[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 50 (Thursday, April 7, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H2528-H2531]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              CONSTITUTION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 5, 2011, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Jackson) is 
recognized for 30 minutes.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, last week I came to the floor 
of the House to talk about the history of law and human rights, and I 
suggested that history is a work in progress. I believe that the law is 
going somewhere from the earliest civilizations with eye-for-an-eye 
systems of justice through today, when countries like ours lead the way 
toward more freedom and more human rights for all.
  We began this Congress with the reading here on the floor of the 
redacted version of the Constitution, not the Constitution with 
amendments. But that redacted version leaves out the historical 
struggle to create today's Constitution as a more thoughtful and a more 
inclusive document.
  Mr. Speaker, America is one big corporation. The Constitution is the 
bylaws. We, the people, the board of directors, have the right to 
change our bylaws in the Constitution and redirect the American 
corporation towards our priorities.
  The American Constitution is a benchmark in that living history. We 
have amended it from time to time to make sure that we are closer to 
achieving a more perfect union for all Americans.
  I believe we should continue that process, and amend the Constitution 
in several ways, including giving all Americans the right to a high-
quality education, high-quality health care, and a clean environment.
  I think we need to guarantee equal rights for women. If, in fact, the 
Congress had adopted the Equal Rights Amendment for women many decades 
ago, today 51 percent of all jobs and 51 percent of all households that 
are headed by a woman where there is no man would provide greater 
stability for the work that they already do.
  But tonight, Mr. Speaker, I want to put my beliefs about why the 
Constitution should be amended into further historical context.
  This week's Time magazine makes my point in ways that I cannot muster 
tonight on the House floor. It has a picture of our 16th President, 
Abraham Lincoln, crying, and it says, ``Why We Are Still Fighting the 
Civil War.''
  And no American who is watching this debate on the floor of the 
Congress between Democrats and Republicans should be operating under 
any illusion that we are simply not on a battlefield, we are simply in 
the halls of the Congress. But we are waging one hell of a fight to 
build a more perfect union versus building more perfect States' rights.
  I wrote about these issues extensively, Mr. Speaker, in 2001, very 
extensively in my book, ``A More Perfect Union: Advancing New American 
Rights.'' In fact, my book's launch party was scheduled for the big 
Borders, World Trade Center, on September 11, 2001. Unfortunately, we 
had a scheduling conflict and couldn't make it.
  So I want to talk tonight, Mr. Speaker, about the central conflict of 
American history, the debates over the role of the Federal Government 
between those who believe in States' rights above all and those of us 
who have a more national perspective and believe in creating a more 
perfect union. I think that's a more appropriate analogy for defining 
how the Congress is divided; not Democrats and Republicans, for some 
Democrats will vote for the continuing resolution offered by the 
Republicans supporting more and more cuts. It's really hard to tell 
where people stand.
  But in Washington, either we are building a more perfect union for 
all of the American people, or we are building a more perfect States' 
rights. So, Mr. Speaker, I want to share a few quotes that I think help 
frame the debate.
  In the early years of our Republic, Gouverneur Morris, a Pennsylvania 
delegate to the Philadelphia Convention, said, ``I cannot conceive of a 
government in which there can exist two supremes.'' In 1787, Mr. 
Speaker, Gouverneur Morris was concerned that a dual system of State 
and Federal control might not work very well.
  In his book ``Dixie Rising,'' Peter Applebome writes, ``Think of a 
place that's bitterly antigovernment and fiercely individualistic, 
where race is a constant subtext to daily life, and God and guns run 
through public discourse like an electric current. Think of a place 
where influential scholars market theories of white supremacy, where 
the word `liberal' is a negative epithet, where hang-'em-high law-and-
order justice centered on the death penalty and throw-away-the-key 
sentencing are politically all but unstoppable. Think of a place 
obsessed with States' rights, as if it were the 1850s all over again 
and the Civil War had never been fought. Such characteristics have 
always described the South. Somehow, they now describe the Nation.''
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, it's important to note a headline from June 24, 
1999, from The Washington Post that read, ``In 3 Cases, High Court 
Shifts Power to States.'' Of course, in over a decade since then, we 
have seen case after case at the Supreme Court, bill after bill in this 
House, that have furthered that trend.
  This afternoon I want to talk about the center of conservatism, the 
center of the Constitution, the legal basis by which Republicans and 
some Democrats stake out their anti-Federal Government agenda. Mr. 
Speaker, there are two central issues that have dominated this country 
from its beginning. The first is the relationship between the Federal 
Government and the States. That question has been with us since the 
writing of our Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787; through the 
Supreme Court's first major decision in 1793, Chisholm vs. Georgia, 
during the antebellum period of the 1800s through the 1860s; through 
the Civil War and postbellum first and second Reconstruction periods; 
and it remains active and very much a part of our discourse today.

                              {time}  1830

  The second issue that has plagued the U.S. is race. It is the central 
dilemma in our Nation's history, and it has haunted us since 1619, when 
the first African slaves arrived on our shores--before the Declaration 
of Independence, before the Constitution, before the Bill of Rights 
through to the current period of Second Reconstruction.
  Throughout history, the question of how to properly balance the 
national and State governments has confronted America: Are we 50 
nation-states that voluntarily participate in a national federation but 
can ignore or withdraw from that federation at any time--like when 11 
States seceded from the Union, or when 22 States filed a lawsuit

[[Page H2529]]

against the health care reform bill that passed the Congress this year 
and the President signed it--or are we one Nation, with a national 
common law that is indivisible, with liberty and justice for all?
  These were perplexing and troublesome questions for the Founders and 
for the first three-quarters of a century of our existence. They still 
trouble us today. In a very real sense, it was the Civil War that 
converted us from a federation of States to a Union. The current common 
belief is that we are the latter. In practice, too often, we still try 
to operate like the former. Clearly, the ideology and legacy of States' 
rights lingers and continues to disrupt and interfere with our ability 
to build a more perfect Union.
  For some, not building a more perfect Union appears to be the goal. 
Downsizing the role of Federal Government, or the ``revolution of 
devolution'' ideology that Newt Gingrich brought on the scene in such a 
forceful way following the 1994 Republican conquest of the House and 
the Senate, clearly is an obstacle to achieving national goals. Not 
building a more perfect Union is clearly the goal of the 112th 
Congress.
  Under the guise of the budget, deficit reduction and spending cuts, 
today's Republican majority, with the help of some Democrats, is trying 
to push through bills that would drastically shrink the size and change 
the scope of the Federal Government. As a result, we're on the verge of 
a government shutdown, and many Republicans have cheered about the 
possibility of a government shutdown with loud applause.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe that it will be impossible to build a more 
perfect Union until the ideology of States' rights and the legacy of 
devolution are politically defeated, as well as in the hearts and minds 
of the American people. It is currently a central part of the belief 
system of far too many Americans.
  By decentralizing the essential decisions on economic issues such as 
full employment, health care, housing, public education, and justice, 
it simply guarantees economic injustice for workers and consumers, and 
it ensures inadequate health care, shelter, learning, and justice for 
all Americans.
  Soon, millions of Americans will wake up with a shut down Federal 
Government and States in a fiscal meltdown. Their faith in their 
elected representatives and government to solve the bread-and-butter 
issues of their lives will be shaken, and Americans' confidence in our 
freedom system will be diminished.
  The 50 States, acting individually or functioning merely in loose 
cooperation or voluntary association, simply cannot and will not 
adequately address policywise, administratively or financially these 
basic national needs. Only if these essential questions are addressed 
in a democratic, centralized and coordinated way can we even hope to 
build a better Nation.
  There is no simple answer to this balance of power issue. The 
question of the relationship of the States to the Federal Government is 
an ongoing one. Times and circumstances change, and if government is to 
be relevant, responsive and accountable to the American public's real 
needs, the relationship, roles and balance of power between the Federal 
and State governments must adapt and adjust.

  The balance of State and Federal power is not something new, and it 
cannot be settled ``by the opinion of any one generation,'' wrote 
Woodrow Wilson in 1911. He continued, ``Changes in the social and 
economic condition of society, in the electorate's perception of issues 
needing to be addressed by government, and in the prevailing political 
values require each successive generation to treat Federal-State 
relationships as `a new question,' subject to full and searching 
reappraisal.''
  Politically, however, the reality of circumstances should not be used 
as an excuse to pursue an anti-Federal Government philosophy of States' 
rights. The guiding or dominant principle must remain true to the 
Preamble of our Constitution--to build a more perfect Union, not more 
perfect States' rights.
  The idea of States' rights in the American Colonies preceded the 
formation of the Constitution and the United States. It rested on the 
idea of State sovereignty, that ultimate political power and authority 
resided in the States individually. A century later, States' rights 
became the means by which State governments defended slavery and 
perpetuated that peculiar institution with its elitist and perverted 
economic, political and social arrangements.
  In fact, there is a difference between sovereign State rights and the 
States' rights ideology. Some matters do belong in the purview of the 
States. States' rights, however, come from a very different spirit and 
appeal, one that has historically defended injustice within the States.
  During the colonial period, citizens strongly identified with and 
were loyal to their individual Colonies or States. For example, early 
frictions among the Colonies prevented them from working together to 
fight against French and Indian antagonists in the mid-1700s. Only 
their joint hatred of British domination joined them together in the 
Continental Congress as States in 1776 to fight and win a revolution. 
Even then, the hostilities among the States continued, postponing 
adoption of the Articles of Confederation until 1781.
  Thus, internal mistrust among the States and external colonial and 
revolutionary experiences with England made most Americans suspicious 
and distrustful of undemocratic centralized Federal, central or 
national power. Indeed, when they drew up the Articles of Confederation 
in 1776 and ratified them in 1781, they made central authority so weak 
as to be unworkable for the idea of a union.
  The Founding Fathers--women and people of color were not included--
tried to correct this flaw when they drafted the Constitution in 
Philadelphia in 1787. Their mixed feelings and the politics surrounding 
``centralized,'' or Federal, and ``decentralized,'' State, power led 
them to create a Constitution with divided powers both ``within,'' 
legislative, executive and judicial branches, and ``without,'' between 
Federal and State governments, that were deliberately ambiguous. It was 
a central issue of debate during the constitutional ratification 
process as well.
  The new Congress quickly proposed ten amendments that secured these 
rights, including the 10th Amendment, which delegated to the States 
those powers not authorized or prohibited by the Federal Government. 
The 10th Amendment, 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.
  This has come to mean that if the Constitution specifically speaks to 
a right, then it is federally protected; but if the Constitution is 
silent on a particular issue, like slavery, it was reserved to the 
States, respectively. Only adding an amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States overcame the limitations of the 10th Amendment to 
guarantee freedom to the slaves.
  However, if slavery, Mr. Speaker, at this time were a State right, 
then State rights can never be human rights in the American political 
context. Therefore, if succeeding generations of Americans believe in 
human rights, they must fight to overcome the limitations of this old 
amendment and the very slave system that it protected in order to 
provide progress.
  If you believe in gay marriage, you must overcome the limitations of 
the 10th Amendment and not State by State, but fighting for your human 
rights in the context of the Constitution. If you believe in education 
for all, since the Constitution of the United States is silent on the 
question of education, you must overcome the limitations of the 10th 
Amendment to guarantee an equal high-quality education for all 
Americans. If you believe in health care for all Americans, you must 
overcome the limitations of the 10th Amendment, this old slave 
amendment, and guarantee the right to health care for all Americans in 
the Constitution; because the issues of slavery taught us, if slavery 
is a State right and if Virginia all the way around to Texas has the 
right to leave the Union, then States' rights can never be human 
rights.
  The questions, Mr. Speaker, were many. And it should logically have 
followed exactly what this Congress is doing. If the Constitution is 
silent on health care, cut it. If it's silent on Medicare, Medicaid, 
LIHEAP, unemployment, housing, NIH funding, cut it. The Republican 
majority has placed it on the chopping block because they

[[Page H2530]]

argue it is outside the scope of Federal jurisdiction.
  Mr. Speaker, what we have learned from this process and what we bring 
to the table is that human rights must be advanced by this Congress in 
order to broaden the definition of what it means to be an American.

                              {time}  1840

  Mr. Speaker, tonight I am joined by the distinguished gentleman from 
Louisiana. I want to welcome my colleague from the great city of New 
Orleans whose congressional district has experienced a State that is in 
a difficult financial condition. He has experienced natural disasters, 
and he cannot just rely upon his State legislature to solve these 
problems. He needs a strong Federal Government to close some of the 
profound gaps that exist in his congressional district, just as I need 
a strong Federal Government to close gaps that exist in my 
congressional district. But it is virtually impossible, Mr. Speaker, to 
close those gaps unless this Congress recognizes that we have an 
obligation to the American people, to those who have been left behind.
  While slavery was clearly the cause of the Civil War, the nonslavery 
rationale for the Civil War and the argument that won it broad support 
in the South and almost won it international recognition was Madison's 
and Jefferson's interpretation of States' rights as self-determination.
  That's why the tea party comes running up here saying the Federal 
Government should be out of business, turn it over to the States. With 
some practical examples of the limitations of what we are confronting, 
I am proud to introduce to some--and I am honored that he is joining me 
tonight in this colloquy and this discussion--the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cedric Richmond.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Congressman Jackson, for yielding to me and 
allowing me to participate in this conversation. And thank you, Mr. 
Speaker, for allowing us this opportunity to talk.
  Congressman Jackson, you well know that it starts back in the Second 
Congressional District of Louisiana when we start talking about the 
true and historical fight of States' rights versus the common good or 
what we can call a more perfect Union. Because had you left it to 
States' rights and the will of Governors and the legislatures of those 
Southern States, then Ruby Bridges, who was my constituent in New 
Orleans, would not have had the Federal marshals to escort her that day 
to Frantz School so that she could have the same education as everyone 
else.
  So we have to remember when we talk about States' rights and the 
Federal Government and the fact that we are talking about a more 
perfect Union, we are talking about a Constitution. We are talking 
about a Congress, and we are talking about a court system that should 
guarantee every child the same opportunity. Whether it is Louisiana, 
whether you are in Lake Providence, Louisiana, or whether you are in 
Boston, Massachusetts, you should have the same access and the same 
rights. So what we are talking about is a Federal Government that 
should insist and ensure that everyone is treated equally under the 
laws.
  Now, the interesting thing when you talk about and you allude to 
States' rights, Congressman Jackson, people talk about States' rights 
when it is convenient. And I come from a State in which they are 
talking about States' rights right now. It should be their right to 
offer health care as they see fit. It should be our job to cut all of 
the things that aren't essential.
  However, I remember those days after Katrina when we were not saying 
States' rights. We were saying: Where is the Coast Guard? We were 
saying: Our levees have collapsed; we need the Corps of Engineers' help 
to rebuild them. And it took this Congress and actions and your vote to 
put $14 billion into the Corps of Engineers' budget so that they could 
build the proper infrastructure around the city to protect the citizens 
there. Why did they do it? Because it was the common good. It was the 
right thing to do.
  So you can't have it both ways when you talk about States' rights and 
when you talk about the role of the Federal Government. And now when 
times are difficult, we go back to the States' rights argument so that 
we can cut those things that the least of us need.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. How can the Federal Government or how can 
the States address unemployment individually? How can 50 States, one 
State at a time, address education? How can 50 States, one State at a 
time, address health care without some centralizing, unifying 
coordination from the Federal Government?
  Mr. RICHMOND. Well, they can't do it. Part of it becomes when you 
take health care as a whole, when you start talking about the United 
States of America and health care for all, the United States of America 
and education for all, the United States of America and employment for 
all, you are talking about things that affect interstate commerce. Now 
you are talking about things that affect the future and well-being of 
this country as a whole, which directly puts it back into the powers of 
the Federal Government because it affects the Federal Government.
  So you can't isolate it. That's what some would attempt to do now. I 
just don't think that it is possible to do. History dictates that you 
can't do it. What you will end up with is a system of unequal treatment 
to people based on arbitrary factors: where they live, what they look 
like, and all of those things.
  So, Congressman Jackson, I would just say that I think you are right 
on the mark when you are talking about the role that the Federal 
Government should play. And you raised, just a couple of moments ago, 
that it is the Federal Government's role to dictate how we treat the 
unemployed. Now, we very well can't leave that up to States' rights.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. It may not even be a State priority to 
eliminate unemployment. In other words, there ought to be some national 
interest in making sure that 13 million Americans have a job, that they 
are working and they are paying taxes and that they can help reduce the 
deficit and the debt.
  I hear from neither side, anyone come to this floor saying that we 
are putting forward an agenda to wipe out unemployment.
  I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. RICHMOND. Well, Congressman Jackson, my question to you was going 
to be: Have you seen a State react yet? Have you seen a State step up 
with their own jobs plan? Or have you seen a State address the 
inequality and the treatment of the unemployed so far?
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I have not seen. I have not seen it in any 
coordinated way. And as if to suggest that Illinois, just because of an 
invisible border between Illinois and Indiana, that Indiana's economy 
doesn't affect the Illinois economy, or the Wisconsin economy doesn't 
affect the Illinois economy, or the Iowa economy, another border State, 
doesn't affect the Illinois economy, what I have seen are Governors now 
in battles, offering incentives to corporations not to leave their 
State and cross State lines because we are not growing the economy 
evenly in all States together.
  The absence of Federal coordination creates a disaster amongst the 
States, and we become less of a Union as States begin to offer 
incentives in a rush to the bottom to undermine workers, to undermine 
the quality of life for Americans by changing laws within States to 
undermine the quality of benefits that workers receive who even work 
within States.
  This is part of the ongoing revolution that has been led over the 
last 5 or 10 years by the right wing, both in the Democratic Party and 
in the Republican Party, against the idea of the central government.
  My question to you: How can we be a government of, for, and by the 
people and then be so upset at it when it is our government? when it is 
us?
  Mr. RICHMOND. Well, it depends. And what we see in this climate right 
now, you see the anger out there of a generation of people and a large 
population of people who are upset at the way government is working. 
Now, there is one particular thing they can point out, which is the 
debt and the deficit. One way, which is the way that is being pursued 
today, is to just cut. Let's cut everything that is unpopular. Let's 
cut those things that go to the common good; those things that promote 
unity; those things that will help

[[Page H2531]]

people lift themselves up; and those things that will create 
opportunity for people.
  We always said in this country that education was the best way to 
lift yourself out of poverty. What we are doing here in this Congress 
right now, we are cutting Pell Grants. We are cutting early childhood 
education. You can't do those things and then leave it up to the States 
because, as you so adequately addressed a few minutes ago, it is a 
competition between the States.
  I had the privilege to go with my Governor before over to Germany to 
visit Thyssenkrupp to offer them incentives so they would come to 
Louisiana as opposed to going to Alabama. Well, we need a referee when 
things like that are going on. We need somebody who can coordinate and 
say some competition between the States is good, but it is our role to 
make sure that all Americans are treated fairly and that everybody has 
the opportunity to succeed.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. I think the lesson comes particularly from 
African American history, which I think is appropriate. We don't talk 
about it up here enough. I'm not ashamed or afraid to come and talk 
about it.
  When African Americans were fighting against slavery and fighting 
from 1619 to 1865, the passage of the 13th Amendment, the legal 
argument that was used to justify--to justify--why slavery needed to 
continue was the 10th Amendment. States' rights.
  Virginia said, You don't have a right, Federal Government, to come 
here and tell us what to do. Georgia said, you don't have a right, 
Federal Government, to come here and free slaves. You don't have a 
right, Federal Government, to come into Alabama and tell us what to do. 
You don't have a right, Federal Government, to come to North Carolina 
and tell us what to do.

                              {time}  1850

  And here we are in 2011 with an element of the Congress of the United 
States and a tea party outside of the Congress of the United States 
telling us: Federal Government, you don't have a right to come into our 
State and give somebody health care. You don't have a right to come 
into our State and end the foreclosure crisis. You don't have a right 
to come into our State and provide a higher quality of life for all 
Americans.
  Oh, yes, but you do have a right to give some people a tax break. You 
do have a right to help these corporations. You do have a right to bail 
out Wall Street, but you don't have a right to bail out the individual.
  So I think, Mr. Richmond, that we have a unique perspective around 
the 10th Amendment that we need to bring into this debate. I'm hoping 
the Black Caucus joins us in that conversation.
  But let me ask you, Mr. Richmond. In Louisiana, if offered an 
opportunity by this government to receive more resources to fix 
schools, to fix levees, to build infrastructure, would your State send 
the money back?
  Mr. RICHMOND. Absolutely not. Not only would my State take it, but 
there's a new report out by a conservative group that shows that 
Louisiana receives more aid than every other State except one and for 
the first time our State budget has more Federal dollars in it than 
State dollars.
  So I want to be clear about what you hear about States' rights. And 
this is not just in Louisiana. Right now 27 States have more Federal 
money in their budgets than they do their own State dollars. So they're 
not turning down State assistance when it comes to providing those 
things.
  And I just want to tell you that it's so convenient, and the 10th 
Amendment couldn't address everything, and the Constitution could not 
address everything at the time, and we can't pretend that it did. What 
we have the responsibility to do, as Members of this Congress, is to 
make sure we apply common sense to what the Founders were doing.
  You see no mention of the Internet in the Constitution. That's our 
road to now deal with it. So now that we talk about a complex program 
to give every American the basic right to health care, you are not 
going to see that in the Constitution. But what you see in the 
Constitution and what the overriding theme is, is a more perfect Union. 
And this government has the responsibility to do that.
  So when we start talking about energy assistance to our seniors who 
can't afford it, you will not see those things in the Constitution. But 
when you apply common sense, which is what we were elected to do, to a 
living, breathing document, it would follow that we have not only the 
right but we have the responsibility and the obligation to do those 
things for the States.
  Mr. JACKSON of Illinois. Mr. Richmond, I understand that my time is 
about to expire.
  But our men and women who are fighting in Afghanistan and fighting in 
Iraq, they're fighting to defend that flag. They're fighting to build a 
more perfect Union. It's shameful that Members of this Congress aren't 
fighting for that flag, aren't fighting for a more perfect Union, 
aren't fighting to expand opportunities for our men and women when they 
return from Afghanistan and Iraq.
  There is nothing more tragic in this current hour, Mr. Speaker, than 
the idea that our men and women could come home to unemployment, could 
come home without health care, could come home to homes that are in 
foreclosure, Mr. Speaker. The 112th Congress needs to do something 
about that.
  I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for participating in this 
Special Order.

                          ____________________