Al Sharpton: 'You Cannot Have Rights Voted On' - It's 'Tyranny By The Majority'
UPDATE AT END OF POST: The Confederacy's Jefferson Davis railed against "the tyranny of the majority" wanting to end slavery.
Al Sharpton on Friday said something that every American on both sides of the aisle should totally fear.
"You cannot have rights voted on," the MSNBC anchor actually said on HBO's Real Time. "You have tyranny by the majority" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
REIHAN SALAM, NATIONAL REVIEW: If one state, if you have the voters of that state actually affirmatively vote for same sex marriage, it would actually change the discussion pretty dramatically. When you look at what happened in the early seventies with Roe v. Wade, there were a lot of folks who favored liberalizing abortion laws and then there was significant numbers of people who didn’t. Now, constitutionalizing, nationalizing that settlement changed the dynamic. And so, something that might have happened state by state in Democratic fashion didn't happen that way and that engendered a huge amount of resentment.
If you have a situation where state by state people’s minds are changing. If you look at people under the age of 40, they favor same sex marriage far, far more than people over that age. If you have it happen in a way where people feel, “You know, we heard the argument,” and people embrace this, fair enough, that argument is lost and, you know, you're not going to be able to reverse that by referendum.
I think that Mo is absolutely right that that is the more stable way, and I think that folks who are advocating same sex marriage should recognize that, because when you have it happen in the courts, it doesn't have the legitimacy that it would if it happened through a popular vote.
As should be obvious, the discussion was dealing with the 9th Circuit Court in California striking down that state's Proposition 8 which made same sex marriages illegal.
National Review's Salam observed that the people's voice in such a controversial issue is essential in actually resolving the matter long term. Here we are almost 40 years after nine justices on the Supreme Court decided the fate of abortion in this country and we're still arguing about it.
As such, maybe citizens' views in such a contentious matter should be required to truly settle it.
Not surprisingly, Sharpton didn't see it that way:
AL SHARPTON: No, but you have tyranny by the majority. You cannot have rights voted on. If you, if you do not, the role of government is to protect people. And if, if you had civil rights voted on, I'd be sitting in the back of the bus and with a bad eye driver you'd be sitting next to me. So don't think about voting for rights.
First off, that was a despicably cheap shot at the dark-skinned Salam who's the son of Bangladeshi immigrants. Sadly, liberals have no problem making racially-insensitive comments aimed at conservatives.
But the rest of Sharpton's point was equally preposterous. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was approved by both chambers of Congress with wide majorities. It passed 289 to 126 in the House and 73 to 27 in the Senate.
Although this didn't come to a popular vote across the nation, at least 535 members of Congress representing the wishes of the electorate decided on this groundbreaking piece of legislation.
That's a far cry from what happened Tuesday when three judges - not appointed by the people of California but instead hand-picked by governors - overruled the wishes of millions of citizens they're supposed to serve.
If this is what Sharpton thinks is justice, and he really believes "You cannot have rights voted on," it's a total disgrace that any news outlet - even the farce that is MSNBC - gives him a national platform to speak such nonsense.
*****Update: Eagle-eyed Twitter follower @BrettBannor accurately notes that in his February 22, 1862, inaugural address, the Confederacy's Jefferson Davis also argued against "the tyranny of the majority." He was referring to the majority's wish to give slaves the right to be free.
I wonder if Sharpton would rail against "the tyranny of the majority" in this instance.
Associate Editor’s note: As you are likely aware, since the financial collapse of 2008, charities and non-profit organizations have seen a sharp reduction in donations. Although the environment has improved, contributions are still nowhere near where they were prior to the recession. Unfortunately, the Media Research Center has not been immune. With this in mind, your support has become more important than ever. With a critical election approaching, the liberal media needs to be monitored 24/7. As we have been predicting for months, the press are willing to do anything to get their beloved politicians elected and/or reelected. As such, we need your help to fight this fight. Any contribution, even $10, is greatly appreciated. Please consider a tax-deductible gift to the Media Research Center to help us battle the liberal media. Thank you.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
I thought democrats wanted
Submitted by MightyMouth on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:40am.
I thought democrats wanted majority rule? Hence their frickin' name "Democrats"... Look dumbasses, you cant have it both ways... either majority rules or it don't. Unless of course if only 5 out of 300 million people rule or a dictator rules. I know you will try either but the rest of us won't allow that!
Sadly, they DO have it both
Submitted by mattm on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:07pm.
Sadly, they DO have it both ways. Sharpton is right to say rights aren't to be voted on, but the party he belongs to does it all the time. They vote to take away a fetus' right to life, a persons right to keep and bear arms, the right NOT to have to buy insurance, the right to exercise one's chosen faith, and on and on...
It's just like Obama complaining about the debt, and then jacking it up another 6 trillion, meanwhile all his obedient little robots think he's the most fiscally responsible president we've ever had.
These people are forked-tongued hypocrites, but it won't matter, the sheeple of this country will continue giving them power until the U.S. is a second rate dictatorship - it's halfway there now, yet Obama still leads any republican in many of the polls....
We're pretty well screwed...unless a miracle happens.
And how did the Bill of Rights get passed, Revvo?
Submitted by drsamherman on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:41am.
Those first ten amendments were certainly not added by a minority or losing vote, Al.
How many times did his momma drop him on his head when he was a baby?
Well this is not the first
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:44am.
Well this is not the first time that I hear a wacko Liberal say this. I graduated from the University of Illinois and I heard quite a few professors preach this and even more students agree with this. It is a terrifying thing, but Liberals do not care about votes when it doesn't align with their radical Liberal ideology.
Shoot, we have our resident ultra-Liberal Mamabear arguing a similar thing stating that the Constitution was created to protect the minority from the majority. Again, a Liberal argument that I heard all through my college years.
Liberals hate democracy when their beliefs are voted down.
I was arguing with some Liberals today in another blog about the whole contraceptive mandate. They kept on telling me how the polls, even in Foxnews, show that the majority of Americans believe that contraceptive should be given for free through health insurance coverage. They told me because the majority believe it, it should be done. Of course i turned it around on them asking them if Prop 8 was correct, based on their premise that since the majority wanted it, it should be done. The twisting, contradictions, etc that I started to get from this Liberal hypocrites was beyond ridiculous!
Liberals love a majority to vote on something when they know they can win it, but they hate democracy when it goes against their beliefs.
Liberalism=hypocrisy!
If I'm for civil rights, but I believe Al Sharpton should always
Submitted by Rush Fan on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:49am.
sit quietly in the back of the bus, does that make me a racist?
Noel, after watching that clip, I agree with you that Sharpton wins the dumbest man on television dishonor.
What he really means....
Submitted by ThePickle on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:16am.
Is you can't have people voting on rights......if there is any chance that his side might lose.
But if his side is winning....it's "The People Have Spoken!!" or "It's the Will of The People!!"
Jackass.
Despite the idiocy of Sharpton, not to mention his---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 2:24am.
bone deep racism: where, exactly, or to whom, do we non-minority types go to receive redress or justice in this country?
The Blacks mightily deserved the Civil Rights Act; it was fought hard for though it shouldn't have had to been; and was so long overdue as to be an embarrassing stain on this country that will remain a truth for as long as history books are properly written.
Does that fact, however, justify today a Congressional Black Caucus that makes a point of a blatant, in-your-face disallowing white membership? Apparently it does.
Boys clubs must accept girls; men's sports must accept females; the military must accept gays; but the Congressional Black Caucus says screw you and gets away with it.
I didn't vote in favor of any of those things.
Where, though, do we as conservative citizens go, forty-eight years after the passage of Civil Rights, to get a fair shake?
To the insanity of the California courts where the people's popular vote has been ruled unconstitutional; twice now? Looks like only LGBT concerns, cares, and wants are valid in those august halls.
I voted against Prop 8 - twice. I wonder now why I bothered to burn the gas to get to the polls either time?
Same with the SCOTUS and Roe v. Wade. I disagree most strongly with the killing of innocents, but since I wasn't even asked how I felt about it, let alone given a chance to vote on it, I guess it is something I just have to live with.
Maybe that 'voting' thing that Al Sharpton is decrying, or the ability and right, even, to vote, is less than it is cracked up to be.
Sure seems that way anymore.
MD
I'm starting up...
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:12am.
a Congressional All-White, 1%, Patriotic, Pro-Military, Non-Homosexual, Pro-Life, Religious Freedom, Tax Payer, Border Closing, Anti-CAIR, Attack Iran Now, Anti-Green, Global Warming Is A Hoax Caucus. Want to join?
MD
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:49am.
I'm just thankful we have a post-racial President that has just started up African-Americans For Obama.
I don't think he has websites for any other hyphenated Americans, but at least he's willing to have at least one No Whitey Club.
It is only tyranny of the majority if the rights he favors...
Submitted by jawebster1 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 5:57am.
are voted down. Almost all Liberals believe as he does. Children are the same way. When they don't get their way, they scream and cry until their parents (Society) give up and then to their detriment, give in.
Someone should educate Al and inform him that we are not a Democracy where majority rules. We are a representative Republic with certain rights endowed by our creator that can never be taken away, not even by Obama and his merry henchmen as much as they may try!
Sharpton is absolutely one hundred per cent correct this time...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 6:45am.
and however clumsily it may have been articulated, he has hit upon the very essence and majesty of our constitutional republic. Democratic principles and the will of the majority retain their significance as laudable components of effective governance, but where guarantees of individual liberty and minority rights are the issue, the prevention of oppression by popular sentiment or mobocracy is the hallmark of a truly free society.
Jer
and in a truly free society
Submitted by 26CX on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 7:20am.
the rights of the majority wouldn't be trampled on by the tyranny of the minority, which seems to be happening a lot lately.
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 12:35am.
the rub comes in the making appropriate determinations of what are or are not "rights"; defining the type and character of such rights which deserve constitutional protections, and the degree to which a state may regulate or impinge upon those recognized rights. These are the areas where the real divergence of opinion lies and should lie, rather than with the propriety and desirability of firewalls against the "tyranny of or by the majority".
Jer
Jer
Submitted by 26CX on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 9:37am.
I agree that the real difficulty lies in determining what is or is not a "Right". The writers of the Constitution were pretty clear in saying that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are Rights. Where people get tangled up is in using those broad descriptions to introduce self-serving definitions of a "right", just as the Commerce clause has become an excuse to allow Congress to do whatever it wants to do.
I disagree with you, however, on your statement about the need to define "the degree to which a state may regulate or impinge upon" those Rights. If they are truly Rights, the state's only duty is to protect those Rights, not to regulate them. If your response would be the need for laws & etc., I would point out that activity that runs afoul of the law is not a Right. I would go further to say that a true Right does not infringe on others Rights, and therefore should require no government regulation at all. Where we have run into trouble is in concocting "rights" that require sacrifice by others to provide. Not coincidentally, those "rights" are more often than not vehicles by which politicians guarantee themselves a captive voting block.
I also disagree strongly that the propriety and desirability of firewalls isn't an issue to be contested. The "firewalls" that take the form of a tiny group of judges who proport to know better than millions of voters are a serious challenge to the premise on which this country was founded and are neither proper nor desirable.
CX...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 10:15pm.
I assume you believe--citing just a couple of examples--that freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are "truly Rights" which may be exercised by the individual and are constitutionally guaranteed. If that is indeed your view, when you insist "the state's only duty is to protect those rights, not to regulate them" you are bucking a couple of centuries of legal precedent and Supreme Court rulings holding quite emphatically that such rights may indeed be regulated--which even Justice Scalia explicitly acknowledged in the Heller decision, while otherwise striking down the specific handgun ban under review.
Now, your qualification that a "true Right does not infringe on others Rights" gives you some wiggle room [after all, freedom of speech does not grant one license to defame another]; however it also makes your argument somewhat circular and leaves me confused about what you actually consider a true Right--but comfortable with my reference concerning the need to define the degree to which a state may regulate, etc. As a matter of fact, the Supreme Court often finds itself engaged in balancing the interests of the State against the purported "right" the governing entity is attempting to affect. [And, in doing so it applies one of several tests depending upon the nature of the right at issue.]
A short comment on firewalls: Do you believe the (unanimous) decision in Brown v. Board of Education by a "tiny group of judges" was correct? Or do you believe that segregation should have been left up to the will of the majority in each state where "separate but equal" was codified in Jim Crow laws enacted by the majority white population to ensure that the minority black population remained second-class citizens?
Jer
Jer,
Submitted by 26CX on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 9:56pm.
Let me respond to your comments by first acknowledging that your highly trained legal mind is a virtual cornucopia of legal history, historic opinions and subtle minutiae unknown to (and perhaps beyond the comprehension of ) a lay person. I proceed with my response knowing that victory in this discussion is already yours, and freely admit the same.
I understand the need for laws and, thereby, the regulation of people's activities to ensure the protection of our Rights and, at a more basic level, protect us from harm by another. Where I disagree with the government's regulation is when it, without good reason (the people being the final judge of "good reason") intrudes on people's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. There are many examples that are collected under the banner "Nanny State". There are examples of governments' assaults on peoples' Rights that have been stricken down by the courts. Unfortunately, there are also examples where the courts have upheld actions such as some eminent domain cases that clearly infringe on citizens' property rights.
I leave the previous paragraph as the explanation of my position that Rights are to be protected, not regulated by government. As I said in the first paragraph, I am not equipped to adequately defend my position against your superior legal acumen and will not attempt to counter any argument you offer against what I've written.
With regards to my comments about firewalls, your questions are purely rhetorical. My specific comment was "The "firewalls" that take the form of a tiny group of judges who proport to know better than millions of voters are a serious challenge to the premise on which this country was founded and are neither proper nor desirable" and I stand by that comment. I offer as an example the controversial decisions that have come out of Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the relatively high rate at which their decisions have been overturned by the SCOTUS ("Over the past fifty years, the Ninth Circuit, the largest circuit court in the country, has been reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court an average of 10.78 times per term. The next closest circuit, the Fifth Circuit, which is also the second largest circuit, was reversed an average of 7.42 times." (Kevin Scott, Supreme Court Reversals of the Ninth Circuit, 48 Ariz. L. Rev. 341.)). Your examples of the need for "firewalls" are, in and of themselves, strong arguments in favor of a firewall that seeks to protect Rights, and I have no problems with them. I would offer as my own example the magnificent ruling by the SCOTUS in Bush v. Gore in which the Court ruled that, among other things, "the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature" - clearly an example of one "firewall" protecting the American people from another flawed " firewall". They have an important role to play, but they have to be watched carefully and contested each and every time they stray from what the majority of the people believe to be correct.
Want to talk about Jefferson? ;)
But we are not talking about a right in this case.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:49am.
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided marriage is basically a right. But marriage is still defined as between a man and a woman. What people of California voted on was inserting that definition into the California constitution
The clause "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." is now officially part of the California state constitution - http://www.whatisprop8.com/
No one was voting on a right. They were confirming a definition of a right.
Again, we have no problem with homosexuals having a civil union that has nearly identical privileges and benefits that come with marriage. Just do not call it marriage.
Jer...k,
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:18am.
I see your mommy gave you a new Thesaurus for Christmas, but who helped you with the spelling and punctuation??? Oh wait, you're an atheist. Maybe it was present for Gay Liberation Day!?
Your skillful wordplay is simply awesome, BBallleaper...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:18pm.
You are also about the fifteenth NB member who has played that identical, incredibly clever, "Jer-k" card during my tenure here--most of whom having since faded into obscurity, contributing little or nothing to constructive dialog at this website. You show every sign of following in their barely discernible but undeniably ignominious footsteps. Congratulations.
Matthew Dean was gracious enough to send me his well-used Thesaurus this past Christmas inasmuch as he acquires a new boxed set of updated word reference tomes annually.
By the way, I am neither an atheist nor am I gay, nor have I ever provided a shred of evidence of being either one--in stark contrast to the more than ample and continuing indications of your consuming idiocy.
Jer
" it's a total disgrace that
Submitted by motherbelt on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 7:55am.
" it's a total disgrace that any news outlet - even the farce that is MSNBC - gives him a national platform to speak such nonsense.
Once again, MSNBC proves that they have no shame.
Thanks Jer, I am glad you came over to the conservative side.
Submitted by David Kramer on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:04am.
Since you just said that the ObamaKillCare bill is un Constitutional. Add onto that any other collectively enforced mandates by the federal government that uses force to extract from me, things not in that Constitution.
No SS Amendment
No Medicare Amendment
No ObamaKillCare Amendment
No Amendments on the 1000s of other things this nation does, that is not directly in the Constitution.
Let us see the back tracking now, from Jer.
Excuse the delay, Kramer...
Submitted by Jer on Mon, 02/13/2012 - 1:32am.
No backtracking. I've been looking for where I said "ObamaKillCare bill is un Constitutional".
Your patience is appreciated.
Jer
update: still looking
further update: haven't found it yet, but refuse to give up...however, forced to admit that a hint would be helpful
Tawana,...Tawana, Tawana,
Submitted by BBallleaper on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:06am.
back taxes, back taxes, back taxes. He can not speak english. He has a third-grade education - maybe! And this lying SOS, POS is on TV telling me what to do?????????????????? Only in a liberal world where the induction of societal entropy is the main goal could a cretin like Al exist.
The Right Reverend is...
Submitted by utahprez on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:19am.
...onto something. Even a liberal stumbles across the truth eventually - they rarely recognize it when they do but others can see it.
If you can vote on it, it isn't a right. True rights cannot given or be taken away except by God.
That eliminates every program that "progressives" have ushered in since the time of Woodrow Wilson.
what a moron
Submitted by D'saredumbpeople on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 8:24am.
who cares what this so called reverand says.....who watches his show beside blacks.
hey al just pay your fu____taxes.
sharpton
Submitted by misterbee241 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:51am.
Is an ignorant eneducated bum. He barely made it out of high school and has no higher education. He has no formal training in ministry. All he knows is demogoging. He is a minister of the gospel in name only. He will stand before The Great White Throne and give an account of his actions.
We are all missing the opportunity
Submitted by hobie on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 9:54am.
Sharpton made the mistake of defining his argument.
Tyranny of the majority
Do not accept his premise; 'a racial majority voting on topics that push personal and economic responsibility to racial minorities'.
Redefine the term majority.
i.e.
"You know Al, I agree with you about the tyranny of the majority. I require protection against the +/-50% of Americans who do not pay Federal Income tax, yet receive redistributions of my Federal Income tax withholdings."
Refocus the use of the word "Majority"!
We know how to play this game; try it yourself: fill in the blanks.
"Al, I agree with you about the tyranny of the majority. I need protection against ______"
No fan of Sharpton, but he's
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:21am.
No fan of Sharpton, but he's probably referring to general population voting on a bill. If the 1964 Civil Rights Act had been decided by general population vote instead of Congress, would it have passed? I kind of doubt it.
Exactly who is "eagle-eyed?"
Submitted by WickedMark on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 10:32am.
"Eagle-eyed Twitter follower @BrettBannor accurately notes that in his February 22, 1962, inaugural address, the Confederacy's Jefferson Davis also argued against "the tyranny of the majority.""
Which someone at NewsBusters has inaccurately screwed up. I'm pretty sure Jefferson Davis was not alive in 1962.
Sharpton quoting Jefferson Davis
Submitted by spepper on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 11:10am.
Sharpton quoting Confederate President Jefferson Davis. Never thought I'd live to see the day.
Must Mention
Submitted by racefan on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 12:52pm.
I've just read Jeff Davis's inaugural address Feb 1861..... Not one mention of "the tyranny of the majority" or really any other detail on the exact reasons for the seperation. Only talks about constitutional justification for it... Be careful who you let update Noel. The Confederacy wasn't worried about "the tyranny of the majority" as much as they were worried about the perversion of the purposes of the Union to begin with.
From his address............
The declared purposes of the compact of Union from which we have withdrawn were to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, to provide for the common defence, to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity; and when in the judgment of the sovereign States now comprising this Confederacy it had been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and had ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, an appeal to the ballot box declared that so far as they were concerned the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and occasion for its exercise, they, as sovereign, were the final judges each for itself.
Racefan, the quote can be
Submitted by Scuba Dude on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:13pm.
Racefan, the quote can be found in Jefferson Davis's second Inaugural Address which was given on Feb 22,1862.
The tyranny of an unbridled majority, the most odious and least responsible form of despotism, has denied us both the right and the remedy.
Thanks Dude
Submitted by racefan on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:29pm.
I went and checked this one out too. I see and understand the words, but the long argument of what they actually mean is probably for another time.....
Thanks for keeping me informed......
Someone should educate Al about these.
Submitted by Zippy on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:42pm.
Civil Rights Act of 1866, extending the rights of emancipated slaves
Civil Rights Act of 1871, also known as the Ku Klux Klan Act, prohibits ethnic violence against blacks
Civil Rights Act of 1875, prohibiting discrimination in "public accommodations"; found unconstitutional in 1883 as congress could not regulate conduct of individuals
Civil Rights Act of 1957, establishing the Civil Rights Commission
Civil Rights Act of 1960, establishing federal inspection of local voter registration polls
Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin by federal and state governments as well as some public places
Civil Rights Act of 1968, also known as the Fair Housing Act
Civil Rights Act of 1991, providing the right to trial by jury on discrimination claims and introducing the possibility of emotional distress damages, while limiting the amount that a jury could award
Here is the rub.
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:50pm.
All of those examples have something in common. They are removing unjust legislative action that violated rights already held by the owners of them, the individuals born with them.
Government does not grant rights, it only recognizes those that exist in order to abide by them or it denies that they exist.
Simple really, when one is honest about it.
Sharpton is correct -
Submitted by Ashrak on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:45pm.
He just doesn't mean a word of what he says. The political opportunist in him sees himself shoot himself in the foot once again.
See, Inalienable rights AREN'T subject to the will of the vote. For instance -it cannot be put to a vote whether or not a person, or group of people, has the right to speak, that person, everyone in that group, retains the right to speak regardless of any vote taken.
The same is true regarding the right to keep and bear arms.
One might ask the fine Reverend how it can be that gun rights are voted on, and stripped away regularly as a result.....and then, how he can support such an action in light of his latest comment about that very point.
Doing so, asking him, would point out just how true it is that he didn't mean a word of what he said. I wonder who will ask him about the gun rights scenario first?
The bill of rights, womens
Submitted by redfish on Sat, 02/11/2012 - 1:54pm.
The bill of rights, womens suffrage and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment were enacted by a tyranny of the supermajority.
The JeIfferson Davis Quote is Especially Ironic
Submitted by cmujelly on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 7:18pm.
One of Sharpton's frequent tactics when confronted with the Tenth Amendment or the concept of State's rights is to assert that those concepts have no validity because they were used by proponents of racial segregation to deny African Americans civil rights.
The Jefferson Davis Quote Is Especially Ironic.
Submitted by Tasine on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 11:08am.
Sharpton has no interest in any topic that cannot be spun racially. The ignorance that can command a radio/TV microphone is absolutely astounding!
Al Sharpton: 'You Cannot Have Rights Voted On'
Submitted by Tasine on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 11:03am.
Even accidentally Al once in a while gets it right. It is true you cannot have rights voted on because rights come with life, by virtue of our creator. I believe that government does not give rights, cannot rescind rights, cannot take them away. I like to refer to "rights" or "laws" or "mandates" or "directions" or "regulations", "privileges". I believe people should be more discerning when utilizing the word 'rights'. When something is made legal, it isn't necessarily a "right" - most of the time, it is a privilege, not a right. At least that's the way I see things.