Radiofree West Hartford -- Senator Trent Lott and State's Rights by Ben Cerruti

Senator Trent Lott and State's Rights

By Ben Cerruti

December 20, 2002

It is hard to conceive that a person of Trent Lott's position and stature would do such a miserable job in attempting to rectify his verbal snafu at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party. Rather than attempting to explain the reasons he acted as he did during the years of the Civil Rights Movement he unequivocally rejected his actions of the past as wrong as if someone else had done them. He even came out favoring the repugnant "Affirmative Action".

He could have used the issue of State's Rights as a valid reason for opposing federal intervention - but - that time has made the State's Rights issue mute. In regard to a Martin Luther King holiday, he could have said he found having another national holiday for anyone could simply mushroom into many more but that time has proved him wrong. There were good valid reasons, at the time, for the positions he took. However, the only rational conclusion one can come to is that he didn't use these reasons is because he truly believes, in his heart, in what he said that brought on his present situation. If he was truly a patriotic American and advocate for his party he would resign gracefully and fill out his term as Senator in a manner that would demonstrate his repentance by way of what he does during this time.

Regarding Civil Rights, time has a way of erasing the memory of actions in the past that altered the Constitution without the passage of an amendment enabling that aleration. In the 20th Century the federal government did essentially make the 10th Amendment to the Constitution mute. This Amendment stated "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The word coined to simply state this Amendment was State's Rights. Simply said this meant that the Federal Government had a limit to its power over the States. State's Rights are now long gone and the erosion started with the federal income tax and continued with many federal laws such as those that return federal funds (derived from income taxes) to States provided the States fulfill mandated federal requirements.

Further erosion of State's Rights came when the Federal Government sent in troops to Southern States during the 1950's to end student segregation in schools. It's too bad that an action where the reason to do something about ending student discrimination was so right resulted in taking power from the States which has taken away some of our freedoms and helped to create a huge federal bureaucracy. There are many who still take a rational view that with time the burgeoning Afro-American community in each State would have achieved the rights owed to them, within their respective States, without acceding State Rights to the Federal Government. For the same reason there are those who still feel that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not needed. Certainly it can be claimed that there were some Afro-Americans that were able to achieve gains faster than they might have without it. At the same time it also can be claimed that reverse discrimination occurred with non Afro-Americans. An example being the 1978 Bakke case where the Supreme Court ruled that such reverse discrimination had been committed when an Afro American took Bakke's place in admission to the U.C. Davis Medical School.

So as a unique country, whose inhabitants are of great ethnic diversity having many different nationalities, races, religions, customs etc., the government has attempted to deal with the self interests of various elements of our society in a manner to avoid acting in a manner that violates the provisions of our nation's Constitution. It has not been completely successful. It should be obvious that any enacted laws, both State & Federal, should respect all of our citizens in a colorblind fashion. This has not been the case both before and after the Civil Rights Act. The best way to minimize this problem is to continuously and ardently support the provisions of the Constitution as they are written and not interpreted to suit the fancy of the times. In his inability to articulate these truths Trent Lott has forfeited his credibility.