© 2024
Play Live Radio
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
0:00 0:00
Available On Air Stations

The American Christmas story

Listen and I’ll tell you a Christmas story. Let me tell you what Dickens was really trying to tell us. This is not a story the greedy Grinches want you to know. But it is an American story. And it is a story that rang throughout the world until greedy politicians tried to tell you it wasn’t good for you and me.

It’s is a story about the greatest language in our Constitution.

In 1787 the American people wrote and in 1788 the American people ratified the promise that the Constitution was designed “to promote the general Welfare,” not just the welfare of the rich and mighty or British aristocrats.

In 1865 the people wrote and, just before Christmas, they ratified the words which said:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That wasn’t the law in Europe but it became the law in America. Law is for everyone.

In 1866 they wrote and in 1868 they ratified the words that read:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

They wrote that because the Supreme Court had denied that African-Americans were citizens, had the rights of citizens, or could even use the courts, but those who wrote that 1868 language also discussed their clear understanding that the citizenship clause covered people who’d come to the United States to build the country we are all so proud of from places as distant as Europe and China. They were making good on the promise of the Declaration of Independence that “that all men are created equal,” a promise that would ring out of the Liberty Bell and reach the far corners of the globe, a promise that frightened and still frightens dictators.

Then, they continued:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Notice the triple guaranty to make the point as clear as they were able – they guaranteed to all the “privileges or immunities of citizens,” and immediately followed that language about citizens by guarantying to any “person” the rights to “life, liberty … property … due process … [and] equal protection of the laws.”

Equal protection should have made the voting rights of African-Americans and all other citizens of the US clear, but, to be sure, they made clear in the Fifteenth Amendment that they meant:

The right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

In 1920 they added that the right to vote could not be denied to our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters.

In 1964 they barred any fee or charge for voting, and in 1971 they lowered the voting age so that those who served in our military could vote, and reinforced the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment that this is a government of, by and for the people and that anyone engaged in “insurrection or rebellion against” it may not hold office.

That’s a real Christmas story, a story of the great principles that Christ and the leaders of the world’s major faiths tried to teach us.

Steve Gottlieb’s latest book is Unfit for Democracy: The Roberts Court and The Breakdown of American Politics. He is the Jay and Ruth Caplan Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Albany Law School, served on the New York Civil Liberties Union board, on the New York Advisory Committee to the U.S. Civil Rights Commission, and as a US Peace Corps Volunteer in Iran.

The views expressed by commentators are solely those of the authors. They do not necessarily reflect the views of this station or its management.

Related Content
  • Listening to the Roundtable a few days ago I heard Vera Eccarius-Kelly explain that dictatorship is much worse than people understand. She couldn’t be more right, but I don’t know how many got her point, so I want to repeat and reinforce it.
  • Justice Sandra Day O’Connor just died. It seems poor form to criticize the departed. But she might as well have participated in Dred Scott v. Sanford, the worst decision the Supreme Court ever handed down and one of the triggers for the Civil War, because her vote was crucial to another decision just as bad. O’Connor, Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy all voted to substitute their presidential preferences for the election results in 2000. It has been standard and proper for courts to conduct recounts when elections are challenged and enough votes are at issue to change the result. The Florida Court was doing that. And they were doing it the right way – recounting the whole Florida vote by a single set of rules. But this group of so-called justices decided it was OK to take the election into their own hands lest Mr. Bush be embarrassed by the results – Scalia was quite explicit about it but there was no other real explanation.
  • I share many people’s concern about the survival of the state of Israel. The threat of its demise would be tragic, not only to Israel but to the survivors and refugees of the Holocaust and their descendants. Loss of Israel would expose world Jewry to intensification of antisemitism. These are serious issues that go way beyond ordinary international politics.