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.