3 ms·

Who would’ve thought that Alabama would be home to Big Gov.

ABeeSea 6y ago
It’s because it was written to oppress minorities in as many ways as possible. > At the beginning of the 20th century, the President of the Alabama Constitutional Convention, John B. Knox,[12] stated in his inaugural address that the intention of the convention was "to establish white supremacy in this State", "within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution"[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama#Racial_discrimination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama#Raci...
- rtx 6y ago
  Imagine all those smart people doing something else.
- szatkus 6y ago
  If it's the case shouldn't it be much simpler today?
  - ABeeSea 6y ago
    Alabama never updated parts of their constitution to remove it as they kept losing federal court cases. It just became unenforceable. For example their constitution still contains language for school segregation and removing voting rights for interracial marriages. Even when they did make updates. It was in the form of amendments which increase the overall length. Eg, the amendment that lets women vote.
    - danielscrubs 6y ago
      As a foreigner, can you explain why to me? Wouldn’t politicians score easy (and good!) points by removing those parts?
      - ABeeSea 6y ago
        Not in Alabama. There’s a reason the federal government had to use the national guard to force Alabama to follow Brown v Board of Education and let minorities attend the state college. This was in 1963, less than 60 years ago. It’s not like the racist people in the state suddenly stopped being racist just because the federal Government force them to change their most egregious laws. The latest election, however, the voters did approve to start the process to investigate removing racist language from their constitution. >in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium to try to block the entry of two African American students: Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Doo... > With more than 1.7 million votes cast, the amendment passed with 67% support. That means more than 585,000 people voted against it. The ballot didn’t mention race, and some voters might not have even known what the amendment involved. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/alabama-approves-bid-to-cut-racist-phrases-from-states-constitution https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/alabama-approves-bid-t...
        danielscrubs 6y ago
        One more question, do you think it’s like this in every major white country or do you think US dropped the ball on this one? I’m curious about how Americans see the world. I won’t have any follow up comments, I promise.
  - redis_mlc 6y ago
    It's a passive-aggressive reaction to losing the Civil War, which my understanding was fought over maintaining voting parity with the northern states. So in their minds it makes sense to update their constitution as if they really hadn't lost. Quebec did/does the same thing, except they're unreasonably successful at it: they lost the war with the British, yet have controlled the choice of Canadian PM for decades.

It’s because it was written to oppress minorities in as many ways as possible. > At the beginning of the 20th century, the President of the Alabama Constitutional Convention, John B. Knox,[12] stated in his inaugural address that the intention of the convention was "to establish white supremacy in this State", "within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution"[7] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama#Racial_discrimination https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Alabama#Raci...

rtx 6y ago
Imagine all those smart people doing something else.
szatkus 6y ago
If it's the case shouldn't it be much simpler today?
- ABeeSea 6y ago
  Alabama never updated parts of their constitution to remove it as they kept losing federal court cases. It just became unenforceable. For example their constitution still contains language for school segregation and removing voting rights for interracial marriages. Even when they did make updates. It was in the form of amendments which increase the overall length. Eg, the amendment that lets women vote.
  - danielscrubs 6y ago
    As a foreigner, can you explain why to me? Wouldn’t politicians score easy (and good!) points by removing those parts?
    - ABeeSea 6y ago
      Not in Alabama. There’s a reason the federal government had to use the national guard to force Alabama to follow Brown v Board of Education and let minorities attend the state college. This was in 1963, less than 60 years ago. It’s not like the racist people in the state suddenly stopped being racist just because the federal Government force them to change their most egregious laws. The latest election, however, the voters did approve to start the process to investigate removing racist language from their constitution. >in a symbolic attempt to keep his inaugural promise of "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever" and stop the desegregation of schools, stood at the door of the auditorium to try to block the entry of two African American students: Vivian Malone and James Hood.[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Doo... > With more than 1.7 million votes cast, the amendment passed with 67% support. That means more than 585,000 people voted against it. The ballot didn’t mention race, and some voters might not have even known what the amendment involved. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/alabama-approves-bid-to-cut-racist-phrases-from-states-constitution https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/alabama-approves-bid-t...
      - danielscrubs 6y ago
        One more question, do you think it’s like this in every major white country or do you think US dropped the ball on this one? I’m curious about how Americans see the world. I won’t have any follow up comments, I promise.
- redis_mlc 6y ago
  It's a passive-aggressive reaction to losing the Civil War, which my understanding was fought over maintaining voting parity with the northern states. So in their minds it makes sense to update their constitution as if they really hadn't lost. Quebec did/does the same thing, except they're unreasonably successful at it: they lost the war with the British, yet have controlled the choice of Canadian PM for decades.