Preserving the Basic Right to Vote Today--A Timeless Battle as Illuminated by an Imagined Story From My Son, David Pepper

July 24, 2022

 


My son, David,  is a student of history and a writer of fiction and politics, including his most recent book "Laboratories of Autocracy". David has been consumed (as we all have) by the history of the violent  denial of rights (including to vote) for Blacks following the brief period of Reconstruction. He has channeled what this experience might have looked like through the imagined experience of a Black Southern teen born in the mid-1880. 

I am proud to share this for your consideration in the belief that it frames this terrible chapter of history in a powerfully meaningful and personal way. 

******************************************************************************************************************************************************************************


 
"Often, I think about the lives led by those who came before us. Perhaps due to my fiction writing, I try to put myself into an individual’s shoes.

And one “life” I can’t stop thinking about is that of a 16-year old Black Southern teen in the mid-1880s.

Let’s imagine what his life looked like then, & what it became.

In the 1880s, this teen sees a world where more Black voters are registered in Louisiana than White voters. He sees large numbers of Black voters registered AND voting in other southern states as well. Black turnout in the 1880 Presidential election is 61%.

And with this high level of Black participation in elections, this 16-year old grows up seeing Black men (not women yet) serving in office at almost every level. We’re talking mayors and sheriffs, state reps and judges, even State Supreme Court justices, house speakers, lieutenant governors and members of Congress.

I would never want to understate the racism and challenges this 16-year old faces in daily life, but when it comes to participation in the nation’s democracy, things at least look to be moving in a good direction.

And if he studies his recent history, this teen also is buoyed by the response of President Grant when white supremacists first tried to stop this new Black participation. Grant brought the full force of the federal government to bear to stop those efforts, including tackling terrorist violence that reared its ugly head when this teen was a toddler.

But as our 16 year old ages just a few years, things change.

As he and other Black voters come of age and try to vote or register in the late 1880s and 1890s, they begin to encounter a growing maze of rules and obstacles that keep more of them from doing so.  (And the reason given for the new obstacles is that Black voters like him are either not intelligent enough to vote or serve in government, or that they are so intelligent they have figured out how to game the system through “voter fraud” — so he knows these reasons don’t add up)

To give an example, in his 20s, this young man might’ve  been required to answer a complex set of challenging questions as he tries to register. And if he fails he can’t vote.

But his white neighbor who is less literate than he is, and also fails….he still gets to register because his grandfather was registered to vote in 1864, when our young man’s grandfather wasn’t (for obvious reasons).

This young man also encounters other obstacles to voting (new taxes he can’t afford, party primaries he’s barred from voting in because he’s black, etc.), but the most real is of course the specter of violence that Black voters increasingly face when they try to participate. And the sad reality that after such violence happens, none of the perpetrators are ever held accountable even though people know exactly who they are.

And this young man of course begins asking himself…why should I try and take a test I know I will fail, or pay that cumulative tax I can’t afford, when I also risk my own safety (or that of my new family) by doing so? So he probably stops trying to vote in the way his father and grandfather did.

And his teenage confidence that the federal government will protect him? After 1890, that also fades, when Congress fails to pass legislation that would’ve repeated the fierce, Grantian resistance to these renewed threats to Black participation.  (Yes, it dies by way of the filibuster).

And over the next decade, without that federal support, his memory of the 1880s fades. In its place, for the same reason he doesn’t, no one around our 20-something is registered, or votes. They are essentially barred by law, and if they try to, they risk violence, or unemployment or other consequences for them or their families. And by now, the federal government has walked away. They are alone, no longer part of America’s democracy.

It’s so bad, that by the turn of the century, the 128,000 registered Black voters in Louisiana falls to the low 1000s—by 1906, 1,342. By 1910. Only 730! In S Carolina, Mississippi, Alabama, similar declines. From 300,000 collectively to around 3,000 in each state by 1900.

So when he’s in his 30s, unlike when he was 16, no Black man he knows votes. While White folks all around, even the ones who couldn’t pass that test, always vote. So of course their candidates always win.

Around the time he is 40, even presidential elections pass by with hardly any Black involvement. (2%, versus the 60% when he was 16).

But far more than just not voting, the results of that lack of voting are everywhere.

First, all those Black officials he grew up seeing all around him, at every level…by the time he’s in his 30s, they’re all gone. From local office. From judgeships. From statehouses. From Congress

Second, as a result, every year new racist laws target every aspect of his life, & every Black person he knows. Rules that weren’t there when he was a child, or a teen. And since he and they can’t vote, they can’t change those laws. And whenever the most educated people he knows go to court & challenge them, court after court says that despite clear words suggesting otherwise, there is nothing in the law or Constitution that requires them to change a thing. So they’re stuck.

Worse, in his 30s, 40s & later, this man watches as the most racist & vile of those who created this new Southern apartheid system are rewarded for their hate, rising to become Govs, Congressmen & Senators in Washington, treated as national leaders by politicians all across the country—including presidents. And that hateful handiwork—work that forever altered the course of his life—is celebrated as the names of its architects begin to appear on buildings & bridges & statues in town after town. Even in Washington.

If this man reaches his 60s and 70s, he does start to see small signs of change. His and others’ grandkids who fought in WW2 come back expecting more. Demanding more. He cheers on Jackie Robinson when he enters baseball. He reads that some of those lawsuits start to succeed, on paper at least, even if he doesn’t see any changes in his town.

But even these feel small, since unless this man lives into his 90s or more, from his mid-20s on, this man will likely never see a local Black official—when they were present at all levels when he was 16. And he for the most part will never see any change to the Jim Crow laws that upended his world when he was in his teens, 20s and 30s.

Unless he makes it to close to 100, he will die not knowing if the new generation of young people demanding change will achieve it, or face the angry backlash, violence and lack of federal support he a century before.

And while he may have achieved personal happiness and meaning  in many other ways,  THAT is the trajectory of his public life as an American.

Now, I hope you see why I can’t stop thinking about this man’s life.

I would love to talk to him, and hear more about the forgotten and intentionally erased history of that original world he grew up in. I would love to hear him explain what the failure to fight for a full democracy back in the 1880s and 1890s did to him and the world he knew.  I imagine he’d remind us that what happened was not inevitable. But was a product of poor decisions along the way. Not just by the racists and White supremacists. But by the others. Who at key moments chose not to fight. Or chose to compromise to get other things done, while he paid the price. People who took for granted that progress would just continue.

Why else do I think so much about this 16-year old from the 1880s?

Because I think every day about the 16-year old girls & boys of today. Or slightly older. Or my 8- and 5-yr olds. Who grew up in a country where certain rights and processes felt guaranteed, and generally have been taken for granted.

But how recent events have shown, as in the late 1800s, that taking any of them for granted turns out to be a mistake.

And how, like our 1880s teenager, their lives will be shaped by the actions we take in the next few years—for the better, if we revive the democracy and core rights we have taken for granted. Or for the dramatically worse, if we let democracy collapse in front of our eyes.

We have so much to learn from the Black Southern teenager from the 1880s. Let’s learn it all".


The Incredible Challenge of Maintaining Focus on the Most Existential Issues

July 23, 2022


I am reminded again and again of  how challenging it is for us as people to keep our eye focused on what, in truth, we know to be our most existential issues. 

 

We have a habit of “kicking the can down the road” on issues that, mistakenly, seem distant and remote. Or issues that while recognizing their importance,  we see as overwhelming and beyond our ability to resolve or even improve. 

 

I was reminded of this sobering reality the other morning as I read a New York Times article disclosing a recent Sienna poll which revealed that only 1% of U.S. voters regarded the environment as their top priority concern; and even those under the age of 30, the number only increased to 3%.  Like  many others, the commitment to confront the environment  has been diluted by concerns about inflation, crime,  COVID, abortion, gun violence and the revealings of the January 6th Congressional Commission.

 

It has ever been thus.  Our memories are short; our focus inevitably shifts to the short term, the immediate. To call the issues such as those I have cited "distractions" would be a disservice to their importance. But if they take our eye off the continued aggressive pursuit of the most existential issues, the world we all live in is going to be in deep trouble.

 

What are the most important existential issues?  Each of us will have our own views.  Mine include the environment, nuclear proliferation, systemic racism, enabling every child to grow up with the education and health they deserve and having the courage and wisdom to engage in creating win-win relationships  and agreements with countries and individuals with whom we do not agree.  Prominent in the last category today is creating a sustainable, peaceful, geo-political relationship between the U.S./West and China.

 

As we face up to the challenge of maintaining focus and consistent action against the most existential issues, we must at all cost not throw up our hands or engage in unrelenting lamenting.  

 

We need to recognize that the most important existential issues have always required consistent, long-term action by people who believed in change and who were willing to persist and even risk their lives to pursue it.  Take the existential issue of slavery. Abolitionists fought that not for months or years but for decades to eradicate it. They did not give up. Don't forget. In the late 18th Century, slavery was a legal institution in every country of the Americas. 

A century later is was outlawed in very country except Brazil

 

 Yet, even now, despite all the progress, vestiges of slavery remain. Discrimination based on race and color and systemic racism remains. We cannot give up of the fight for racial equality of opportunity. This is why I and my wife and countless others have been committed to the Mission of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center for 25 years.

 

The existential issues of women's rights (including the right to vote), of recognizing the rights of LGBTQ women and men, and of recognizing the dignity of all  people, regardless of  their race, gender, education, social class or religion are all ones on which we have made progress-- thanks to brave leadership and to no small amount of good will. 

 

However, they remain with us. We have much more to do.

 

In truth, most of the existential issues I’ve cited don't lend themselves to a permanent solution.  There won’t be any end to the need to address climate change as best we understand it and learn how to best confront it.  There won’t be a permanent solution to giving everyone the not only the right to vote but easy access to it.  Many issues won’t only not be resolved in our lifetime, they won’t be solved for generations to come.  But we cannot allow that to depress us or dilute our efforts to do better. It doesn’t mean we can’t make significant improvements. People have proved they can. Nor does it relieve us of the obligation to do all we can, in our space, and in our time,  to advance that improvement in whatever way we can. 

 

I keep coming back to the words of the Talmud:  “We are not required to complete the task, but nor are we allowed to desist from pursuing it.” We must continue to do what we believe is right, conscious of the need to keep our minds and hearts open to one another and to new learning. 

 

 


Relationships to Treasure.--Relationship Giving Us a Sense of Being Alive

July 22, 2022



I am recalling a deeply meaningful, mind-opening, exciting conversation I had with my daughter many years ago. I  will never fail to be lifted by it. We talked about relationships, reciprocal relationships, relationships that mean the most to us, relationships that give us a sense of being alive.

We talked about relationships in which we feel able, indeed are moved to share ourselves, our fondest hopes and dreams, our deepest concerns, without fear of being judged.  Relationships in which we talk about raw ideas still half formed, directions still tentative without concern of embarrassment.

Hopefully, relationships like this exist within a marriage, within a family, certainly with one’s spouse (as it does for me), and with children as they grow up (as they do with me).

Hopefully, too, we form a few relationships like this with people outside our family.  If others are like me, there will be very few.  But no matter who we have them with, we must learn to treasure them for they bring so much with them.

A relationship like this brings so much with it.

It brings a feeling of relief and comfort – to be able to share one’s deepest and genuine thoughts and to know another has enough confidence in you to share them.

It brings a feeling of connection and being valued by another person who we respect.

It brings new insights, both from hearing the deepest feelings and the ideas of another, but also by revealing to ourselves convictions and insights that may not have surfaced before.

A relationship like this rests on mutual respect and trust.  It rests, too, on a degree of mutuality; i.e., there has to be some degree of shared need and shared learning, even if the balance is uneven.

And a relationship like this does something even more.  It gives us a sense of being “alive.”

Many, indeed most of the connections we have with others are formalized, they have their expected roles, and their prescribed boundaries.  And that’s all right.  Life would probably be too chaotic, perhaps even unbearable, if we were revealing our deepest feelings and receiving those of others all over the place.  But how much of life do we lose because we fail to be open and transparent in ways that we may not even understand, and that only conversation and dialogue can reveal?  How much risk are we prepared to take?  How much risk is it appropriate to take, not just for ourselves but for others?

Personally, I am lifted, sometimes even thrilled by the reflection on these types of relationships which I’ve had – relationships within my family, of course, and with those who have come outside it.

I think of those individuals with whom I’ve been able to share my deepest thoughts, stories from the past, hopes for the future, largely (even if not totally) unconstrained by fear of embarrassment or crossing a line that perhaps another person would not want to see crossed.  These relationships have been very productive.  We’ve been able to cut through and get to the essence of issues, share ideas (some of which we know will be good and some not).  Perhaps most of all, truth be told, these relationships have been important to me because they have made me feel connected to another person whom I respect; and who respects me; they made me feel “alive.”

"I Want More Than to Return to 'Life as Normal'"

July 19, 2022

I originally posted this passionate personal statement from my daughter, Susan, over two years ago. The call out Susan makes here is more urgent than ever. I felt compelled to share it again. 


John Pepper 

"I Want More Than To Return to 'Life as Normal'"—by Susan Pepper

MAY 13, 2020

(This essay by my daughter, Susan, is so meaningful I decided to share it on my blog. It ran on-line in today's Cincinnati's Enquirer)

Two important lessons for me through COVID-19: life is indeed fragile AND we are not powerless to make big sweeping change as a culture – one person and one household at a time. These lessons are changing the way I think about the enormous challenges we face with climate change.
The world has “shut down” in a way many of us have never before experienced. Of course, front-line medical workers and others performing essential jobs have probably never felt so stretched or overworked. And while we have just completed about six weeks of staying at home (I’ve lost track), my mind returns to a problem I’ve thought about, worried about and grieved for over half of my life – the incompatibility of our culture and way of life here in America with the viability of the ecosystem and the natural world that is the root of our very existence.
While the government is trying to prepare to get our economy back up and running, I realize that I don’t want to go back to life as usual. I want something more – something better for humanity and something better for our ecosystem.
I’ve harbored a vision for a long time, and that vision is pretty – to stay grounded in my home and community and develop bonds with the people and spaces around me. I see our current economy as being akin to a bulldozer clear-cutting a forest. When we should be devising new modes of public transportation, highways for cars are widened. When we should be finding new ways to harness the sun’s power and other sustainable innovations, we’ve seen pipelines being dug – and more pollution in the air and groundwater.
I’ve often dismissed the concerns that I felt before I ever heard the words “climate change.” I couldn’t explain the nagging worry I felt around sustainability because it seemed so foreign to the drive for prosperity and seeming invincibility in the culture around me. After all, our leaders constantly remind us that we are America, second to none. And now, this pandemic has reminded me that life is fragile and that we are not invincible. Mostly, I have honestly been afraid to really examine the predictions of scientists around climate change.
As science offers real resources during this crisis, I am asking myself what lessons there might be here for climate change. When scientists in the CDC quietly but visibly communicated on their website in February that the spread of this disease was inevitable, I acted. I began to prepare my mind. I began to prepare our home and stock up our pantry with some essentials to help us get by some weeks without going to the store.
Maybe it’s finally time I have the courage to listen to, understand and act on the alarm bells scientists have been sounding for my entire 42 years of life.
I want to stay home, not for COVID-19 but for other reasons. I want to keep getting to know my neighbors. Getting to know the land and this place where I live – for my sake and for my children’s. I’m so scared to admit it, but that’s exactly what I want us all to do, all the while building a healthier economy, a healthier environment and healthier ways of life than previously known. This will take some doing, of course, but we know “business as usual” will likely result in the undoing of us all, so the first option seems like the more sensible of the two.
I’ve often dismissed my vision – my dream – not thinking it possible. But, now I’ve seen how fast sweeping change can happen (and I’m at home) – so I see that possibilities for collective action for the good (and the bad) are possible.
We have learned through COVID-19 that we are more interconnected than we knew. A breath of air with a lethal pathogen has managed to be shared and passed person-to-person in a matter of months across the globe. If we are so connected with each other, then we must, too, be interconnected to the spaces between us. Our water, our air, our land – it is not “the environment.” It is who I am; it is who we all are.
I pray we find a way to collectively harness our wisdom, creativity and intelligence to do this together in a humane and sustainable way.
Susan Pepper lives near Sylva, North Carolina, with her husband and two children and is a singer/songwriter in the old traditions of the mountains and movie producer. 

The Incredible Challenge of Maintaining Focus on the Most Existential Issues

 THE INCREDIBLE CHALLENGE OF MAINTAINING FOCUS ON THE MOST EXISTENTIAL ISSUES

 
I am reminded again and again of  how challenging it is for us as people to keep our eye focused on what, in truth, we know to be our most existential issues. 
 
We have a habit of “kicking the can down the road” on issues that, mistakenly, seem distant and remote. Or issues that while recognizing their importance,  we see as overwhelming and beyond our ability to resolve or even improve. 
 
I was reminded of this sobering reality the other morning as I read a New York Times article disclosing a recent Sienna poll which revealed that only 1% of U.S. voters regarded the environment as their top priority concern; and even those under the age of 30, the number only increased to 3%.  Like  many others, the commitment to confront the environment  has been diluted by concerns about inflation, crime,  COVID, abortion, gun violence and the revealings of the January 6th Congressional Commission.
 
It has ever been thus.  Our memories are short; our focus inevitably shifts to the short term, the immediate. To call the issues such as those I have cited "distractions" would be a disservice to their importance. But if they take our eye off the continued aggressive pursuit of the most existential issues, the world we all live in is going to be in deep trouble.
 
What are the most important existential issues?  Each of us will have our own views.  Mine include the environment, nuclear proliferation, systemic racism, enabling every child to grow up with the education and health they deserve and having the courage and wisdom to engage in creating win-win relationships  and agreements with countries and individuals with whom we do not agree.  Prominent in the last category today is creating a sustainable, peaceful, geo-political relationship between the U.S./West and China.
 
As we face up to the challenge of maintaining focus and consistent action against the most existential issues, we must at all cost not throw up our hands or engage in unrelenting lamenting.  

We need to recognize that the most important existential issues have always required consistent, long-term action by people who believed in change and who were willing to persist and even risk their lives to pursue it.  Take the existential issue of slavery. Abolitionists fought that not for months or years but for decades to eradicate it. They did not give up. Don't forget. In the late 18th Century, slavery was a legal institution if every country of the Americas. A century later is was outlawed in every country except Brazil

 Yet, even now, despite all the progress, vestiges of slavery remain. Discrimination based on race and color and systemic racism remains. We cannot give up of the fight for racial equality of opportunity. This is why I and my wife and countless others have been committed to the Mission of the National Underground Railroad Freedom Center for 25 years.

The existential issues of women's rights (including the right to vote), of recognizing the rights of LGBTQ women and men, and of recognizing the dignity of all  people, regardless of  their race, gender, education, social class or religion are all ones on which we have made progress-- thanks to brave leadership and to no small amount of good will. 

However, they remain with us. We have much more to do.
 
In truth, most of the existential issues I’ve cited don't lend themselves to a permanent solution.  There won’t be any end to the need to address climate change as best we understand it and learn how to best confront it.  There won’t be a permanent solution to giving everyone not only the right to vote but easy access to it.  Many issues won’t only not be resolved in our lifetime, they won’t be solved for generations to come.  But we cannot allow that to depress us or dilute our efforts to do better. It doesn’t mean we can’t make significant improvements. People have proved they can. Nor does it relieve us of the obligation to do all we can, in our space, and in our time,  to advance that improvement in whatever way we can. 
 
I keep coming back to the words of the Talmud:  “We are not required to complete the task, but nor are we allowed to desist from pursuing it.” We must continue to do what we believe is right, conscious of the need to keep our minds and hearts open to one another and to new learning. 
 

Changing Lives. Saving Lives. Making The World a Better Place

July 17, 2022


Decades ago, I recorded a story whose message I will never forget.  I had lunch with two inspirational young women who, in a period of only two years, took Cincinnati's Taft High School women’s basketball team--which had disintegrated in mid-season the prior year--and turned it into the champion in its league. 

 More than  achieving a winning record, their story conveys the good that caring, determined leader and strong relationships can produce. 

 The names of the two young women are Angela and Rhonda. Both are  graduates of Taft High School which is located in and serves one of the poorest parts of Cincinnati.
 
Angela was one of nine children, four of whom were born out of wedlock.  She respected her mother but acknowledged she had to “work the system.” Her mother was murdered and Angela raised her two youngest siblings.  A  teacher convinced her that she could go to college. She became a coach at Taft. 

Rhonda also went to college after graduation and returned, desiring to give something back to Taft.  She loved athletics and was a good basketball player.  She went to the Athletic Director of Cincinnati Public Schools.  She told him she wanted to bring back the Taft women’s basketball team.  The Director said it was hopeless.  “The girls have changed since you have been at Taft,” he said.  “They’ll never come to practice. They wouldn’t stay with it.” 
 
Rhonda pushed back.  Eventually, the Director said, “OK, give it a try.”  And she did. 

 Now, Rhonda and Angela have the only freshman basketball team in the City of Cincinnati, a JV squad of ten players and a varsity squad also numbering ten.
 
Taft came out first in its league this year.  They lost to its competitor, Withrow, by 30 points in the first game. By the time they came back to play the second game, they won by 3 points.
 
As Rhonda and Angela say, they don't do this so much to win as to give these girls a life. 
 
It wasn’t easy at first when Angela and Rhonda went through the lunchroom spotting young ladies who they thought should be on the team.  The girls tended to “blow them off. "They said they would come but then not show up".   The sequence was repeated.  Finally, the young ladies saw that Rhonda and Angela meant business.  They weren’t about to give up.  It was the same thing if they were late for practice.  “If you’re late, you’re going to do a lot of running drills.”  The girls started to arrive on time.  To me, it sounded like the Marines.
  
For Rhonda and Angela, it was all about “giving back."  In their words, “We want to be able to look back years from now and see how we may have been able to prevent a teenage pregnancy or help a girl go on to college.” 
 
These life histories bring forth the reality that everything is about relationships.  High expectations, high standards, hope, a sense of possibility, powered by persistence.  People like Rhonda and Angela make the world a better place.  Never have we needed more people like Rhonda and Angela than we do today. 
 
 
  
 

Revisiting the Debate About "Originialism"

July 3, 2022

I revisit this debate on the validity of what is described as "Originalism" I wrote about almost four years ago in light of the recent carelessly drawn Supreme Court Decisions on abortion, administrative agency authority, and guns.

 

A Perspective on the Debate about "Originalism"

SEPTEMBER 22, 2018

COMPARING THE U.S. CONSTITUTION (1788) TO THE ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (1781) – THE PERSPECTIVE IT OFFERS ON THE DEBATE ABOUT “ORIGINALISM”

We are reading a lot of discussion, triggered by the nomination of Judge Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, about the merits of “originalism”—that is, a doctrine which calls for rulings based on the literal reading of the Constitution and the best understanding of what the Framers meant by that reading.

Walter Williams’ column of 9/16/18 raises a fundamental question, as it cites two different sections of the Constitution which can lead to different conclusions on which responsibilities should be assumed by the Federal Government and which by the States.

The first cites James Madison and Federalist Paper 45:  “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government are few and defined” (dealing with external objects, such as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce), “the powers (delegated) to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and properties of the people.”

The other section comes from the Constitution’s Article 1, Section 8 with the phrase calling for the Federal Government to “provide for the common Defense and General Welfare of the United States.”  

The question?  What constitutes General Welfare?

Williams notes that in 1817, Thomas Jefferson wrote “Congress had unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but were restrained to those specifically innumerated.”

Since then there have, of course, been Constitutional Amendments (e.g., securing the vote for all; banning slavery) which resulted in the Federal Government’s assuming roles previously conferred to the states with inhumane consequences.

In addition to the Amendments, there has been legislation (often controversial) which has seen the Federal Government undertake programs for the general welfarenot specifically innumerated in the Constitution (e.g., Social Security, workers’ safety).

I don’t believe it would have been at all surprising to the Framers to see that learning experience have led to the adoption of Amendments and Federal legislation, conferring Federal authority on issues previously in the province of the states because they bear vitally on the general welfare.  

Why do I say they wouldn’t be surprised?  Importantly, they were vividly aware of the number of significant changes that had needed to be made in the Articles of Confederation in the seven short years between their adoption and the adoption of a new set of standards in our Constitution.

Here are just a few examples of the changes that occurred in that seven-year period.

1.    Establishment of new states.  Articles:  required agreement of nine states.  The Constitution required agreement of Congress.
2.    Congressional pay.  Articles:  paid by the states:  Constitution: paid by the federal government.
3.    Appointment of Members.  Articles:  all appointed by state legislatures, in the manner each legislature directed. Constitution: representatives elected by popular votes in the states, senators appointed by state legislators.
4.    Executive. Articles:  none.  Constitution:  president.
5.    Amendments to the Constitution.  Articles:  when agreed upon by all states.  Constitution: when agreed upon by ¾ of all states.
6.    Navy. Articles:  Congress authorized to build a navy; states authorized to equip war ships to counter piracy.  Constitution:  Congress authorized to build a Navy; states not allowed to keep ships of war.
7.    Power to mint money.  Articles: United States and the states. Constitution:  United States only.

My purpose in citing these differences is not to suggest that the Constitution isn’t the foundation document which must be greatly respected.  It is to suggest that recognizing that in seven short years the founders had changed their minds on what constituted the correct role between the states and the federal government, it should not be surprising that over the course of the following 230 years, there would be changes in what constitutes the proper role of federal and state governments to achieve a condition of general welfarefor the citizens of the United States that is most desirable.

It can be (and will be) argued that such changes should be embodied in amendments as they have in many cases. However, it is also appropriate that such changes be embodied in legislation.  The Supreme Court has the responsibility to review the correctness of this legislation in light of the Constitution but it should bear in mind that—just as was the case between the Articles of Confederation and the U.S. Constitution—we should be open, based on experience, where responsibility should be allocated between the federal government and state government. 

“Originalism,” if taken to the point that we can only do what Thomas Jefferson would have viewed as correct in 1817, would be a position that I feel certain Thomas Jefferson would have declared to be wrong.

Let me emphasize that I hew strongly to what would be described as a “conservative” (I’d prefer “liberal”) position on the importance of honoring State’s rights.  I do so for two reasons.  First, because states do differ in their history, experience and needs of their citizens.  Second, and in some ways more important, states have and can serve as laboratoriesfor new learning on how to resolve and best deliver services needed to advance the welfare of the nation’s citizens. To take only one example—allied closely to my own interests—it has been the experience of different states in advancing early childhood development and pre-school education that has shown not only their value but the best ways of achieving that value.

As other examples, while I believe access to affordable, quality health care is a right that should be available to all citizens (without good health, what chance does anyone have to achieve a fulfilling life?), I agree that giving states latitude in how to best achieve that objective makes great sense because we have much more to learn.  Interestingly (and rather ironically) on health care, it was the initiative of Republican Mitt Romney as Governor of Massachusetts which produced a template which was largely adopted by President Obama with the Affordable Care Act. (This, despite the fact that it has been vigorously attacked by Republicans.)

I believe the decision as to how much latitude states should have in enacting a federally mandated right will forever be a matter for legislative and judicial dispute.  Take voting.  The right of every person to vote is now constitutionally mandated through the 15 thand 19thAmendments.  However, states still have significant latitude in how the right to vote is administered and enforced.  Some “methods of administration” amount to clear-cut “suppression”; for example, literacy tests, which are now banned.  Others are more subtle such as restricting the number of polling places or the days and hours of pre-election day voting.  They will undoubtedly be the subject of continued adjudication.  The guiding rule should be to take every reasonable step to allow every citizen to exercise his or her right to vote.