearns, IndyMac, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are being bailed out or regulated by the federal government is of daily discussion by news media.

Growing unemployment and increased gas prices have taken a toll on individuals and corporations as well. However, individuals and corporations do have legal options to deal with their worsening financial situation related to their inability to pay their mortgage payment or looming credit card debt. Bankruptcy is a method that allows individuals or corporations to satisfy debts when they do not have the financial resources to cure claims with creditors. This article is intended to give you an overview of Bankruptcy as well as the pros and cons of it if you choose to pursue this legal option.

Bankruptcy is a legal process through which people and businesses can obtain a fresh financial start when they are in such financial difficulty that they can not repay their debts as agreed. Bankruptcy is created by federal statute; hence, jurisdiction for bankruptcy is under the federal courts.

There are four (4) different forms of bankruptcy applicable to consumers or individuals. Chapter 11 bankruptcy is a form of bankruptcy given to corporate entities for restructuring their business. When businesses become insolvent, corporations will file Chapter 11 bankruptcy to satisfy debts with creditors while still continuing to exist as a corporate entity after the filing of bankruptcy. For example, Michael Vick and his associated legitimate business ventures filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection recently.

Chapter 12 bankruptcy is used for agricultural purposes. This form of bankruptcy is used for farmers and fishermen. If there is a supply quota that the farmer or fisherman must meet and circumstances arise where he or she is not able to meet the quota for a specified amount of periods, he or she may file for Chapter 12 bankruptcy protection to satisfy those creditors whom they are not able to provide supply for.

Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows individual consumers to make monthly payments to save possession and ownership of real or personal property. Like Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Chapter 13 bankruptcy is a form of debt reorganization. People file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy when they either have a single asset with a lot of equity or a number of small assets that yield a high net value. Usually, individuals will file for Chapter 13 bankruptcy if they would like to save their home from foreclosure. The person would use Chapter 13 bankruptcy to reorganize their debts and the person would make a monthly payment plan to pay off the debt of the bankruptcy estate in three (3) to five (5) years. For example, if an individual had $50,000 worth of debt and an average interest rate of 50%, the bankruptcy would reorganize that person’s debt to where the person may owe $44,000 and have an interest rate of 40%. That person would be expected to pay off the new balance of the debt through a monthly plan payment for either a three (3) or five (5) year period.

Chapter 7 bankruptcy is the most common bankruptcy for individuals or corporations. This form of bankruptcy is for individuals or corporations who have accumulated so much debt that debt counseling or debt management is really not an option for them. The Chapter 7 bankruptcy serves as a debt liquidation in which all of the applicant’s debts are discharged and the applicant is given a “fresh start.” If a corporation files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, they will no longer exist as an entity.

There are several qualifications for the Chapter 7 bankruptcy. One such qualification is the median income qualifications. All individuals who wish to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy have to fall within an income range. This income range will vary by state, but it usually is around $37,000 for a household of one. There are incremental increases to this income qualification the more people are in the household.

Another qualification to the Chapter 7 bankruptcy is the residency requirement. Generally, an applicant for Chapter 7 bankruptcy must live in the state in which he or she files for at least six (6) months. Although this is the residency requirement to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, there is a separate residency requirement in order to qualify for the state’s exemption laws. An exemption allows a debtor to protect an asset from being included in the bankruptcy estate to be distributed by the Chapter 7 trustee to creditors.

Advantages and Disadvantages

There are advantages to filing for bankruptcy. First, debtors can obtain a financial fresh start after they receive a discharge. For example, a debtor who files a Chapter 7 bankruptcy will be able to be discharged from paying most credit card debts. Second, creditor’s collection efforts will stop as soon as an individual or corporate debtor files for bankruptcy protection under a Chapter 7 or Chapter 13. This is known as the automatic stay. If a creditor continues to try to collect on a debt after receiving notice of a bankruptcy filing by a debtor, the creditor may be cited for contempt of court and/or ordered to pay damages. Also, you cannot be fired from your job solely because you filed for bankruptcy. Furthermore, you can freeze your FICO credit score by filing for bankruptcy.

However, there are disadvantages to filing for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy filing will remain on your credit record for up to ten (10) years. This record may affect future finance opportunities. So, it would behoove any potential applicant to not obtain any new credit cards or high interest loans after filing for bankruptcy for some time. But, research has given mixed results to the time when people or corporations can obtain new finance opportunities even after filing for bankruptcy.

Alternatives to Bankruptcy Filing

Another option that an individual or corporation might pursue is to directly contact the creditor and see if they are wiling to allow a lower monthly payment or extend the time to remit payment to lower the payments. Also, you can consolidate your debts by taking out a big loan to pay off all smaller amounts of debts that you owe.

If interested in filing for bankruptcy, please consult your local bankruptcy attorney in your area. We have provided a link to the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys for you to consult on this webpage as well.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA): Unconstitutional? Highly Unlikely But, Should It Be?



By Syreeta L. McNeal, CPA, JD


On July 9, 2008, a majority of the other United States Senators, including Senator Obama, voted 69 votes for and a minority of United States Senators, including Senator Clinton, voted 28 votes against approval for the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Amendments Act of 2008. Left wing liberals and proponents of preserving the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution are furious by Congress’s approval of FISA. However, history is showing that the tension surrounding FISA and application of the “national security exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment is repeating itself.

Since the administration of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1930’s, presidents have claimed the right to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in matters involving the defense of the nation, with each successive administration continuing to broaden this amorphous "national security exception" to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment.[1] During the 1970’s, the Nixon administration used claims of national security to justify warrantless wiretapping of dissident groups that had no foreign nexus; included in this class of dissident groups was the Democratic Party.[2] During the Watergate tragedy, gross abuses of the Executive's presumed authority to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance in the name of national security came to light.[3] The public concern about Executive wiretaps in 1978 ultimately led to the enactment of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, 50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801 et seq., (hereinafter FISA).[4]

Originally, FISA established standards for obtaining a court order authorizing foreign intelligence electronic surveillance.[5] To obtain a surveillance order, a federal officer, having first obtained the Attorney General's approval, must submit an application to one of the FISA court judges.[6] The application detailed the following: (1) the identity of the target; (2) the information relied on by the government to demonstrate that the target is a "foreign power" or an "agent of a foreign power"; (3) evidence that the place where the surveillance will occur is being used, or is about to be used, by the foreign power or its agent; (4) the type of surveillance to be used; (5) the minimization procedures to be employed; and (6) certification that the information sought is "foreign intelligence information."[7] Before issuing the order, the FISA judge would make specific findings, including that there is probable cause to believe that the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power, and, in the case of a United States person, that the target of the surveillance is not being considered an agent of a foreign power solely on the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[8]

After the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Congress amended the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to better enable federal agencies to cooperate in intelligence gathering for the prevention of terrorism.[9] In response to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress enacted the USA Patriot Act, in order to give federal officials greater power to conduct surveillance within the United States on foreign intelligence agents, and prevent terrorism.[10] To better understand the impact FISA is having, it is important to understand how the Fourth Amendment has evolved.

In 1791, our founding fathers adopted the Bill of Rights. These are the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. The purpose of these ten amendments was to preserve individual’s rights that the federal government shall not infringe upon. For example, the Fourth Amendment prohibited the federal government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The text of the amendment is as follows:

Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.[11]

The Fourth Amendment represents the general rule as it applies to the federal government. Like any other general rule, there are exceptions. What the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 is doing is expanding the “national security exception” to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement.

Making the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 unconstitutional will probably not occur in this current climate after the terrorist attacks in 2001. The courts have held that FISA represents a reasonable balance between the needs of the government in gathering national intelligence information and the rights of individuals under the Fourth Amendment.[12] Since the governmental interest in gathering intelligence information is different from that of a criminal investigation, it has been held that the standard of probable cause needed for a FISA order passes constitutional muster, although it does not meet the standard of probable cause needed for a criminal investigation wiretap.[13] Also, it has been held that FISA establishes sufficiently definite standards to enable the statute to meet the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment.[14]

However, with CIA Leaks and abuses of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay under President Bush’s tenure, most people feel that President Bush is the reincarnation of President Nixon and Congress should do its part to reign in the abuses of the Executive branch. Unfortunately, Congress did not do its part on July 9, 2008. Now, people are looking to see if the Courts can intervene. So the question is should the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 be unconstitutional and struck down by the Courts?

The main provisions of the FISA Amendments of 2008 that were passed by Congress on July 9, 2008 are as follows:

  • The bill provides immunity for AT&T, Verizon Communications and other U.S. telecommunications companies against 40 lawsuits alleging that they violated customers' privacy rights by helping the government's NSA electronic surveillance program conduct a warrantless spying program after the September 11th attacks.[15]
  • Requires FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas[16]
  • Prohibits targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop on an American's calls or e-mails without court approval.[17]
  • Allows the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.[18]
  • Allows eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.[19]
  • Prohibits the government from invoking war powers or other authorities to supersede surveillance rules in the future.[20]

The provision that many are outraged over is the fact that government agencies can eavesdrop without court approval as long as they provide papers within a week. This seven (7) day period of warrantless search and seizure on citizens’ privacy is an issue. Did the founding fathers think that the federal government should have a seven (7) day grace period to do what they want without Court approval? Doesn't this unchecked power allow the Executive Branch to abuse and misuse its powers as was done by President Nixon in Watergate? I don’t know the answer to that question, but it is one that the Courts will probably litigate over if a case is brought before them dealing with this direct issue.

Legal Disclaimer: This site provides information about the law designed to keep readers informed of pertinent legal matters affecting the African-American community. But legal information is not the same as legal advice -- the application of law to an individual's specific circumstances. Although we go to great lengths to make sure our information is accurate and useful, we recommend you consult a lawyer in your specific location if you want professional assurance that our information, and your interpretation of it, is appropriate to your particular situation.

[1] John J. Dvorske, J.D., Validity, Construction, and Application of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801 et seq.) Authorizing Electronic Surveillance of Foreign Powers and Their Agents, 190 A.L.R. Fed. 385 (2003).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] U.S. Const. amend. IV.
[12] John J. Dvorske, J.D., Validity, Construction, and Application of Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C.A. §§ 1801 et seq.) Authorizing Electronic Surveillance of Foreign Powers and Their Agents, 190 A.L.R. Fed. 385 (2003).
[13] Id.
[14] Id.
[15] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FISA_Amendments_Act_of_2008
[16] Id.
[17] Id.
[18] Id.
[19] Id.
[20] Id.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Judge Orders Google to give User Viewership Data Over to Viacom

 

SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) — A US judge has ordered Google to expose to Viacom the video-viewing habits of everyone who has ever used YouTube in a decision condemned by the Internet giant and privacy advocates.

 

US District Court Judge Louis Stanton backed Viacom's request for data on which YouTube users watch which videos on the website in order to support its case in a billion-dollar copyright lawsuit against Google.

 

Viacom charges Google, which bought YouTube in 2006, acts as a willing accomplice to Internet users who put clips of Viacom's copyrighted television programs on the popular video-sharing website.

 

"We are disappointed the court granted Viacom's overreaching demand for viewing history," Google senior litigation counsel Catherine Lacavera told AFP in an email Thursday.

 

Stanton brushed aside privacy concerns on Tuesday while ordering Google to give Viacom log-in names of YouTube users and Internet protocol (IP) addresses identifying which computers they used for viewing videos.

 

Stanton contends that Viacom needs more than pseudonyms and IP numbers that are tantamount to addresses on the Internet to identify individual YouTube users.

 

Click to Read More.