AN ETHICAL PRESIDENT? OBAMA, LINCOLN AND THE HEALTH CARE VICTORY

AN ESSAY

While the moment is fresh, I must write a few words about the monumental health care reform bill that passed Congress this week. It is really quite a surprising--and inspiring--development. I had to temper my usual cynicism when I realized that the United States actually took a serious step toward reforming its health insurance system. Although President Obama always said he wanted to change health care, I gradually lost faith that he could penetrate furious Republican resistance. But against all prognostications, he did penetrate the resistance. He may have won only by a small margin. Nonetheless, Obama's principled win over private health insurance companies is unprecedented in modern American history.

Still, I am not writing about the health care bill today per se. I am not going to exhaustively discuss its intricacies, loopholes or missed opportunities. True, it is not fundamental reform. It does not create a European-style "single-payer" government-run health insurance program that guarantees coverage to every citizen as a matter of right. Nonetheless, as President Obama noted, it is "major" reform. It regulates private health insurance companies in significant ways. It prevents them from refusing to cover people with "pre-existing medical conditions" (ie, "most people"). And it mandates that everyone obtain health insurance. Uninsured Americans (including me) will benefit because the legislation provides extremely low-priced coverage from a "high-risk, government-supported" insurance company. In other words, health care won't be free for uninsured people. But it will be close to it.

For almost a century, no President has achieved such meaningful reform to American health care. And it is not just the legislation's substance that bears mention. In my view, the most memorable thing about Obama's health care victory is the ethical manner in which he conducted himself throughout the debate.

Public faith in American politicians is virtually nonexistent. People expect them to lie, hoodwink, steal, gladhand and enrich themselves at public expense. They expect politicians to sacrifice all their principles to save their jobs. When a politician says something, the natural response is to assume that he will do the opposite. In short, most people think that ethics is completely foreign to Washington politics. Promises mean nothing. People expect politicians to break them as soon as the water gets hot. In a word, people are extremely cynical about politicians in America.

But then along came Obama. In 2008, he won a landslide victory by promising "change we can believe in." He seemed a breath of fresh air in the noxious political marshland, a man who did not seem ready to engage in backroom dealing or pork barreling. He talked about principles and truth. He was a "white knight;" he was an uncorrupted soul. Although cynical Americans always have a hard time dropping their natural suspicion about politicians, they did when they elected Obama. They really thought that Obama meant what he said. They thought he would hold to his promises. He promised to reform health care.

In 2009, President Obama began the push for health care reform. Despite his good intentions, mean-spirited Republican resistance undermined his popularity. As the year wore on--and as the economy continued to falter--even Democrats began to question whether Obama could get anything done. They wondered whether all his campaign promises had just been rhetorical fluff. Republicans caricatured Obama as a "law professor," a man who thought too much and did too little. Critics castigated him for being "too polite for Washington." They blamed him for giving too much deference to opposing arguments. In other words, he was too weak to survive Washington's ruthless, dog-eat-dog political atmosphere.

Yet President Obama stayed true to his heart. He did not turn into a conniving Washington technocrat. No, he stood by his promises. He swore to push through health reform no matter the political cost. He did not care whether his commitment to his word would cost him a second term. He said he would fight for health reform. So he kept fighting. And he did not become an ogre in the process, either. He retained his composed decorum, even as Republicans hyperventilated around him and spread outrageous horror stories about "Obamacare."

Obama's fidelity to his own word paid off this week. Despite all the tempests and scares in Congress over the past few months, both the House and Senate passed a substantial reform bill. Although every vote along the way split sharply down party lines, the reform effort pressed forward. Something larger was at work beyond mere politics. Obama's commitment to his word seemed to vault Congress past its stifling political slavishness. What was it? It was the power of ethics.

It is no surprise that Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln the day before the House voted on health care reform. Obama quoted: "I am not bound to win, but I am bound to be true. I am not bound to succeed, but I am bound to live up to what light I have." Put another way, it is always more important to do right than it is to worry about your political future. And there are deeper rewards to be gained from ethical fulfillment than mere reelection. No words could have encapsulated Obama's extraordinary commitment to ethics in Washington more poignantly.

Abraham Lincoln is the most inspiring President in American history because he was the most ethical President. He took office as the Nation faced its single worst crisis. He then transformed a War for Union into a crusade to end slavery in the United States. He did this because slavery was simply "wrong" as an ethical matter. His decision was politically unpopular. Someone assassinated him for it. But he did it because it was the ethically right thing to do. Lincoln had no personal interest in freeing the slaves. Politically, it was unnecessary. Yet he did it because he did not just care about "winning." He cared about being "true" and "living up to the light he had." That meant following ethics in his heart, not the politics that raged outside him.

Almost no President has dared to jeopardize his political future to "do the right thing." While health reform may not be as significant as ending slavery in America, President Obama nonetheless followed in Lincoln's footsteps by committing himself to an unpopular cause and risking everything to realize it. That is inspiring. And it is almost shocking, because it contradicts the comfortable cynicism most people adopt when thinking about Washington politicians. After all, can you believe what you just heard? A President is willing to risk everything to reform health care because he promised to risk everything to reform health care? You mean he actually takes his word that seriously? Can't be!

But it is, and that's what is so moving about Obama's victory. It was not just a technical victory over unfairness in health care. It was a victory of ethics over politics. It was a victory of principle over expediency. Obama pushed health care because he said he would. That is almost unprecedented in modern American political history. And it is even more inspiring that he did not let the "turkeys get him down" along the way. He kept his composure. He maintained his respect and dignity. He remained a "law professor," no matter how much people ridiculed him for it.

He didn't just care about winning. Rather, he was "bound to be true." And suddenly I find myself with an anomaly: Ethics just prevailed in Washington. That makes it harder for me to scowl and wax cynical about America.

Now, I'm actually inclined to smile. I feel strangely justified today. I love it when ethical people prevail, even if just for a day.

As I have always said, there is more to life than winning games.

DISCRIMINATION AGAINST APPLES IS STILL DISCRIMINATION : NO APPLE DESERVES TO BE TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN ANOTHER

By : George A. Gleichman, an Apple born and raised in the United States of America (2010).

I am an American apple. My seeds grew in American soil. I matured on an American tree. I live in American air. And I am proud to be an American. When you look at me, you think: "That's an American apple."

I love this country. It gave me life and freedom. But advantages are not the only thing I love about America. Rather, I love this country because it stands for equality. Abraham Lincoln put it best when he said that our country is committed to the proposition that all men are created equal. Thomas Jefferson said the same thing in the Declaration of Independence. Later, our Constitution affirmed America's proud commitment to equality: "No State shall…deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. Amd XIV, § 1.

For generations, we have fought to vindicate our egalitarian ideals in America. Throughout our history, we have battled to eradicate injustice and inequality in our land. We suffered civil war in order to free black Americans from slavery. Since then, we have struggled to give black Americans an equal chance at success. We have learned to revile discrimination. We recoil from unequal treatment in all its forms. We are committed to justice.

No American--black or white--deserves to suffer discrimination. Discrimination hurts. Discrimination marks you out as "different" and "wrong." It poisons souls. Our law takes a firm position against discrimination wherever it rears its ugly head. Even white employees can claim that their supervisors discriminated against them in hiring, pay, promotion and perks. Put simply, our law embodies the uniquely American commitment to equality that has guided our Republic since Jefferson's time. That is why we detest discrimination in all its forms.

What is discrimination? It means treating similarly-situated people and things differently. It means making crude distinctions. It means picking one person or thing over another. Every time a person chooses one thing over another, he discriminates. And discrimination is bad. It is un-American. It is anti-egalitarian. We are all equal in this country. No one deserves to suffer discrimination. No one likes to be passed over or treated unfairly.

Sadly, American apples endure rampant discrimination all over the country. Every single day, bigoted orchard workers ruthlessly examine American apples, judging some "acceptable" and others "bad." Then they pick the "acceptable" ones and toss the "bad" ones in a waste bin. Sometimes they even discriminate on the basis of color, too. They praise red apples. They even guarantee them a future at fruit stands. But not so for yellowing apples. Yellowing apples get tossed away and mashed into a pulp in some horrific juice processing warehouse. And no one hears their cries.

No American--whether human or apple--deserves vicious discrimination like this. How is it just to permit white human employees to sue employers for lunch hour discrimination, yet leave yellow apples without a remedy against brutally unequal treatment? After all, apples are apples. It does not matter whether they are red, green, yellow, ripe, unripe, rotten, soft or dying. They are still apples. They still have the same cells and cell walls. They still belong to the same genus and species. In short, they are similarly-situated. As such, how can our country permit discrimination against them?

If America's commitment to equality means anything, it must end apple discrimination NOW. We are as American as apple pie. In fact, there would be no apple pie without us. And without apple pie, America would not be the same place.

I was lucky. An apple-picker in Washington State looked at me and let me survive. But many of my brethren were not so fortunate. Some were not shiny enough. Others looked sickly. Still others did not quite make the color standard. Others were not big enough. Still others were too small. No matter their so-called "flaws," they all met the same fate: Savagely ripped from their branches, mashed to a pulp and hosed down into a sewer to be digested by beetles, rats, worms and horrible crawling insects.

Consider how these poor American apples felt when this happened. Think about what must have gone through their minds when the apple-picker said: "Ah, forget this one; it's too soft." Or: "Ewww, it's rotten. Get rid of it." Yet they were apples, just like me. They deserved equal treatment under law, not ruthless discriminatory judgment. Discrimination cuts to the core. Think about how my poor brothers must have felt when unfairly punished for faults beyond their control. A rotten apple does not ask to be rotten: It simply is. An apple's nature is no reason to discriminate against him. No American should ever endure unfairness like this.

America can do better than this. America has always done the right thing. And it can do the right thing when it comes to apples. America freed the slaves. It committed itself to equality for all under law. It recoils from unfairness and unequal treatment, no matter where it occurs. In short, America knows injustice when it appears. We are confident that America will recognize our ordeal soon enough. When Americans see the gross discrimination that apples face every single day, we are confident that public outcry will give us the protection we need. After all, Americans are decent people. They do not like it when living organisms suffer discriminatory treatment. It arouses their sense of justice. And they move purposefully to end it.

Why should only "people" enjoy "equal protection" under law? Are apples really so different from humans that they deserve discrimination and death? Bigots claim that discrimination is appropriate when two things are not similarly-situated. They say that humans and apples are sufficiently different from each other that differential treatment is reasonable.

But this is pure sophistry: Apples and humans are similar, not different. We both need air to survive. We both have cells. We both live and die. We both need water. We both need nourishment. We both reproduce. True, humans have blood and we don't. But we have juice, and that is very similar to blood. And the mere fact that we can perform photosynthesis is no reason to treat us differently under law. I always believed that America took strength from its diverse population: Why should it not be proud to include citizens who can perform photosynthesis? It is proud to include Pakistanis, cripples, Muslims and Chinese. Why not photosynthesis practitioners? Are they really so different from people who wear turbans? No matter what the bigots say, apples and humans are both living organisms. And we both deserve equality in this great Republic.

In sum, America must end discrimination against apples. For centuries, the United States has prided itself on eradicating unequal treatment and unfairness within its borders. It has expanded liberty and freedom. It has moved against discrimination in all its forms, whether racial, ancestral, gender-related or employment-related. Put simply, America does not like differential treatment. It fights to ensure that everyone receives the same treatment.

Against this background, we are confident that Americans will soon recognize apples' plight. Rectifying injustice against apples is simply the next evolutionary step on America's proud path to freedom. Blacks gained equality. Then women. Then employees. Then cripples. Then homosexuals. Now, apples demand equality. We, too, are living creatures with cells. We are the same as people, whether black, insane, handicapped, Catholic, gay or all five. People are apples. Apples are people. And similarly-situated people--and apples--deserve equal treatment. That is just the American way. Anything else is unjust.

Yet that is not how it is now. That is why every American must fight for apples just as strongly as they fought against slavery. After all, today apples face a bleak future at the mercy of bigoted apple-pickers who ignore the law. Billions of apples have already been pressed into oblivion, discarded, peeled for sport, quartered, gulped down by children, fermented into cider or imbibed simply because some apple-picker unfairly discriminated against them in some forgotten orchard.

It is time to stop this unforgivable cycle. It is time to heed our national conscience. It is time to remember that America stands for equality for all living things, even living things with shiny green skin and tasty pulp. And it is time to say what we already know: That discrimination is morally wrong. It is no excuse to say that apples are "different." You know they aren't. Apples are living things, just like you. You wouldn't grind your mother to a pulp and stick her in a gallon jug, would you? Of course not.

That is why we must all do the right thing. We must end apple discrimination TODAY. This is not about self-interested apples. This is about justice.

SLAVERY NOW : LET'S END THIS RECESSION ONCE AND FOR ALL

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS FOR A MODERN ECONOMY

By : Mr. Davy B. Hutchinson V, Esq., CEO and Chief Executive Officer, Greater Hutchinson Properties LLC (Dallas, Texas); University of Virginia (J.D. 1982; M.B.A. 1984); Owner, approximately 35,000 acres in Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas; Author, It's Hard to Break Even When You've Got a Damn Payroll (Aspen Business Press 2009); Republican; Married; Father of three; No criminal record.

For over two years now, our country has labored through difficult economic times. Although very few people have the courage to say it, we are in a Depression. No matter what the pundits on CNBC say, this is no Recession. It's not even the so-called "Great Recession." We won't get anywhere in these tough times until we are honest with ourselves. Don't be fooled: We are in a Depression. The sooner we recognize that, the sooner we can move forward.

We are in a Depression because it feels like it. Depressions are about perceptions. When employers think there's a Depression on, they don't hire. Unemployment goes up. When that happens, people have less income to spend in the economy. When people don't spend money, companies make fewer profits. And when that happens, companies cut more workers and even close down. Panic spreads. People lose their homes and fortunes. They start begging the government for help. Then their government aid runs out and there they are: Back in the Depression.

This is not good for America. Our country depends on private employment to survive. When average people can't get jobs in the private sector, we are in serious trouble. Let's be honest: It costs a lot of money to hire someone. And companies don't want to threaten their margins by taking a chance on a new hire. They could spend their money in much more profitable ways. Workers are expensive. It doesn't make any sense to hire them unless you can be damn sure they will bring in way more than they cost.

So what do we do? The Depression will not end until every American has a good, high-paying private sector job that pays the bills. The Depression will not end until companies feel secure enough to start hiring again. In a nutshell, we need to create good jobs so that people have money again. And to create jobs, the private sector needs money to pay wages to everyone else. Problem is, the private sector does not have enough money these days. We need to find a way to make sure private companies get enough money to start taking chances on workers again.

Since the Depression hit, economists and politicians have mulled almost every conceivable way to create jobs: Stimulus packages, government incentives, tax breaks and even cash bailouts. Nothing has worked; private companies still don't have enough money to hire people. Things aren't getting any better. To the contrary, they are getting worse. Government is not up to the challenge. As soon as you bring in government, it just makes things more difficult and more complicated. Americans don't want complexity. They just want paychecks.

Americans will get their paychecks soon enough. We simply must be inventive. We are Americans. We are smart. And we always find a way to make money in the end.

It is time for innovative solutions to save our economy. Today, I am happy to say that there is a vast, untapped source of prosperity within our very own borders. Our salvation lives among us and we do not even know it. Our salvation is African slavery.

We can break this Depression by reinstituting slavery in the United States. Our economy is in ruins today because nonslave labor costs too much. Hiring people in today's economy imposes an intolerable financial burden on private enterprise. Corporations have shareholders to worry about. Shareholders want quarterly profits. They can't get quarterly profits if they spend more than they make every month on employee payroll. And when corporations aren't profitable, they can't cut anyone's paycheck.

Nonslave labor has failed. We need to free corporations from payroll servitude.

Slavery will solve virtually every economic problem in the United States. There are 35 million Africans in this country. By abrogating their citizenship and designating them personal property, we immediately create an enormous, cost-free workforce. Companies with slave labor will be able to report quarterly gains again. That, in turn, will allow them to spend money on new hiring. Once they do that, more people will get paychecks and more people will start spending money in the economy.

Opponents will doubtlessly claim that slavery is no way to resolve our country's economic woes. They will inevitably say that "common decency," "dignity," "equality," "the Constitution" and even "history" prevent the United States from once again enslaving Africans. They will say that as bad as our economy may be, slavery is forbidden.

We can answer all these concerns. But before addressing our opponents' arguments individually, we must mention that saving the economy is more important than anything else. Americans would rather have jobs and a paycheck than a "Republic dedicated to equality and decency." Americans would much rather have a healthy economy than the vague assurance that "every man has an equal right to succeed" in this country. In fact, it is precisely the unwillingness to entertain slavery that landed us in this mess in the first place. If we really want to beat the Depression, we must be bold. That means embracing slavery, not running from it.

First, the Constitution poses no barrier to reinstituting slavery. True, the Thirteenth Amendment bans slavery and involuntary servitude in the United States. But the Constitution can be amended. If amended once, it can be amended again. Once Congress and the People see the enormous economic benefits to be won from slavery, we are confident that they will swiftly amend the Constitution to reinstitute it. And we are also certain that average Americans will appreciate that slavery will solve their economic woes once and for all. That will lead them to pressure their representatives to repeal the constitutional ban on slavery.

Second, our history does not frown on slavery. We are not "going back to the Dark Ages" by returning Africans to bondage in the United States. To the contrary, our country has a rich and vibrant slavery tradition. Slavery existed when this country was founded and it existed legally all the way until 1865. Since then, Africans have lived as virtual slaves: They die at younger ages; they do not attain educational eminence; they rarely attain economic prosperity; they live in much greater poverty than comparable white Americans; and they constantly claim that they have been "victimized," preventing any meaningful progress. If anything, then, the United States has long been friendly to slavery. Slavery helped shape this Nation in the past. It has always defined us. And now slavery will save us from economic ruin.

Despite all rhetoric to the contrary, history shows that America was a better country with slavery. America suffered no crippling Depressions before 1861. In fact, our national economy boomed in the pre-Civil War years precisely because the South churned out cotton without labor costs. After 1865, labor costs imposed intolerable burdens on private enterprise, resulting in several terrible Depressions. This shows that slavery provides insulation against economic collapse at the same time it generates healthy profits for private business owners.

We will make no progress against persistent economic malaise by turning to the government. Rather, we will only rescue the economy by reinvigorating the spirit of private property ownership that has always driven America forward. We will only regain our prosperity by refreshing America's passion for private enterprise solutions. We do not want handouts and bureaus. We want economic freedom.

Slavery delivers on all these points. By returning Africans to "property" status, we immediately create a huge new commodities market. That will allow for vigorous new exchange, as well as bank financing and stock market revitalization. Advertisers will win new contracts promoting slave sales, while interstate transportation entities will relish new business ferrying slaves from State to State. Housing contractors will also have a role to play by building accommodations for slave populations. In short, slavery will not only affirm America's commitment to private property ownership. It will also stimulate immensely beneficial free market activity.

Slavery also delivers significant indirect benefits. For one, by reducing the number of American citizens by 35 million, government will not need to spend as much on social entitlements. Social security and Medicaid payouts will decrease. With fewer necessary expenses in the budget, Congress will be able to lower taxes. That will allow private enterprise to hire more workers and reinvest their capital in profitable endeavors. Additionally, Federal labor laws will not apply to slaves, so private companies will be able to increase productivity without increasing wage costs. That will lead to a spike in production and more profits for domestic companies.

We need to worry about production in the United States. Without slavery, our economy sank into a dangerous trade deficit. Crippled by labor costs, entitlements, taxes and health care obligations, private companies could not produce enough to compete with countries like China and India. But slavery will correct the imbalance. Now, African slaves will cost employers next to nothing, allowing them to boost production and increase profits--all without commensurate increases in cost. Armed with increased profits, companies can invest in skilled workers, researchers and technology in order to propel American into a new Golden Age. The bottom line is that slavery will allow us to go toe-to-toe with China. Slavery works.

We are confident that the American people will see the merit in slavery. For too long, Americans have been brainwashed to believe that "slavery" is a dirty word. They reflexively recoil from it. But they must merely learn to understand that slavery is the key to our economic renaissance. As soon as disgruntled, underemployed American workers understand that slavery will get them a paycheck, they will quickly drop their hostility to it. When they see that slavery gets them a comfortable job, a nice new home, a beautiful two-car garage and even a few acres for themselves, they will stop fretting about dignity and equality.

Moreover, slavery is environmentally friendly. Enslaving Africans does nothing to poison water or air supplies. Enslaving Africans does not result in deforestation, nor does it threaten endangered wildlife populations. It is a "green" solution in the truest sense: It will not only make Americans money; it will result in clean air, too.

In a word, slavery has always played a role in American life. We have never fully moved away from it. It is time to get back to our roots and embrace it again. Our country was strong when private employers did not worry about crippling payrolls and social security taxes. Our country never suffered Depressions when we prized economic freedom over fanciful commitments to racial equality. And any American will tell you that he'd rather live in a country that does not suffer rampant unemployment than live in a country that forbids slavery. After all, abolishing slavery never paid anyone's rent or landed anyone a job.

Slavery means more jobs for all. Slavery means more private property ownership. Slavery means increased American production and viability on the world economic stage. Slavery means American prosperity. Slavery means home ownership and college education. Slavery means healthy waterways, wetlands and environmental protection. The list goes on and on.

In this light, let us speak out for economic freedom. Let us declare our independence from circular economic failures. Let us free ourselves from the tyranny of expensive labor. Slavery is our solution. It is our salvation. When America returns its Africans to slavery, no country in the world will ever threaten our dominance.

CELEBRATE BLACK HISTORY MONTH : DRINK HEINEKEN

OESTERHOUDT STRIKES

You might think that title is a joke. It isn't: I actually saw it printed on a New York City bus.

I thought I had seen everything in advertising. I thought I had cataloged every species of commercial dishonesty. But I should never underestimate commercial speakers: Their innovation knows no bounds. They push the limits every time. And in cases like this, they push straight into the surreal.

What the fuck does Dutch beer have to do with African-American identity and history? How does Heineken in any way relate to the black experience in the United States? How does Heineken reflect this country's poisonous racial legacy, or in any way symbolize it? I have no doubt that many African-Americans like Heineken beer. But would an average black man in America instinctively associate Heineken with black issues?

I can understand associating George Washington Carver, Crispus Attucks, Martin Luther King, Jr., Scott Joplin or even Snoop Dogg with Black History Month. All those men achieved prominence in American life through the decades. But Heineken? Where was Heineken during the Freedom Marches? Where was Heineken during the Civil War and Reconstruction? And where the hell was Heineken during the L.A. race riots?

Heineken is not African-American. It is not even a person. It is a beer. What role could it possibly have played in a Nation's development?

To suggest that blacks should celebrate their history in the United States by breaking open a Heineken is just asinine. After all, it was a Dutch merchant who brought the first African slaves to Virginia in 1619. That's not to say that Heineken reflects modern Dutch views about slavery. But the fact remains that the Dutch played a very dark role in the history of American slavery. In that light, it is especially perverse to suggest blacks should celebrate their history by drinking Dutch beer.

Heineken's ad is not just historically incongruous. It also shows just how little taste--or sense--most advertisers bring to their work. In this case, the advertisers did not ponder the embarrassingly weak connection between African-American history and Heineken beer. No, they merely identified a potential market (i.e., African-Americans), then matched their product to an important month in the "African-American calendar." Perhaps Heineken intended to forge a mental link between "African-American pride" and Heineken. Perhaps they wished to dupe African-Americans into believing that Heineken played a substantial role in their history. Maybe Dr. Dre likes Heineken. Maybe Duke Ellington drank it after his shows in the 1940s. Who knows?

Heineken simply concluded that African-Americans represent a "market:" Namely, a discrete body of potential buyers and sellers at a particular time and place. Any advertising that incites a market to spend money on the advertiser's product is worth the price. It does not matter if the message is crass, off-color, inappropriate, incorrect, counterfactual, counterintuitive, silly, ridiculous or just wrong. Those concerns pale next to the advertiser's mandate to generate profits.

In the end, advertising is not about consistency. It is not about respect, either. Rather, it is about implanting mental connections so that people spend money. In advertising, facts need not be accurate. Indeed, facts are not even necessary at all.

And taste? That's the least concern. If taste mattered, what self-respecting student of American history would dare to assert that Heineken beer has anything to do with the plight of African-Americans in this country? The thought is almost too embarrassing to entertain.

But that didn't stop Heineken from entertaining it. There is no shame--or dignity--in commerce.

That's another reason I'm not good at it. Damned ethics!

SUPREME COURT INVALIDATES CIVIL RIGHTS AMENDMENTS

NEWS FLASH

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Reason, Commerce, Justice & Free Beer has just learned that the United States Supreme Court has issued a dramatic opinion striking down the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution. In Sons of the South v. United States, No. 08-1762, the Court, 5-3, per Justice Antonin Scalia, held that the so-called “civil rights amendments” are invalid because the States did not properly ratify them. “Our Constitution prescribes a specific procedure for ratifying amendments. In the aftermath of the Civil War, aggressive northern radicals illegally coerced southern legislatures to ratify amendments. Because the North procured ratification by duress, the amendments cannot stand,” he wrote. Legal scholars call the ruling “significant.”

Sons of the South v. United States originated as a claim by the descendants of slaveowners who argued that the federal government seized their ancestors’ property without just compensation. In 2003, lead plaintiffs James A. Longstreet IV of Virginia and James T. Pickett III of Georgia, brought their action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. In their complaint, they charged that: “The Federal government conspired to and did deprive former Confederate States of their ability to fairly consider the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, with the result that countless southern slaveowners lost their property without just compensation.” The plaintiffs argued further that: “Article V of the Federal Constitution provides that at least three-quarters of every State legislature must pass constitutional amendments after passage by two-thirds of both houses of Congress. By force, fraud and coercion, the Federal government induced hostage southern State legislatures to ratify amendments that abolished slavery, guaranteed voting rights to negroes and promised ‘Due Process’ and ‘Equal Protection’ to every ‘person’ in America. No reasonable southerner would ever have voted for these amendments. This represents a naked Federal power grab. If the Court allows these amendments to stand, it sends a message that American citizens have no right to fairly consider changes to their fundamental charter. These amendments stand for duress and compulsion. And they must be reversed.”

United States District Judge Clarence B. McFarlane, appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, agreed with the Plaintiffs and declared the amendments invalid. He ordered slavery restored, and directed the Federal government to pay $500 billion compensation to the descendants of slaveowners who lost their property following ratification of the Thirteenth Amendment in December, 1865, plus interest. “It would have outraged our Founders to know that the Federal government forced States to accept changes to the Constitution without knowing, voluntary consent thereto. On the record before me, it appears beyond doubt that the Federal government installed military governors in conquered Southern States, filled their State houses with Federal cronies and forced resistant southern representatives to pass these amendments at gunpoint. It would eviscerate the voluntary nature of our federal system to allow such a lawless procedure to gain the force of constitutional law.”

On appeal, the United Sates argued that every Southern State “knowingly and voluntarily” ratified the amendments. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, reversed the District Court and concluded: “Whatever historical evidence appellees may have submitted to show duress in the ratification procedures surrounding these amendments, we hold that any aggrieved slaveholders have long since waived any right to contest their validity. From a practical standpoint, since 1865, our Federal government has proceeded on the assumption that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments are sound. Virtually all significant legislation since that date draws its constitutional authority from these amendments. To hold them invalid would cast the entire Federal administrative state into chaos. Although we sympathize with appellees’ plight—and our opinion should in no way be construed to disparage this Court’s great respect for all property rights—we simply refuse to reverse 140 years of history for practical reasons.”

Longstreet and Pickett appealed the Court of Appeals’ ruling in 2007. The United States Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments. In January 2008, the Court heard oral arguments. Justice John Paul Stevens recused himself from the case in a public statement. He explained: “I fought for the North in the Civil War. I fought against slavery and secessionism. My heart still beats for the North and my home State of Illinois—the land of Lincoln. I simply cannot be impartial when considering the issues involved in this case. I morally loathe any person who contends that slavery has a place in our American order.”

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia, Justice Samuel A. Alito and Justice Clarence Thomas favorably questioned Sons of the South’s attorneys. At one point, Roberts remarked: “Your historical research is impeccable. It looks pretty clear that the North really did force southern legislatures to adopt these amendments.”

Scalia voiced similar praise: “You know, it was implicit in the Founding that slavery should remain undisturbed. The word is not even mentioned in the original Constitution. The South had a legitimate reason to leave the Union in 1860 because it tacitly understood that the Federal government would not move against slavery based on assurances made in 1787. I mean, slavery was the core of the southern economy. Why would you ever join a government that had the power to totally wipe out your economy?”

Alito said: “What gets me is how much needless legislation has flowed from these amendments. You have the Civil Rights Acts, the Voting Rights Act, even the Americans with Disabilities Act. These acts consume enormous judicial energy and they cost businesses billions. There is nothing in the Constitution that promises ‘equal protection’ or ‘voting rights,’ especially when it comes to State power. You’ve got the Fifth Amendment protecting Due Process from Federal intrusion, but nothing in the original document binds the States except Article I, §10; and that says nothing about slavery. The States joined this Union on the understanding that they could police themselves. These amendments destroyed that understanding. Sure, you might argue that the Declaration of Independence implies a sort of ‘equality’ principle in American government. But the Declaration is not our governing document; the Constitution is. And I think the Framers constructed the amendment procedure in order to prevent precisely the kind of federal coercion that you’re alleging. Amendments should not pass unless everyone voluntarily consents to them. That apparently didn’t happen here, right?”

Thomas said: Nothing. He just nodded and muttered to himself: “When is lunch?”

Several justices spoke vehemently against Sons of the South. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was visibly angry when she said: “You’re asking us to reinstitute slavery? Are you insane? Did you know it is 2009? What planet are you from, sir?”

Justice David Souter remarked: “Look, there may have been some coercion in order to get these amendments passed. But it had to be done. The country just went through the bloodiest war in its history. Slavery caused it. The Constitution had a fundamental flaw and it had to be corrected in order to secure America’s place in the modern world. Every other European country had abolished slavery long before 1865. These amendments dramatically improved our constitutional order. It may have made life more complicated by guaranteeing new rights for all our citizens, but isn’t liberty supposed to advance under our Constitution? If we invalidate these amendments, we step back two centuries.”

Justice Stephen Breyer almost lost his composure while responding to appellants’ arguments: “Do you have any idea what you’re saying? Without the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no protection from State action. You could have the KKK come knocking at your door and the State would be powerless to stop it. And without the Fourteenth Amendment, there is no right to marry, no right to procreate, no right to vote and no right to educate your children. Do you have any idea what will happen to the country if we strike down this amendment?”

Only Justice Anthony Kennedy maintained a relatively neutral stance at the argument. He said very little. “Obviously the Constitution would mean very little if strong States could compel weak States to ratify amendments that would undermine the weak States’ economies and values. On the other hand, uprooting the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments would dismantle Federal power as we know it. I think the Federal government is much stronger than it should be. Still, I hesitate before taking any action that could result in confusing administration. How would you recommend dealing with the administrative burdens that your argument will inevitably cause?”

After more than a year, the Court rendered its opinion. Justice Scalia wrote for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas and Justice Alito. “Today, we end an era of Federal usurpment,” began Justice Scalia. “While we recognize that our Nation has come far in the years since the Civil War, we cannot countenance amendments to our Constitution procured by force. To allow the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to stand is to sully the voluntary nature of our Federal system. We hold them invalid.”

Below, we print important passages from Justice Scalia’s opinion:

“This case is not about the morality of slavery or equality under law. This case is about power and procedure. Our Constitution limits power by spreading it evenly between the branches of the Federal government and between the States and the Federal government. Any action that impinges upon this careful power distribution threatens to undermine our Republic’s very foundations. The Constitution keeps power balanced between strong and weak States, as well as between the Federal government and the States. That is why the Framers made it exceedingly difficult to amend the Constitution.

“Constitutional amendments represent an overwhelming democratic consensus that the Nation should travel in a new direction. The Framers assured consensus in amendments by requiring supermajorities both in Congress and in every State legislature. In essence, they assured that the fundamental charter would not change simply because one party gained a temporary majority. Rather, they guaranteed that the Constitution would not change unless virtually everyone agreed to the proposed changes. These measures protect the rights of the minority as much as they allow for reasonable, democratic change. And they imply that only voluntary, informed consent to constitutional changes will prevail.

“Here, appellants provide compelling evidence that the North undermined the voluntary spirit behind the amendment procedure. The record discloses a calculated northern effort to intimidate, coerce and browbeat southern State legislators to ratify the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. We observe that these Amendments were passed in 1865, 1868 and 1870, respectively. At that time, Federal troops occupied half of all States eligible to vote on the amendments. By Congressional act, the Federal Congress installed military governments in occupied southern States. Soldiers forced compliance with federal edicts. They stood guard in State houses. They threatened to shoot legislators who did not vote ‘yes’ on the amendments. When legislators spoke out against ratification, they were imprisoned, removed from office and replaced with northern puppets. These amendments passed because the North forced the defeated, war-weary South to comply at gunpoint.

“In short, this ratification procedure was not voluntary. As a matter of constitutional law, we hold that Article V requires voluntary supermajorities in both houses of Congress and every State legislature. It would mock our constitutional system to sanction hostile amendments procured by force or fraud. Just as force or fraud in contract formation invalidates the contract, so too does force or fraud in Article V’s amendment procedure invalidate the amendment. Here, we are convinced that the North unfairly used force to compel Southern legislatures to adopt the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. We therefore hold the amendments void.

“The United States argues that Article V imposes no ‘voluntariness’ requirement on constitutional amendments. It tells us that the text simply requires that both the Senate and House of Representatives pass the proposed amendment by a two-thirds majority, and that three-quarters of State legislatures pass the proposed amendment by a majority vote. They point out that Congress passed each amendment by the requisite two-thirds majority, while every State passed the amendments by the requisite majority vote.

“We fail to see how this is significant. The United States did not contest appellants’ evidence that Federal troops compelled Southern legislators to ratify the amendments. If we accept the United States’ argument, we certify coercion and duress in constitutional law. We refuse to do so. We repeat our holding that Article V requires not just supermajorities in Congress and the State legislatures, but also verifiably voluntary consent to the proposed amendments. Any other rule would sanction lawlessness by federal agitators. We rebuke in the strongest possible terms the conduct of federal occupation forces during the Reconstruction era. They substituted force for fairness, and arbitrariness for procedure. Our Constitution does not tolerate brute force. It is a Constitution of legal principle, not powerful men. Without voluntary consent to the provisions housed in our fundamental charter, liberty means nothing.

“The United States further argues that even if there were flaws in the ratification procedures between 1865 and 1870, southern slaveholders long ago waived any right to contest them. A waiver is an intentional relinquishment of a known legal right. In these circumstances, we are unwilling to say that the slaveholders waived their rights to contest ratification because they never had a fair opportunity to exercise them. Northern occupation forces suppressed any effort to voice opposition to the amendments. Slaveowners who resisted the amendments were imprisoned or fined. In such a climate, it was impossible to waive because the North forbade the underlying rights. Waiver only applies when there is a reasonable possibility to assert the underlying right. In this case, disgruntled slaveowners had no reasonable possibility to assert their rights because northern military governors ruthlessly punished any attempt to do so. On that basis, we conclude that waiver does not apply. We further conclude that the slaveowners’ legal rights passed to their heirs. Appellants here have proven their ancestry to bona fide slaveowners and therefore have standing to press their forebears’ rights.

“We note that our opinion will significantly change our Nation’s legal landscape. We make several observations in this regard, and we order certain injunctive relief. At the outset, we express a collective sense of relief as federal judges because we will no longer need to consider whether the Fourteenth Amendment applies to constrict State governments. No longer will federal courts entertain claims that State action ‘deprives citizens of life, liberty or property without Due Process of law.’ This was a horrendously uncertain doctrine, and we are glad to abolish it. Further, we are glad that we no longer must contend with racially charged claims that State action deprives black citizens of ‘Equal Protection of the laws.’ Now, there is no more Fourteenth Amendment. States may freely discriminate on any basis, whether by race, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, wealth, mental illness or marital status. No longer will federal courts lend a sympathetic ear to bitter minorities who feel they are being treated unequally. Without the Fourteenth Amendment, federal courts will have no basis to hear such nonsense. Additionally, there will no longer be claims for employment discrimination, sexual harassment or police brutality. The Fourteenth Amendment undergirded all these claims, and now it is gone. Federal judges will now have a much easier workload; and there will be far fewer dumb cases to hear, especially the ever-repeating ‘He-fired-me-because-I’m-black,’ or ‘He-arrested-me-because-I’m-black’ scenarios. Never again will federal judges be forced to sit through such unfounded, time-consuming racial venting.

“By invalidating the Thirteenth Amendment, we restore slavery to the United States. We believe this is a prudent choice. Our Framers intended to preserve slavery in the Constitution. Our federal Union would never have emerged if the Northern States had not assured the Southern States that they could retain slavery. Without slavery, the southern economy would have been worthless. Our Constitution specifically protects property rights against Federal encroachment. See Amendment V (“No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.”). Furthermore, State laws in the South specifically allowed for property in slaves. The Thirteenth Amendment, however, summarily deprived every slaveowner of property without due process. No southern slaveowner had a chance to contest this sweeping federal encroachment. And in light of the historical evidence suggesting federal coercion in the amendment ratification process, we are energized in our conclusion that slaveholders suffered an immense historical wrong. Our entire social order depends upon stable property rights. If the Federal government can seize property by forcing State legislatures to comply with unjust constitutional commands, where is liberty? We restore slavery because we believe that property is the essence of American liberty.

“We are confident that the American people will respect our decision. Americans must be safe in their property rights, and they must be safe in the knowledge that their Constitution will not change unless every State has a fair chance to voluntarily consent to amendments. We are also confident that the American people will welcome our principled stand against bloated Federal powers and intrusive Federal courts. Now, neither the Federal Congress nor the Federal courts will have constitutional authority to interfere in State prerogatives concerning criminal law, race relations, employment or ‘fairness.’ No longer will arrogant Federal judges lord over State practices as roving ‘due process monitors.’ Our ruling will reassure States that they may rule themselves as they please, as long as they do not violate the explicit commands housed in Article I, § 10.

“From an administrative perspective, we order Congress to establish a Slavery Compensation Board (“SCB”) through which the descendants of slaveowners may seek fair market compensation, plus interest, for the unconstitutional losses caused by the Thirteenth Amendment. We further order the SCB to establish procedures to return the descendants former slaves to a condition of servitude. We leave it to the SCB to promulgate evidence requirements under which the descendants of slaveowners may prove their claims. Only those descendants truly entitled to compensation for lost slaves—and new slaves—may petition the SCB. We will not tolerate fraudulent attempts to obtain compensation or free slave labor.

“We express no judgment on the morality of slavery. As mentioned, this case is not about abstract justice or administrative convenience. This case is about constitutional procedure. The North abused constitutional procedure by enacting the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. No length of time can cure that injury. That is why we take a principled stand today to correct it. As a substantive matter, we hold that the North abused property rights by forcing the South accept amendments that wrested slaves from law-abiding owners without compensation. The South never voluntarily consented to these amendments. As jurists, we do not express opinions about whether slavery is ‘naturally wrong.’ We merely follow written law; we do not write our subjective notions of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ into the Constitution. Here, we observe that Article V clearly requires voluntary consent to constitutional amendments. We need no further basis to hold that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments cannot stand. Any other result would disparage the fundamental, mutual consent between Federal and State authority upon which our Republic depends for continued strength.

For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution were not properly ratified under the procedures enumerated in Article V. The amendments are therefore void. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is hereby REVERSED, and this case is REMANDED with instructions to reinstate the order of the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, McFarlane, J.

“It is so ordered.”

Following the ruling, Federal agents announced that President Obama is the property of one Mr. T. Jeff Tarrelton of Pine Nut, Arkansas. “My great-great-great-granddaddy owned that negro’s great-great-great-great-granddaddy. So I’m a comin’ back to get what’s mine,” said Mr. Tarrelton.

No claim has yet been made on Justice Thomas.