The 14th Amendment DOES Include Women

Women, in history have not traditionally been among the most discriminated people, but they certainly have been at a disadvantage pretty much since the beginning of time. For most of time women were relegated to being nothing more than homemakers. As that changed and women took their place in the work force they still were not given the right to hold meaningful positions in government or corporations. The Declaration of Independence in fact says nothing whatsoever about women’s rights, when it discusses freedoms and equailties.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed…” (Introduction, Declaration of Independence)

Clearly in 1776 women’s rights were not a the forefront of the concerns that our forefathers sought to address and over the last two hundred plus years though women have gained in stature and equality, nothing has ever been mentioned about correcting this oversight.

Justice Antonin Scalia recently caused a stir as it relates to women’s rights when he expressed his bazaar opinion in an interview in California Lawyer magazine that the promise of equal protection in the Constitution’s 14^th Amendment does not apply to protecting women against sexual discrimination. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/05/opinion/05wed3.html?_r=1) The article indicates that this is not the first time Justice Scalia has stated this premise. What role in our government is this man playing if he is trying to treat the women of today like second-class citizens? For him to be a sitting member of the nation’s highest court and talking this way about women is simply outrageous. “It also disrespects the wording of the Equal Protection Clause, which is intentionally broad, and is intended to ensure a fair and just society.” The Equal Protection Clause says that no state should deny any person equal protection of the law. It is hard to understand exactly what point Justice Scalia is making with his rhetoric. If nothing else what he is saying is inflammatory and demeaning of half the countries population.

There can be no debate that the Equal Protection clause applies to every man women and child regardless of race, creed or color. “The Supreme Court has consistently rejected Justice Scalia’s constricted view of what the Constitution requires.” I applaud the Supreme Court and our government for not giving in to one person’s view, especially when that view is so far off base. 

Please sign on the dotted line….

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/founder-of-civility-project-calls-it-quits/

Mark DeMoss, a prominent, republican evangelical Christian (goes by the Gospel), in January of 2009, initiated the ‘Civility Project”. (CivilityProject.org) The Project was a letter sent out to each sitting governor and member of the Congress to sign a pledge that stated:

1. I will be civil in my public discourse and behavior

2. I will be respectful of other whether or not I agree with them.

3. I will stand against incivility when I see it.

He created this pledge in reaction to an increased violent tone in American Politics. Many today are wondering if this same tone contributed to the shooting of Congresswoman Gifford and many innocent victims in Tucson, Arizona this past week.  Following the incident, many liberals across the nation accused Sarah Palin’s rhetoric of causing this assassination attempt by Jared Loughner.

After 2 years and $30,000 in expenses to send out 585 letters, only Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, Representative Frank Wolfe of Virginia and Representative Sue Myrick of North Carolina have signed the pledge.

Mr. DeMoss said, “I must admit to scratching my head as to why only three members of Congress, and no governors, would agree to what I believe is a rather low bar.” This makes me wonder who these people are in our government that represents our country. It seems as if they would rather have chaos rather than peace. Does this mean that without signing the pledge, these representatives in Congress will not be civil when they take action towards any situation in our country? I hope not. At a time where our economy is in debt, and we need to put all the pieces back together, every representative in Congress and our government as a whole should be signing this pledge and enforcing it to people everywhere.

With civil rights comes civil responsibility. How can our elected government officials be responsible and accountable for our countries actions when they are not civil amongst themselves? As memtioned earlier, many left wing democrats are looking to point the finger and place blame with conservatives for  the blood bath in Arizona.  Civil Rights, are the rights that an human is entitled to whether tall, skinny, black, white, female, male, old, young, etc. according to the Fourteenth Amendment. Those in our government who serve our country are entitled to not sign this pledge.  However, they should want to achieve political harmony and work together for the betterment of the country they are elected to serve.

“Whether or not there’s violence, whether or not incivility today is worse than it’s been in history, it’s all immaterial. It’s worse than it ought to be.” DeMoss Said. 

30 years behind bars, for nothing.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/6181644/black_man_now_free_after_serving_30.html?cat=37

In 1979, Cornelius Dupree Jr. at the age of 19 was convicted of robbery and rape. He served 30 years in prison for a crime he did not commit.  Finally, after all of this time, he has been exonerated and is now a free man because of DNA evidence. The article stated that he always maintained that he “was mistakenly identified as the suspect.” The Court of Criminal Appeals ignored his pleas of innocence each and every time.

The Justice system continues to fail and convict people due to mistaken identity. The system needs to change as over the years, innocent people are serving time and losing their freedom based on other people’s mistakes. In addition, because of continued racial profiling, due to mistaken identification, more African American men are more likely to end up in prison than Caucasian men. “More than half of all Black men report that they have been the victims of racial profiling by police, according to a recently published survey.” In today’s day, this is absurd and unacceptable; no person, especially based on the color of their skin, should have to go to prison because of someone else’s mistakes to identify the right suspect. This man was in the wrong place at the wrong time and should never have lost 30 years of his life behind bars. “Two-thirds of all the DNA exonerations involving mistaken identifications were against black men.”

http://cnettv.cnet.com/man-declared-innocent-after-30-years-jail/9742-1_53-50098198.html

The above video link video shows Cornelius Dupree Jr. upon his release. He remarks that in 1979, he was wrongly accused and sentenced to 75 years in prison by an ALL-WHITE jury. What do you think would have happened if it were a black jury? The outcome would probably have been a lot different, and Dupree might not have been convicted or quite possibly, the sentence could have been lighter.  Dupree says himself in the video, “I thought the system was supposed to be you are innocent until your proven guilty.” Wasn’t it the complete opposite in this case?  Dupree’s civil rights were violated and he is now suing the state of Texas and hopes to gain 2.4 million dollars as indemnity. He appealed his conviction 3 times in the duration of his conviction but lost every time. “The state of Texas has had 41 DNA exonerations since 2002, 21 in Dallas County.”

All states need to exercise more caution when trying casing of possible mistaken identity and racial profiling.  The positive in this case is that Dupree maintained his innocence throughout his 30 years of incarceration and now stands to live a comfortable life with his new wife and financial settlement. On the other hand however, money cannot secure happiness and make up for 30 years behind a prison wall.  

A Kidney for Freedom?

Sisters Jamie and Gladys Scott were convicted of armed robbery in 1994 in which they made away with all of $11.00.   After 16 years of incarceration, Jamie Scott is costing the state of Mississippi $200,000 a year as she requires daily dialysis due to a kidney condition. Governor Haley Barbour has decided to suspend the life sentences of these two sisters, and was applauded by civil rights organizations that said the sentences were too harsh for the crime they committed. Barbour has agreed to release Jamie because of her medical condition. Gladys Scott’s release however, is contingent upon her voluntary offer to donate one of her healthy kidneys to her sister within a year of her release.

"When you volunteer to give a kidney, you're usually free and clear to change your mind right up to the last minute," he said. "When you put a condition on it that you could go back to prison, that's a pretty powerful incentive." (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101230/ap_on_re_us/us_sisters_pardon_kidney)

Most people today would do just about anything for money if they really needed it. Gladys Scott would probably do just about anything for an early release from prison especially if her kidney donation helps her sister’s medical condition.  It is illegal to buy or sell organs or to compel a person to donate them. It is common for Governors to place demands of early releases from prison.  In this particular case, she conjured the idea and made it part her petition for an early release.  Incentive is a motivator, but there is always the case that she could possibly change her mind and return to prison. Many doubt that this will happen.   Unfortunately, there are “what if” questions to think about…

What if Gladys changes her mind?

What if the sisters are not a compatible medical match for each other?

“National NAACP President and CEO Benjamin Todd Jealous thanked Barbour on Thursday after meeting him at the state capital in Jackson, calling his decision a shining example of the way a governor should use the power of clemency.”

This story illustrates the power of Gladys love to save her sister’s life while saving her own life from prison at the same time. Governor Barbour also demonstrates regard for their civil liberties in his attempt to offer clemency for a crime whose punishment may have been too harsh in the first place.

“If you can fight for your country, you can do anything” - Barney Frank

President Obama on Wednesday, December 22, 2010 signed the repeal for the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, allowing gays and lesbians to openly serve in the military. (http://nyti.ms/hCICIj) This was a historic day in our country, and in the lives of millions across the world. “No longer will tens of thousands of Americans in uniform be asked to live a lie or look over their shoulder,” President Obama said during the signing. No man or woman should have to keep their sexual preferences a secret especially if they are working to preserve our freedoms and the greater good of our country. “Our people sacrifice a lot for their country, including their lives. None of them should have to sacrifice their integrity as well.” President Obama concluded. He is exactly right. I have no idea why this policy was put into place, during the Clinton-era, in the first place, although that it is understood that it the policy could of prevented people from getting hurt; some gays and lesbians were killed in the holocaust because they were gay.

Unfortunately this repeal doesn’t put an immediate stop to the Don’t Ask Don’t tell policy. While there is still significant resistance in the military to this repeal, Representative Barney Frank – the openly gay Democrat from Massachusetts – thinks that this integration of open gays into the military will be a lot smoother than racial or gender integration. “Reality will very soon make it clear that there is nothing to worry about,” Mr. Frank said. There really is nothing to worry about; no bad can really come of this situation. Anyone who further discriminates against these groups of people is now discriminating against the President and the government itself. He called the signing of the repeal the biggest civil rights movement in the nation since the signing of legislation voting rights in the 1960s.

“If you can fight for your country, you can do anything,” Frank said.

Since Wednesday, the 22^nd of December, Colleges have been reconsidering the ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) program after the repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Forty years ago, ROTC units disappeared from Harvard, Yale, Columbia, Stanford and other elite Ivy League universities. Now, as a result of the repeal, colleges are reconsidering returning the program back to the universities. Schools across the country dissolved many of the ROTC programs because of the inherent discrimination with the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Policy.  It appears that universities are more welcoming to the repeal that the United states Military.  Universities should value the positive impact that veterans would bring to their campuses through the ROTC Program. (http://bit.ly/h4QStq)

Here is a link to the Support Plan for Implementation: Report of the Comprehensive Review of the Issues Associated with a Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

(http://whiteplains.patch.com/articles/dont-ask-dont-tell-repealed#pdf-4146095)

On the other hand, some maintained opposing views of the repeal: While people are entitled to their opinions, it is not just for people to believe that an openly gay person cannot effectively serve in the military.  At the same time, it is unfair and discriminatory to require that person to conceal their sexual identity. 

The Holidays are Here and Everyone Should Have a Cheer!

The holidays are a time of giving: giving to our loved ones, giving to our friends, and giving to the ones who don't have as much as we do. Things like discrimination, and the disallowing of rights have brought people to be a little less fortunate than ones who were never treated poorly. In today’s day and age there is a widening gap between the rich and the poor. Around the time of year like it is now, with the holidays, we should ignore the fact that people are different. We should just make the best out of these wonderful times and help people who don’t always have the best time during this wonderful time because of their social and economic status.

Michelle Singletary considers what would happen if we gave to the poor rather than buy meaningless holiday stuff. “How about suggesting that people put charitable giving at the top of their budget?” (http://wapo.st/fx6U2i) This is probably one of the smartest, most simple and easy suggestions I have heard in a while. If you think about it, the poor get by, by eating cheap unhealthy food, and living wherever they can afford even if it is a street corner. The rich get by, by buying their way to whatever they need and not doing anything to help others beside themselves. This isn’t really a stereotype unless you are very wealthy because of the hard work you put into building success as a career, which is how a lot of people function these days, but on the other hand there is also the people who are handed the money because they were next in line in the family to take over the business or kids had rich parents.

I know there are so many charities out there to help the homeless and help the poor and the less fortunate, but hearing this author of this article talk about the simple things she does to donate and give to charity makes me really happy. It isn’t just going to happen over night, closing the gap between the rich and the poor, but by each person that does something to help, the closer we get to achieving the goal of more economic equality.

From history, some people have been put at a disadvantage before they were even born. African Americans, especially, and women were denied certain rights in the work force, which led them to being at a disadvantage in the future. It is proven that there are more men who have jobs then women who have jobs, and that there are more white people rather than black people who have jobs in the US’s work force today and since discrimination in the past. Although, not having a job doesn’t necessarily make you considered poor, when our economy is in debt and the world is struggling to stay on it’s two feet, in my opinion having a job makes you wealthier than a person who doesn’t have one.

The holidays are a time of joy and happiness and a time where no one should feel like they're a lone. Whether it is someone who doesn’t have a job that cannot pay for presents for his or her kids, someone who was put at a disadvantage and cannot find their way back because of it, or just a homeless person on the side of the street, everyone in this world should feel happiness during the holidays. It just starts with one person making a difference and then many more catching on and following that person’s footsteps. I wonder what our world would be if there weren’t any of these people who help the less fortunate.

             

Discrimination

Discrimination: a treatment in consideration, where one in in favor or against a person or a thing based on a group, class, or category.
    
Throughout history, various groups have been discriminated against to the degree where they have been killed, harassed, their rights denied etc. to where there almost isn't such thing as equality anymore. Equality is where everything is fair, everyone has equal rights, and no one is discriminated against because they are different.


Women, and gays, and blacks have been the groups primarily discriminated against in the past, present and will be in the future. Various acts taking a stand against this intolerance have occurred but has it been enough?

This chart shows that regardless of the parents income, blacks will end up being in the bottom fifth to the middle fifth of the country in the amount of income they make. Barely any blacks are in the top 20% of income in society, and barely white kids end up poor. This might not show how blacks have been discriminated against in the past, but it shows how blacks have been and will continue to be at a disadvantage in life. In the past, blacks have been discriminated against, whether going into public places or having to sit in the back of the bus, they have been discriminated against. This has led to them not being taken as seriously as white people are, because they received less opportunities in the past and less opportunities to prove themselves as capable workers. Why is Obama our first black president ever? Why was it such a big deal when he became president in the first place? It marked a change in society that we have progressed and are more readily accepting people for their talent rather than their skin tone.

  

Although it seems second nature to us now that women are equal to men, well into the twentieth century, women were significantly discriminated against. Women were denied jobs because according to men they were supposed to do work around the house, and they were confined to motherly professions like nursing and education rather than jobs in government. It took them to the turn of the 19th century for women to find their voice and fight for their natural rights. Even when these rights were obtained by law in the 1920s, they were still withheld by many peers and by males. In today's culture we have significantly progressed. Seen by the chart of the rate of Labor Participation by sex, women's role in the labor race has increased greatly over time, however, the fight for their rights is never truly over as discrimination can be found in the most traditional of towns and places. 

Gays are the third group that has been discriminated against over time. In the holocaust, gays were considered as "bad" to be as Jews were, and were murdered just as harshly because they liked the same sex. When did love get a label on it? I don't think it ever did, and people who decide who should love who, shouldn't be loved. In today's day and age, people who are gay (who has had a sexual relationship with another guy) aren't allowed to give blood at a blood drive. The Don't Ask Don't Tell policy put into affect a little while ago, prohibited gays who were "out" from serving in the army/military/etc. for our country; if a gay person didn't publicly announce that he was gay, he is allowed to serve for the country. Like all the other groups people in the past have discriminated against, over time, gays have become more accepted. The chart shows that over time, the percent that has considered homosexuals acceptable has increased from 34% in 1982 to 54% in 2006, that may not be a huge increase, but it is a start and overtime will continue to get better.

     
Discrimination is a serious deal. It is unfair, and people should be treated to have their own rights and have none of them be denied. Yes, throughout history all of this discrimination has lessened, and yes, this discrimination will never fully go away, but the more tolerance we give to these groups of people, the more peace our world will have in the end.