A few weeks back, I caught Chicago Christian radio hostess Sandy Rios talking to a guest about how students these days are not taught about the United States Constitution. Given her previous assertion that the absence of any mention of God in the Constitution "doesn't matter," I found this rather amusing, but I did not really think it was worth a blog post. However, her exchange with a caller yesterday afternoon seems worth pointing out.
After accusing Barack Obama of being socialist, Rios took a call from an African American woman named Betty who maintained that the United States has always been a racist society.
Betty: When you first wrote the Constitution, you said that we were three fifths human.
Sandy Rios: No no Betty, that’s not true. Somebody’s got you confused on that. That was the Dred Scott decision and that was overturned.
Betty: It was in the United States Constitution.
Sandy Rios: No no. No ma'am, it was not.
While I do not agree with everything that Betty had to say, on this point, Sandy Rios was the only person who was confused and who was doing the confusing. Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution reads: "Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons." (emphasis added) It does not appear that Justice Taney cited the apportionment clause in his Dred Scott opinion although he certainly embraced its spirit. Moreover, Dred Scott was not really overturned so much as mooted by the 13th and 14th Amendments, the latter of which also revised the apportionment clause. In any case, Betty is quite right that the Constitution originally treated Negro slaves as less than fully persons.
As Mark Twain so wisely said: "It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so." I cringe to think how many evangelical Christians in the Chicago area listen every afternoon as Sandy Rios spouts her misunderstandings of law and government. Unfortunately, I have encountered a number of them trying to get my local high school district to get rid of books that offend their sensibilities.
For anyone who is interested in further inanities from Rios, check out the following clip from Real Time with Bill Maher, in which she explains how the United States has earned the right to put permanent military bases in Iraq.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
Is Rios another Liar for Jesus, or just an Idiot for Jesus? It's hard to tell them apart sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI have to confess, I downloaded the segment just to listen to see if she really was that uninformed. (When, in the first few minutes she said “irregardless” I thought my ears would cringe. Even AM had standards, I thought…)
ReplyDeleteSure enough. She didn’t know the 3/5 provision of the Constitution. (And let’s not forget, Indians were completely unrepresented.)
Amazing
The thing about "Christ followers," which is Sandy's favorite term for people like herself, is that they have a remarkable capacity for believing something to be a fact despite the absence of evidence, if they need that thing to be a fact in order to confirm their faith. I think this is what enabled George Bush to claim with complete sincerity that the United States was winning in Iraq despite all evidence to the contrary. It simply had to be true since God had led him to go to war there.
ReplyDelete...a remarkable capacity for believing something to be a fact despite the absence of evidence, if they need that thing to be a fact in order to confirm their faith.
ReplyDeleteThat's both pathetic and terrifying.
Vinny nailed it, and shows yet another reason why religion is dangerous. Can people be intellectually lazy, accepting ignoramuses without religion? Sure, but religion makes that mandatory behavior and calls it virtue.
ReplyDeleteThe more I look at that section, the more it looks like it means of all those people left, only 3/5 will count toward apportioning taxes and reps. Does this really mean that each of those persons is only considered 3/5 of a person? They were totally property no matter how much of a person they might have been considered. My point is, was this to define them as such, or did this come to be interpreted as such later? How the hell can I get THIS one answered?
ReplyDelete(sorry) That might have been what Rios meant when she said the Constitution didn't say they were three fifths of a person. I'll have to see if Culture Campaign has this show in the archives, and then try to find what was truly meant by that sentence. As to the Dred Scott stuff, I simply don't know and will have to look that up as well. Would I be wrong in assuming that's not the big point over which you're looking to disparage her here?
ReplyDeleteMA,
ReplyDeleteThe 3/5 figure is in the Constitution of the United States. Sandy Rios wants to blame it on an activist judge, which just ain't so. What makes me think so little of Rios is how she can be so absolutely sure and so absolutely wrong at the same time.
But Vinny, my point was that as worded, I don't see how it automatically implies black people. It says, "3/5 or all other Persons", not 3/5 of a person, or, dem blacks is only 3/5 of a person. So, in that sense, Rios was right that the Constitution doesn't say that blacks are 3/5 of a person. However, as I also said, I need to research this section further to find out what was meant. I wouldn't doubt that blacks might be a part of the group mentioned, but they might not be the only other people to which it refers. Are you with me so far? Perhaps you've got something to which you can readily direct me. If so, lay it on me. (I hope your getting that I am sincerely looking to see where you've "caught" Rios in speaking wrongly--though she's hot and I agree with the bulk of her positions, I'm not married to her and have no problem agreeing with should I find that she indeed is full of it on a given discussion.)
ReplyDeleteI would think that any high school level American history text book would cover it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that ANY high school history text book gets that detailed. It's too bad. I've recently purchased a copy of The Federalist, but haven't had time to begin. A quick scan proved to be in vein regarding this particular topic. If it's hare to find in there, it isn't likely any school book would focus on that one particular section. Though I spent a great part of my high school years buzzed, I enjoyed history and don't recall even coming close to dissecting the Constitution or Bill of Rights to that extent. But do you at least see my point regarding the meaning there?
ReplyDeleteI would agree that different people can have different opinions about implications of the Apportionment Clause. In one sense, it is nothing more than a mathematical formula that is mechanically applied in order to determine how many representatives each state gets. On the other hand, I would agree with Rios' caller that it also reflects the Framers beliefs concerning the relative worth and importance of Blacks (and Native Americans for that matter who weren't counted at all).
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the message you think it sends to Black people, the Apportionment Clause is indisputably found in the Constitution and the Framers are responsible for whatever message it sends. Attributing it to Justice Taney who wrote the opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford almost sixty years later demonstrates Rios' ignorance of American history.
Well on this point, I think you're ripping her on a very minor point regarding the Dred Scott thing. But to be fair, I've found the essay that seems to cover this issue--Federalist 52 or 54--but it will take some study to make sure I'm not misreading it, 18th century speech being what it was. Thus far, it seems as if the disputed part is a matter of what one side of the issue thought versus the other in getting this into the Constitution at all. One side seeks to use what they would normally consider property and not people at all, that is, the slave owning states. They wanted to count the slaves in order to increase their representation. But the opposition says, you can't call them property i. e. not persons except when it works to your advantage. They are either people or they aren't. Thus, they came to the "compromise" that they could only use 3/5 of non-free men in their calculations. It seems it was the first official push to consider them persons by the non-slave states on the basis of their actually being so, and not simply a ploy by the slave owners to get a better deal than they deserved. If this isn't clearly described, it's because I'm still not clear myself. But I think it's the jist.
ReplyDeleteIt is not a minor point at all.
ReplyDeleteIf I claimed that the right to an abortion was found in the Constitution, Sandy Rios would go nuts ranting about activist judges exceeding their authority. She knows perfectly well that it matters greatly whether something something finds its origin in a judicial opinion or in the Constitution itelf. She just doesn't know which things are found where.
Well if you claimed that, Vinny, you'd be so plainly wrong. Of course it's major to making your point, but I doubt that Sandy would be cowering under anyone correcting her on the Dred Scott point at all. But anyway, I'm responding at my blog about this particular point, though not so much as a concession.
ReplyDelete