Earlier this week, an Alaskan citizen filed a lawsuit challenging President Obama's legitimacy as a presidential candidate. Just read an article at Addicting Info about the lawsuit, Lawsuit Claims Obama Can't Be President Because He's Black. Seriously.
Gordon Warren Epperly (bet you thought it was Sarah Palin) alleges in his complaint that Negroes and Mulattoes are not citizens, natural born or otherwise, and therefore Obama cannot legally be on the presidential ballot.
A little bit of knowledge leads to people making complete jackasses of themselves. The crux of this lawsuit is Epperly declares that the Negro race and the Mulatto race (and presumably anyone with any black ancestry) were not citizens and had no rights of citizenship until the adoption of the 14th amendment in 1868.
That's accurate. In 1857, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Dred Scott v. Sanford that anyone with any African ancestry was not a citizen and had no rights of citizenship. However, the 14th amendment (ratified in 1868) essentially overturned Dred Scott (note that the civil war concluded in 1865). The 14th amendment was one of the Reconstruction amendments. Its Citizenship Clause provides a broad definition of citizenship that overruled the Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that held that blacks were not and could never be citizens of the United States.
Mr. Epperly notes in his complaint that as Barack Hussein Obama II is of the Mulatto race, his citizenship status is based on the 14th amendment. It's true that the 14th amendment conferred citizenship status on former slaves and their descendants. But then this nut job goes completely down the rabbit hole, declaring that the 14th amendment only grants "civil rights"and not "political rights." His brilliant conclusion is that President Obama has no political rights under the U.S. Constitution to hold any public office of the United States government. (By the way, President Obama isn't a descendant of slaves. His mother is Caucasian and his father is African.)
I'm assuming that this means that anyone of the Negro or Mulatto race (he uses such quaint terminology) is ineligible for public office. Oops! Darn, perhaps white women aren't eligible for public office either. They were citizens but without complete rights of citizenship until the 19th amendment was passed in 1920. Did it grant civil rights or political rights?
Epperly's lawsuit is absurd and it will likely be dismissed without a hearing. His legal theories have no merit. I have become immune to most racism; it's difficult to muster much concern over the ravings of idiots with the intelligence of a pair of shoes.
What does intrigue me is the persistence of racism and the refusal of America to honestly confront that racism and bigotry are as American as baseball and apple pie. there is this desire to pretend that the only reason there is any racism today is because black people won't let it go and keep playing the race card.
A very nice woman on Facebook who is a friend of a friend declared that she thought that there was nothing wrong with displaying the Confederate battle flag. She reasoned that it was about pride in ancestry and that we needed to let the past lie and move on. I agree except for me that means stop flaunting a flag that represents the subjugation and torture of millions of your fellow Americans for more than 350 years. Slavery was hell but Jim Crow was no improvement,and Jim Crow is part of my lifetime. It is my past and the past of millions of black Americans.
The animosity and disrespect shown this president have been unprecedented, as have been the attacks on the First Lady, and even his children. This dimwitted, ignorant variation on birtherism is grounded in racism. I could only shake my head at Epperly's use of the terms Negro race and Mulatto race.
Epperly is a fool and a racist, and he would be laughable if he didn't have so much company.