By Bill Britt
Alabama Political Reporter
MONTGOMERY – In the next session of the Alabama Legislature expect to hear a great deal about state’s rights and Alabama values. In late summer, House Speaker Mike Hubbard (R-Auburn) commissioned a state’s rights and Alabama values commission to study conservative social issues and 10th Amendment guarantees.
It has been said that the commission was in part a result of dissatisfaction expressed by freshmen GOP who met after the 2012 session at Lake Guntersville to discuss the need for a more conservative agenda in the state legislature.
According to a report by Dana Beyerle, the commission is tasked with listening to “typical Alabamians” to ensure that conservative social issues and 10th Amendment guarantees are given prominent attention in the 2013 legislative session, which begins in February.
Those issues include illegal immigration, the Affordable Care Act, religious liberties, anti-abortion initiatives, taxpayer rights and Second Amendment protections. These are issues that will be presented to our (GOP) caucus for consideration, Hubbard said.
Most Alabamians embrace a more conservative agenda than many outside its borders, but the mostly male, all white makeup of the Speaker’s commission has caused some worries.
Likewise, the use of the words state’s rights, at least for black Alabamians, is reminiscent of the racist past. Speaker Hubbard has said it doesn’t have anything to do with the old connotation. Words do have meanings but sometimes a phrase does change meaning over time.
The rights of states has been argued many times dating back to the founding of our republic, but the idea at least in words that the states have rights was never entered into the nation’s constitution.
Those who prefer the original language of the US Constitution would be hard pressed to find the words right or rights ever used in connection with government. A careful reading to the US Constitution reveals no mention of the words rights as referring to the Federal government or the states themselves. The words “right” or “rights” do appear in the Constitution and Amendments a total of 15 times, but never in association with “state.” The words “right” or “rights” are used 13 times to guarantee rights of the people while restricting power of government to infringe them.
Governments, state and federal, do not have rights according to the constitution what they have is power. Individuals have rights, the government has powers that are granted by the consent of the people.
The 10th Amendment contains one of 36 mentions in the Constitution of “power” or “powers,” reserved to the states or to the people but those are not explicitly enumerated. In simple terms, whatever power the federal government does not have is left in the hands of the state.
A good example of such powers is that of immigration. Federal courts have ruled the the states have no rights concerning immigration, because they don’t exist. However, the federal government has power over all immigration. This was a costly lesson learned by Alabama over the last several years, when HB56 and its successor was struck down by the federal courts. Many supporters of HB56 claimed victory but it wasn’t a victory but a talking point thought up by communications specialist and repeated by their bosses. The “Ihre papiere bitte” portion of the law was not a win for state’s rights. This is not to say that there is not a need for immigration enforcement neither is this an endorsement of the federal government’s lack of enforcement of its own policies, it simply shows states to do not have power over immigration.
Alabama with a 4 percent Hispanic population was never under the pressure that a state like Arizona faced but it was a good political point during the 2010 elections and so it became a rallying cry to gin-up the GOP base, especially those in the Tea Party.
Mr. Hubbard, says that the Affordable Care Act is an issue for his state’s rights and Alabama values commission, but with the Supreme Court ruling and the reelection of Obama even John Boehner has declared ACA as the law of the land.
Alabama recently passed an amendment to block ACA but this too is just political posturing. The only power the states have is how they will implement portions of ACA, not if.
According to a post by Blaine Galliher, Governor Bentley has appointed a tribunal of lawyers with expertise in constitutional law and this health care bill to advise him on the options our state has as it relates to this legislation.
So, the governor is calling on a cadre of lawyers to continue the fight against the ACA. According to Galliher’s meme Governor Bentley with 20 other governors are going to do what, defy federal law? One has to wonder what the governors are thinking, a law passed by the two houses of Congress signed by the President and upheld by the Supreme Court in this universe means it is a law.
It is logical to ask, what is a state that is hovering on the brink of bankruptcy doing by spending state dollars the fight the law of the land. Very few avenues seem open but perhaps the governor’s coalition could try to pass an amendment to the US Constitution. Secession is not an option with a very successful track record.
Governor Bentley may despise the ACA overall but he has been wanting to move forward with the health exchange portion for well over a year. Just this summer the Governor held a meeting at which he proposed spending over $50 million in federal dollars to build the exchange and its infrastructure.
Utah built its healthcare exchange for under a million dollars, but Alabama wants to use the maximum in federal dollars because it will allow the state to modernize it technology infrastructure using federally-supplied funds.
The hunger for federal dollars is certainly one of the many ways that states have surrendered power to Washington, DC. In the case of the ACA, Chief Justice John Roberts, said that holding a gun to the states was a no, no, but Alabama will happily except the federal money, while cursing the giver.
Another big discussion on the horizon will be the expansion of Medicaid something that the state’s rights commission and many Alabamians will be allied against. However, the expansion of Medicaid will happen in Alabama because of state’s desire for federal dollars and the special interest that will benefit from the growth of the program.
Hubbard said he chose to include the term state’s rights because he says conservative states are battling Washington. We are the last line of defense against the federal government.
I would like to see a day when states have more sovereignty over their own affairs. I would be in favor of a loose confederacy of states but for over a century, states have kowtowed to Washington for money.
The battle then would seem lost until the core reason as to why the states have so little power against the federal government is addressed. To find the answer, the commission needs to look no further than the state’s willingness to spend every dime the federal government is willing to give.
It is also important to address situations with the true firepower of the Constitution. Individuals have rights, not governments and the government should only have the power that is given by the consent of the governed.
Sadly, many in our state follow slogans and not well thought out policies. The state needs more than commissions with catchy names, it need sound policy thinkers whose agenda is good government not politics.
House Majority Leader Micky Hammon (R-Decatur) serves as chairman of the States Rights and Alabama Values Commission, according to the report by Beyerle, Hammon said, “We wanted to get input from the Tea Party and other people who are interested. We’re just looking for input from the people out there who are our base and typical Alabamians, instead of us deciding what this is going to be.”
With a population of around 70 percent white and 26 percent black, 4 percent Hispanic and with almost a million people living below the poverty level one has to wonder who is a typical Alabamian.
When addressing state’s powers it is important to recognize that those powers cut both ways. If Alabama wants its so-called rights, then it should also expect those state’s that want gun control, gay marriage and abortion-on-demanded to have their rights as well.
It is a slippery slope because one man’s state’s rights is another one’s abomination. Words do have meaning, the word “fair” used to mean to be just or equal, today it is used in a phrases like “That is not fair” to mean “I don’t like that.”
Perhaps that is now the new meaning of state’s rights.
Opinion | Prisons, justice reform and the art of the possible
Politics is bound by the art of what’s possible. It is also true that those who never dare the impossible rarely achieve even the possible.
For years, prison reform advocates, media outlets and even a few public officials have called for new correctional facilities to address Alabama’s dangerously overcrowded prisons.
Now that it’s happening, some aren’t happy with how Gov. Kay Ivey is addressing the problem.
Is the Ivey Administration’s plan perfect? No. But building new facilities along with criminal justice reform — while all imperfect — is the last best hope to correct generations of cruel treatment, endangered correctional officers and corrupt practices.
German chancellor and statesman Otto von Bismarck said “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best,” this is the state of a workable solution to Alabama’s prison needs and criminal justice reform.
Yet, there is a concerted effort underway to stop the Ivey Administration from acquiring three new men’s prisons under a build-lease agreement.
Some lawmakers want another crack at financing additional facilities through a bond issue, and others want more say in the process. Still, the fact is that Ivey’s actions are the result of decades of legislative indifference and inaction to adequately address the appalling conditions at Alabama’s correctional facilities.
Even some advocates are working against the prison plan and while their intentions may be good it seem to their hand wringing is almost as disingenuous as lawmakers whining.
What’s worse are those who spread disinformation to discredit process.
Many good people have worked hard to bring about an end to the state’s barbaric prison system and unfair justice, but lately it seems there is an outright movement to derail much needed change— simply because it’s not enough. As the saying goes, “Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”
There have been so many false claims and sly manipulations of facts about the prison plan as to make even a hardened journalist want to cry “fake news.”
But as for Ivey, frankly, my dears, I don’t think she gives a damn.
Here’s the hard truth. The Ivey Administration is building three new men’s prisons, and nothing will stop it. The fact is that three prisons are not enough; the administration should move forward to build a new women’s facility as soon as practicable.
Politics is bound by the art of what’s possible. It is also true that those who never dare the impossible rarely achieve even the possible.
Failing to recognize when the once impossible is coming to fruition is a sad reality. Still, in politics, as in life, good things happen while most people are navel-gazing or complaining.
Having visited three state prisons, St. Clair, Elmore, and Tutwiler, I can say without a doubt, the conditions in those places are a living hell.
A report from the U.S. Department of Justice released in April 2019, found “reasonable cause to believe that Alabama fails to provide constitutionally adequate conditions and that prisoners experience serious harm, including deadly harm, as a result.”
DOJ’s investigation revealed that prisoners were susceptible to “an enormous breath” of sexual abuse and assault but other types of violence as well, including gruesome murder and beatings that went without intervention.
When the state incarcerates a criminal, it assumes custodial care for that individual. No matter how heinous the crime or foul the person, the state has an obligation to feed, clothe, house and provide essential human services for their care and welfare. Another element is often overlooked; when a person is committed to prison, they lose their freedom, not their humanity. Therefore, under the law, they cannot be subject to cruel and unusual punishment.
Building three new men’s prisons is just the start; it must be accompanied by criminal justice reform.
“We are able to have a serious discussion about prison reform in Alabama because we have a governor who is serious about putting solutions into place,” Ivey’s press secretary Gina Maiola recently told APR. “Prison infrastructure is a key part of the equation, but criminal justice reform is also needed,” Maiola said.
The Study Group entered its mission with one pressing question; “What policies and programs can the State of Alabama implement to ensure the long-term sustainability of our prison system without jeopardizing public safety?” according to Supernumerary Associate Supreme Court Justice Champ Lyons, Jr., who led the effort.
In a letter to Ivey on the Study Groups finding, Lyons wrote [T]he challenges facing our prison system are exceedingly complex—ranging from the elimination of contraband weapons and drugs to the recruitment, retention, and training of correctional staff to the size of the inmate population and to the physical condition of an aging and far-flung prison infrastructure.” He further wrote, “But having thought through many of these issues with my Study Group colleagues, especially our legislative members, I can report to you that some meaningful answers to this question are not just possible; they are within our grasp.”
Prisons without justice reform is a hollow victory, and the Ivey Administration is committed to bringing about reasonable reforms.
“Prison infrastructure is a key part of the equation,” said Maiola, “but criminal justice reform is also needed.”
The issues facing Alabama’s prisons and criminal justice system are complex, and generations in the making; therefore, arriving at a universally acceptable solution is not imaginable for the moment if ever. But what once seemed impossible is soon to be realized.
No one gets everything they want, but it’s a great step toward getting what is needed simply because it’s possible.
Opinion | Amendment 4: Stairway to heaven or highway to hell?
If you wouldn’t trust that august body to manage your checkbook, reconfigure your last will and testament, or redefine the terms of your car loan, then you should vote no.
Amendment 4 will appear on the Nov. 3 general election ballot asking the voters to approve a constitutional amendment to remove racist language from the 1901 Constitution and recompile other sections for content and clarity.
If you trust state lawmakers to “recompile” the state’s governing document, then vote yes.
If, however, you wouldn’t trust that august body to manage your checkbook, reconfigure your last will and testament, or redefine the terms of your car loan, then you should vote no.
The question is straightforward. Do you trust this Legislature with this important task?
The ballot measures lead sponsors were Sen. Rodger Smitherman and Rep. Merika Coleman, both Black Democrats, and it was passed with an overwhelming majority in both the House and Senate. This would seem to give legitimacy to the claim that at its heart, this is a referendum to remove racist language from the state’s Constitution.
However, Amendment 4 is a Trojan horse to allow the state Legislature to manipulate the state’s Constitution using past racism as cover. (Let’s not forget the recent racially charged monuments preservation act.)
This Amendment isn’t a benign effort to cleaning up the Constitution; it is a way for lawyers, lobbyists and lawmakers to rewrite the Constitution using sleight-of-hand.
After speaking about the need to eliminate racist words in the Constitution, Coleman actually points to the real reason the Republican supermajority supported the measure.
“Coleman said it’s not just a social issue,” according to reporting by Mary Sell. “But an economic development issue ‘for those of us who want to bring industry, new ideas, new technology, new research, new employees that are diverse into the state of Alabama.'”
The driving force behind the so-called recompilation is mostly about money, bringing more in and for the government to spend it more easily.
Eradicating racism from the state’s Constitution is a noble effort, but not if it opens the flood gates to more mischief.
In 2012, the Legislature offered a more narrow amendment which claimed to remove racist language from the Constitution only to have it revealed that it also eliminated a child’s right to a state-provided public education.
About that Amendment, also known as Amendment 4, then-Sen. Hank Sanders wrote, ”It proposes to remove racist provisions from the Alabama Constitution that have no real legal impact.”
The indent of the 2012 measure was to do away with a child’s right to public education; removing racist language was simply bait for the unaware.
The same is true of the current Amendment 4 because the offensive words have no bearing on how the state is governed.
The U.S. Constitution contains racist language and holds racist ideals, but they no longer have the weight of law.
“Consider the 14th Amendment. No part of the Constitution speaks more forcefully to the power of law to transform social relations,” notes Richard Albert, a constitutional law professor at The University of Texas at Austin. “It guarantees that no state shall ‘deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.’ And yet the Constitution still today counts a slave as ‘three-fifths’ of a person.”
“The First Congress debated whether a constitutional amendment should entail changes to the original text but ultimately chose to record changes in the higher law as sequential amendments to the end of the document,” according to Albert.
The founders determined it was best to leave offense clauses in the text and add amendments to the end; Alabama has followed their example.
Hurtful words matter and should be condemned but protecting citizens from a Legislature who would exploit constitutional change for their own benefit is also dangerous.
Removing racist language from the state’s constitution is morally right, but not if it lets deceptive lawmakers legalize unethical conduct. The state shouldn’t exchange one wrong for another.
Those who support Amendment 4 say that it will not change the Constitution; just cleans it up by removing all racist language; deleting duplicative and repealed provisions; consolidating provisions regarding economic development; and arranging all local amendments by county of application. And nothing in the amendment permits more money to be spent on economic development than is currently available. Those who want to foster greater commercial growth believe that condensing and clarifying sections of the Constitution will help define Alabama as a more business-friendly state.
However, anyone with a rudimentary understanding of textural construct knows that merely moving a comma can dramatically change a sentence’s meaning. Consider the many tricks which can occur with a cut and paste constitution.
For example, “I say to you today, I’m going to give you a million dollars.” That statement means at some point in the future, I’ll give you the money. But, “I say to you, today I’m going to give you a million dollars.” That means you’re going to get cash now. One little comma makes a lot of difference.
Alabama’s 1901 Constitution is some 800 pages long. How many lawmakers have read it; how many will read the “recompiled” Constitution? Most? Like none.
The Legislature asks us to suspend disbelief, pretending that nothing nefarious is going on and that they are sincere, and their intentions are good.
Sincerity is no guarantee of honesty, and as for good intentions, we all know where that leads.
Rock songs say there is a stairway to heaven and a highway to hell. Obviously, rockers understand the traffic patterns better than our lawmakers.
Amendment 4 is a fraud that will weaken the state and lead to further legalized corruption.
The ballot measure is in fact about money and power under the guise of racial equity.
Opinion | Gov. Kay Ivey didn’t cave
Ivey stood her ground on Wednesday, refusing to cave to those who want to end the mask order.
Gov. Kay Ivey extended the statewide mandatory mask ordinance on Wednesday despite pressure from her party’s right-wing. Nationally and here in Alabama, many Republicans have complained that any restrictions on their behavior during the COVID-19 outbreak is a violation of their individual liberty.
Ivey stood her ground on Wednesday, refusing to cave to those who want to end the mask order. For most of the COVID-19 pandemic here in the state, Ivey has followed health experts’ advice rather than politicos. Standing up to the Republican Party’s right-wing is not an easy task even in the best of times, but these days, with the party more radicalized than ever, Ivey is taking a huge political risk.
But like Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, she hasn’t bowed, she hasn’t bent, and she hasn’t burned.
These are divisive times when even the best of people seem to be at war over the nation’s direction.
“Give me liberty or give me death” may have been a great rallying cry in 1776; it’s less persuasive as a public health policy.
Lately, some Alabama conservatives sound more like the John Birch Society members than the Republican Party of just a few years ago.
“In the name of fighting the coronavirus, more and more state governors are ruling by decree, curtailing freedoms and ordering residents to stay at home,” says the Birch website.
The Republican Party in the 1960s deemed Birchers dangerous and severed ties with the group. But like 60s racism, Red-baiting and a fear that socialist are lurking behind every corner, all that’s old is new again.
Not surprisingly, former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore is one of the leading voices in the fight to discredit the Ivey administration’s COVID orders.
Senate President Pro Tem Republican Del Marsh is part of the anti-masker movement and has suggested he’d like to see more people become infected to build the state’s overall immunity to the virus.
Marsh is certainly not alone; there is a motivated mop of miscreants who sees any restriction as an affront to them doing anything they please. Perhaps they can refuse to wear a seatbelt or maybe light up a cigar the next time they are dinning at the county club and show some real radical resistance.
The truth is many of those who condemn masks as an intrusion on personal freedom would happily compel their fellow citizens to pray at school and stand for the national anthem. They are more than willing to regulate liberties when it contradicts their opinion of what is good and wholesome. But heaven forbid they wear a mask to protect others—that is one regulation too far.
Like a pubescent boy, they live in a fantasy world; without consequences.
Anti-maskers are given to a form of herd mentality, which is part of a broader movement to discredit science for political purposes.
Perhaps the most critical job of a governor or lawmaker is the heath and safety of the public.
Masks protect others more than the wearer, and where the “Golden rule” should apply, it is trampled on just like Jesus’ admonition to love our neighbors as ourselves.
But I suspect that many of those who continuously espouse conspiracies, apocalyptic nightmares, and end time prophecies actually don’t like themselves very much and therefore don’t really care about the shared responsibilities we have toward others.
Writing for Business Insider, George Pearkes explains the four different types of liberty, according to David Hackett Fischer’s Albion’s Seed to explain mandatory mask orders.
“Efforts to require masks are a straightforward expression of ordered liberty,” writes Pearkes. “The concept of ordered liberty argues that without structure and a set of rules which are enforced for the common good, society would devolve into chaos.” He further concludes that “Mask orders are quite literally saving society from itself, so that we can be more free than we would if COVID spread even further and faster.”
Ordered liberty can be seen at the heart of Ivey’s policies during the coronavirus plague.
But for anti-maskers, “Live Free or Die” means they are free to do what they want, even if it kills you.
Ivey is putting people ahead of politics. We should wish more would follow her example.
Opinion | In Alabama, the past is prologue
Even after 200 years, Alabama’s political approach hasn’t changed much; the fundamentals established by its founders are still evident in everyday politics.
Like people, governments have pasts, and today’s fortunes are either furthered or frustrated by the things that came before. It might be said that even history leaves DNA.
Understanding Alabama’s past is essential to navigating its future because its government’s origins determine that the past is prologue.
Even after 200 years, Alabama’s political approach hasn’t changed much; the fundamentals established by its founders are still evident in everyday politics.
Those who observe Alabama’s governing process closely see the same structural problems impede progress year after year. Resistance to home rule and a regressive tax system are just two of the many roadblocks to a more prosperous state.
Some unresolved issues are due to a lack of leadership, but others are inherent within the state’s original governing procedures. Even the state’s architects’ elitist attitude is still prevalent with near total power given to a Legislature dominated by one-party rule. The earlier settlers’ prejudices are enshrined in every process of governing.
Failure to understand, acknowledge, and change the state’s historical patterns hinders advancement, leaving the state nearly dead last in every metric of success. It doesn’t have to be this way, but the cure is always met with fierce rejection because beyond admitting ingrained inequities, any change would upend 200 years of consolidated power.
When Republicans promised a new day in Alabama politics in 2010, some sincerely believed that change was possible. Still, after nearly a decade of Republican one-party rule, there isn’t a substantial difference in governing practice.
It’s not because good people haven’t tried to make a difference; it’s that there are systematic flaws that thwart reformers while rewarding the status quo.
A region’s founders and its dominant settlers are the creators of what can be called a state’s DNA. Alabama’s government still reflects the make-up of its original colonizers.
Much of the Deep South was established by slave owners who intended to recreate a society based on the Caribbean colonies of Great Britain.
In his 2011 non-fiction work American Nations: A history of the eleven rival regional cultures of North America, Colin Woodard shows how Deep South states were “Marked by single-party rule, the domination of a single religious denomination, and the enshrinement of a racial caste system for most of its history.” He also writes that these cultures supported regulation on personal behavior while opposing economic restraint.
Today, Alabama’s governance framework and, to a lesser degree, its society is much like the Deep South characteristics Woodard describes.
One Party rule.
A dominant religion.
A racial caste system.
And a willingness to impose regulations on personal behavior while opposing almost every economic restrictions.
Woodward’s findings mirror Alabama’s state government.
Alabama’s central governing power is based on a top-down fraternity where a privileged few hold the reins of authority with a whip hand ready to strike.
Even before statehood, Alabama was regulated by an upper class who built the territory’s economy slave labor. The same class gained even more control after statehood.
“By the antebellum period, Alabama had evolved into a slave society, which…shaped much of the state’s economy, politics, and culture,” according to the Encyclopedia of Alabama.
Slaves accounted for more than 30 percent of Alabama’s approximately 128,000 population when it was granted statehood in 1819. “When Alabama seceded from the Union in 1861, the state’s 435,080 slaves made up 45 percent of the total population,” writes Keith S. Hebert.
The state is currently home to approximately 4.9 million individuals. If 45 percent were slaves today, that would account for around 2.2 million people in bondage.
After the South lost the Civil War, Reconstruction ushered in an era where “a larger number of freed blacks entered the state’s electorate and began voting for the antislavery Republican Party,” according to Patrick R. Cotter, writing for the Encyclopedia of Alabama.
But the old establishment fought back and instituted the 1901 Constitution, which permanently ended any challenge to one-party rule and restored white supremacy in government.
A major feature of the new constitution was a poll tax and literacy tests and other measures to disenfranchise Black people and poor whites.
As Republicans reminded voters in the 2010 campaign cycle, Democrats controlled Alabama politics for 136 years. But these were not liberals; far from it. Alabama’s old Democratic Party for generations was home to racists, not radicals.
It was only over time that the Democratic Party became the diverse collation it is today.
With Republicans holding every state constitutional office and the Legislature, the one-party rule continues as it has throughout the state’s history; only the name has changed.
Looking back over the founding years of Alabama’s history, barbarity is searing, and the atrocities unimaginable. Yet, the fact remains that these early framers thought nothing of enslaving Blacks or treating poor whites as little more than chattel. It shocks our modern sensibilities as it should. Still today, the state continues in a system of government steeped in framers’ institutionalized prejudices.
Famously 19th-century British politician Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Alabama’s fathers wanted a government that gave absolute power to the few at the expense of the many; that is as true now as it was then.
There is a path to a better government, but as Lord Acton also said, “Great men are almost always bad men.”
History may not repeat itself, but politics does, and that is why Alabama’s history is prologue for today.