Quantcast

Mr. Obama gives a wink to Jim Crow

Alton H.Maddox | , Jr. | 4/12/2011, 4:37 p.m.

established in the Black community.

Ultimately, Black leaders would hedge their political bets on the Voting Rights Acts of 1965.This is akin to American International Group betting on credit default swaps. The first clue should have been the legislation's title. Blacks jumped at this legislation like a

mouse would jump at cheese oblivious to the mousetrap.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 only guarantees access to the ballot box.It does not give rise to political representation. At best, Blacks are only guaranteed political presence. This is not enough to give Blacks political power. President Johnson actually enshrined the three-fifths proviso of Article 1,section 2 of the U.S. Constitution in the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

In short, Blacks are political wards of the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party selects the candidates and Blacks help elect them. This was our role on the plantation. Whites selected the crop and we picked it. Our voting rights are actually voting privileges. If voting were a right, it would be a constitutional fixture. Instead, it is like a short-term lease. It must be renewed.

Within the context of voting rights for descendants of enslaved Africans, the U.S. Supreme Court will permit the title of the statute to control its statutory language. Justice Clarence Thomas has zealously led the charge for this view on the high court.

He maintains that the right to vote should be strictly construed like the construction of penal laws. Thus, political rights for Blacks are out of the question and diluting the Black vote is permissible. Actually, voting rights for descendants of enslaved Africans should give rise to remedial legislation; therefore, they should be liberally construed.

It is alarming that the Obama administration has used Justice Thomas' logic to decide that the usurpation of the power of the New York City Council to overthrow two referenda favoring term limits was appropriate and not in violation of the Voting Rights Acts of 1965.This logic enjoins Blacks from enjoying pork barrel legislation. Thus, white minority rule, "by any means necessary," can maintain political control over historically oppressed groups in New York City. This is the essence of states' rights and apartheid.

Mr. Obama promised change. His ruling on term limits is a commitment to maintaining the status quo.

Under this political arrangement, Blacks and other historically oppressed groups are not entitled to their proportionate share of the municipal budget, which is approaching $60 billion. Collectively, these historically oppressed groups only receive less than $500 million from their City Council members. In politics, the winner should get the spoils. Blacks should receive at least $15 billion.

This explains why Mayor Michael Bloomberg was the only member of the 20 richest people in the world who enjoyed a profit in 2009. Even Warren Buffet and Bill Gates suffered losses. An investigation by the SEC is warranted. Something is wrong with this picture.

The only thing that Mayor Bloomberg is giving to Blacks is hard times. See, for example, police terrorism, tenant evictions and the mistreatment of teachers and students in New York City. Also, see Bloomberg's refusal to compensate the "Central Park Six," who were framed and railroaded by law enforcement officials.