For decades, it was a sign of unfairness at best, or racism at worst. Under a 1986 law, a person convicted of possessing five grams of crack cocaine got the same mandatory prison sentence as someone with 500 grams of powder cocaine, 100 times more. And of course, those using powder cocaine in the mid to late 1980’s were often rich and/or white, and those using crack cocaine in the mid to late 1980’s were often poor and/or black.

Yesterday, President Obama signed legislation that reduces that ratio to about 18-1 from 100 to 1. So the law is a little more fair.

In some areas of criminal justice system, Obama disappoints, having what appears to be the same position as President Bush when it comes to warrantless searches and seizures being used in the conduct of fighting terrorism. But in the mandatory minimums and sentence disparity, Obama meets my expectations, and even surprises. This is one of those times.

And supposed liberals or Hillary Clinton Democrats like Dominique should read it too, if of course it is not too long for them, but it is, so Dominique, feel free to wallow in your own crapulence while the rest of us learn something. Here is an important, but long, excerpt:

“In the mid-1650s, the small Jewish community living in lower Manhattan petitioned Dutch governor Peter Stuyvesant for the right to build a synagogue, and they were turned down. In 1657, when Stuyvesant also prohibited Quakers from holding meetings, a group of non-Quakers in Queens signed the Flushing Remonstrance, a petition in defense of the right of Quakers and others to freely practice their religion. It was perhaps the first formal political petition for religious freedom in the American colonies, and the organizer was thrown in jail and then banished from New Amsterdam.

“In the 1700s, even as religious freedom took hold in America, Catholics in New York were effectively prohibited from practicing their religion, and priests could be arrested. Largely as a result, the first Catholic parish in New York City was not established until the 1780s, St. Peter’s on Barclay Street, which still stands just one block north of the World Trade Center site, and one block south of the proposed mosque and community center.

“This morning, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission unanimously voted to extend—not to extend—landmark status to the building on Park Place where the mosque and community center are planned. The decision was based solely on the fact that there was little architectural significance to the building. But with or without landmark designation, there is nothing in the law that would prevent the owners from opening a mosque within the existing building.

“The simple fact is, this building is private property, and the owners have a right to use the building as a house of worship, and the government has no right whatsoever to deny that right. And if it were tried, the courts would almost certainly strike it down as a violation of the U.S. Constitution.

“Whatever you may think of the proposed mosque and community center, lost in the heat of the debate has been a basic question: Should government attempt to deny private citizens the right to build a house of worship on private property based on their particular religion? That may happen in other countries, but we should never allow it to happen here.

“This nation was founded on the principle that the government must never choose between religions or favor one over another. The World Trade Center site will forever hold a special place in our city, in our hearts. But we would be untrue to the best part of ourselves and who we are as New Yorkers and Americans if we said no to a mosque in lower Manhattan.

And more:

“The attack was an act of war, and our first responders defended not only our city, but our country and our constitution. We do not honor their lives by denying the very constitutional rights they died protecting. We honor their lives by defending those rights and the freedoms that the terrorists attacked.

“Of course, it is fair to ask the organizers of the mosque to show some special sensitivity to the situation, and in fact their plan envisions reaching beyond their walls and building an interfaith community. But doing so, it is my hope that the mosque will help to bring our city even closer together, and help repudiate the false and repugnant idea that the attacks of 9/11 were in any ways consistent with Islam.

“Muslims are as much a part of our city and our country as the people of any faith. And they are as welcome to worship in lower Manhattan as any other group. In fact, they have been worshipping at the site for better, the better part of a year, as is their right. The local community board in lower Manhattan voted overwhelmingly to support the proposal. And if it moves forward, I expect the community center and mosque will add to the life and vitality of the neighborhood and the entire city.

“Political controversies come and go, but our values and our traditions endure, and there is no neighborhood in this city that is off-limits to God’s love and mercy, as the religious leaders here with us can attest.”

The Republican Party now wants to officially investigate repealing the 14th Amendment through Congressional Hearing. Before we actually get to what is in the 14th Amendment, it is important to realize what this means. Sarah Palin and every other Republican candidate seeking the Teabagger (i.e. the Republican base) vote have declared themselves to be “constitutional conservatives.” Indeed, the opposition to health care reform was based, disingeniously but all the same, on it being unconstitutional. Therefore, I am to assume that conservatives across the land in opposition to Obama want to protect and enforce the prohibitions and protections embodied in the Constitution.

But that that shtick cannot overpower their bigotry. And when the Constitution gets in the way of their bigotry, the Constitution gets thrown overboard, as it has been many times before whenever it got in the way of “conservative” ideology. So we can now stop pretending that conservatives care about the Constitution. To them, it is nothing more than a campaign prop to be put in the closet when it becomes inconvenient.

Back to the text of the 14th Amendment. Pay attention Tea Baggers, because I know for a fact that this will be the first time in life that you have ever read the 14th Amendment.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The first section is the most important to the current debate. The remaining sections had to do with cleaning up the old traitorous bastard Confederacy, such as forbidding former Confederates from serving in any level of government, reducing the representation of a State in Congress should it deny the right to vote to any man 21 years or older (this was to punish the denial of the vote to black men (don’t worry women, your rights come later in the 19th Amendment, but I am sure the GOP will want to repeal that too)), and to disclaim liability for the debt of the old treasonous Confederacy. They are no longer germane to our current politics, unless of course the Teabaggers rise in violent rebellion and then are slaughtered by the United States (as they would be, as our Army is much much bigger than the Teabaggers), then the other sections become relevant again, as the surviving Teabaggers would then be forbidden by the Constitution to hold any government office anywhere in the United States. Ah, it almost makes you wish for a rebellion, doesn’t it. I digress.

Let’s go back to that troubling (to conservatives) first section. It is comprised of several important clauses that establish our very basic rights as citizens of this country. Because, before the the ratification of the 14th Amendment, the rights we are so accustomed to from the Bill of Rights (i.e. the religious freedom, free speech, free association, the right to be protected from warrantless searches and seizures, the right against excessive bail, the right to a fair and public trial, the right to bear arms, the right against cruel and unusual punishment, the right to counsel, the right against self incrimination) were not binding on the states. Meaning the state could freely abuse your federal citizenship rights if it was allowed under the state constitution. What the 14th Amendment did is make the Bill of Rights and all constitutional rights and privileges binding on the states (with a minor exception of the right to be indicted by a grand jury). So when the first clause of the second sentence of Section 1 says ” No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” it says that the states cannot fuck with your rights under the Constitution.

The second and third clauses of the second sentence of Section 1 provide the Equal Protection and Due Process clause. “Nor shall any state deprive any person [notice that they do not say citizen here, that is important] of life, liberty or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” I will get to why the reference to “person” and not “citizen” is important in a moment. But first, the Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving people of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken, like having a notice of eminent domain and a hearing after a reasonable time to determine whether the government can seize your property. This is the clause that has been used to make the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, which I have talked about above. The Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause provides the basis for ending government discrimination and it was used to decide Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in the United States.

So when the conservatives in our country talk about repealing the 14th Amendment, this is what they will be repealing. And I suspect many conservatives are just fine with that. Rights of the people have never really been a main concern to the modern day conservative. Sure, they love their 2nd Amendment rights, but the 4th and 8th Amendments mean nothing to them. And really, neither does the 1st, but I will get to that in a second too.

But to be fair, what conservatives are really talking about when they scream “Repeal the 14th” is the first sentence of Section 1. That sentence says: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The meaning is quite clear. You become a citizen of this country if you are born here or if you become naturalized (i.e. a legal immigrant that goes through the naturalization process to become a citizen). This clause was historically important in Constitutional history, as it explicitly overturned the Dred Scott v. Sandford decision of 1857, a case that conservatives use as a dog whistle code word, most memorably George W. Bush in the 2000 debates, concerning abortion. That decision had ruled that blacks could not be citizens of the United States. How that relates to abortion I cannot fathom, but anti-choicers love to equate abortion and slavery. But that is another whole can of worms. Needless to say, the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment overturned Dredd Scott, and held that any person born here in this country is a citizen.

That constitutional provision now gets in the way in the immigration debate. For years, some have said that “anchor babies” should not be granted citizenship just because they are born here. Well, the problem with that was that the revered Constitution grants them citizenship. This is not an issue of an interpretation of the words. For example, in the second sentence where the reference is to “persons” and not citizen, there is a constant debate, and a rightful one, as to what the framers of this Amendment meant. What is a person? Well, the Supreme Court has held that a person can mean more than just a citizen. It means any human being, whether citizen or noncitizen. That is why we liberals get so upset about torture of a citizen or noncitizen, because it is unconstitutional. A person also means a corporation, which is why corporations get to donate money to political causes and why they get to be taxed. (As an aside, this is not a reference to the recent Citizens United opinion by the Supreme Court that held that corporations had an unlimited right to donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates and causes, in opposition to the Court-upheld limitations on actual human citizens, who are limited by an Court-upheld statute to certain limits (currently $2500 per candidate per race)). No, the words of the first sentence are not open to interpretation. A person who is born here is a Citizen. Case closed.

So before we proceed with this debate, it is a undisputed fact that those who want to change the Constitution to better fit their beliefs are not “constitutional” conservatives anymore. And when you advocate and defend torture, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that Muslims, if they want to remain citizens, should be forced to convert to Christianity, in clear violation of the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that a Mosque should not be built in New York City, in violation of not only the First Amendment free exercise of religion clause but also the First Amendment right against the establishment of religion clause, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say that there should be warrantless searches because, hey, you have nothing to hide, in violation of the Fourth Amendment protection against warrantless searches, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you say someone should be executed without the bother of a trial, as a Republican just did, you are not a constitutional conservative. And when you deny the right of marriage (a fundamental right recognized as part of our right to privacy) to any person, you are not a constitutional conservative. And I could go on and on and on and on.

You are anti-constitutional conservatives. Or unconstitutional conservatives. Which ever works for you. Got that?

Good.

Now lets move on to the substance of this “Repeal the 14th” movement. So you want to scratch out that first sentence to appease your bigotry against brown people. What are you going to replace it with?

“All persons born to citizens or naturalized in the United States?” Well, I can see one problem with that right off the bat. What happens when a couple legally immigrates to this country, but before they are naturalized as citizens themselves, they have a baby? Under that language the baby can never be a citizen until he or she goes through the naturalization process him or herself 18 years or more later. I can tell you right now that this will be seen as an unconstitutional restriction on the fundamental right to privacy, in that it places an undue burden on reproduction or procreation. And surely conservatives will not want to be seen as anti-family. But then again, they are happy to be seen as anti-immigrant (legal or otherwise), so who knows.

While we are at it, can we strike redheads from being citizens? How about short people? How about people who disagree with our political views? How about a racial minority? Indeed, since this very important first sentence overturned Dredd Scott, repealing the Amendment to strike this first sentence automatically means Dredd Scott is now good law, which of course means that blacks are no longer citizens of the United States.

This debate over who is a citizen is absurd. Indeed, for certain conservatives, it is contradictory, for they were all hot and bothered just a short while ago about President Obama being BORN IN THIS COUNTRY!!!!! And now, all of a sudden, being born in this country is of no importance?

This debate is a distraction. And it is borne (pun intended) from the bigotry of conservatives.

Governor Markell makes some news today in vetoing two bills. The first bill called for mandatory fines be imposed against uninsured drivers should they be cited for driving insured. Markell said he believes this infringes on a judge’s discretion in punishing first offenders. I must say that I agree here. The more we as a state and as a society get away from mandatory sentences and mandatory minimums, the better positioned our judges and justices will be in dispensing actual justice.

The second bill would have changed the the two-tiered structure for the licensing and certification of massage professionals. The bill would have eliminated the ability for a person to become a certified massage technician after 300 hours of training, and instead would have required all massage professionals to train for 500 hours and become licensed therapists. Markell said he thinks this eliminates a lower priced option for consumers, forcing all consumers to purchase services from a fully licensed therapist rather than a certified massage technician. I personally don’t care about the licensing structure for massage therapists, but the Governors’ reasoning seems logical.

Sussex County Angel, who writes both at her own blog and at the increasingly irrelevant (now that Delaware Tomorrow is here) Delaware Politics, has issued her opinion on the whole Bodie Brother Battle. Angel reviews the situation and the various reactions to Paul Bodenweiser’s screed against his candidate brother.

David Anderson is not taking sides in the 19th Senate race, but “wouldn’t encourage anyone to vote against Mr. Bodenweiser based upon this” and would also encourage people not to blame Joe Booth.

Delaware Liberal seems to have no issue taking sides calling Eric names which will not be repeated on this site, but may be read [there].

Well, that is incorrect. Delaware Liberal has not taken sides between Joe Booth and Eric Bodenweiser, or between Paul Bodenweiser and Eric Bodenweiser. If we have taken sides, it is against all of you crazy conservatives, for you are all horrible for this country, and the only difference between you is the varying degrees of darkness you would plunge this state and nation into. As for calling poor little Eric names, these are the following adjectives and nouns I used to describe and refer to Eric Bodenweiser:

“particularly odious tea bagger”
“tea bagger”
“crazy and deranged but not really dangerous unless [he] gets power”
“member of the radical religious right”

Aside from the fact that these are factually accurate descriptions, if this is name calling than Angel and her colleagues engage in name calling whenever they put finger to keyboard and thus would have to be considered hypocrites. So to be clear, Delaware Liberal is not taking sides in the 19th SD race. For we believe Joe Booth and Eric Bodenweiser are equally horrible for the State of Delaware.