I still question the refusal of a roll call vote. That just seems like they are embarassed. And to those who say the bill was meaningless fluff, how many similar types of bills come along (seemingly uncontroversial statements like “We hate bad things”)? How have they been voted on?
There are a ton of similar resolutions and pretty much all of them are passed by unanimous consent (without roll call votes).
Here is an interesting quote from this fine Washington Post article:
So according to one poll, anti-lynching legislation had majority support in the south almost 70 years ago. Why the hell would this subject be controversial today?
Compare, Civil Rights Cases, 109 U.S. 3 (1883) (Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment does not permit Congress to enact a positive Civil Rights statute, but only to correct state laws and state actions) *with * Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. U.S., 379 U.S. 241 (1964) (Congress can enact a statute providing that “all persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.” under its Commerce power).
By failing to prosecute the mobs, and by permitting their law enforcement officials to participate in lynchings (ableit not as state officials), the states ratified the lynchings and denied the victims equal protection. But I doubt the argument would fly in those days.
Well the rope might have been an item in interstate commerce and the automobiles used to get to the site almost certainly were.
Old habits, and attitudes, die hard?
Along the states’ rights line. I don’t see how it can be defended that any state has the right to turn a blind eye to the commission of the crime of murder, or at least manslaughter, against members of one segment of its population.
How exactly did they “refuse”? I wonder if that’s a bit of editorializing in the reporting.
I’m with Telemark. I wonder how much of this has been manufactured or manipulated. The last name on the list is that of George Voinovich who has not only stood up against his own party and the administration on the issue of the Bolton confirmtion, but was also a multi-term mayor of Cleveland at a time when one could not get elected on just the white vote. You have to go back nearly 40 years to find anything that approximates a “racial” position in his history, and that was in the context of opposing forced busing–an issue with a number of different aspects to it.
Voinovich is too thoughtful to have a knee-jerk reaction against such a motion (in the way that some people might ascribe motives to Lott).
I’d be curious as to the actual story behind this motion.
Hmmm… some people may hold the position that History Happened, apologizing for it is pointless, and officializing the apology only encourages grievance politics. But yes, I’ll haver to dig deeper into the specifics.
Now, as mentioned, most resolutions of regret/congratulation/condolences/symbolic gesture, in most legislatures (not just Congress) are normally adopted through the simple parliamentary device of being moved “without objection” or on a mass voice vote (all those in favor say “aye”, etc.), with no need for a headcount. If the sponsors of this one, just to make a point, insisted on making it a counted, affirmative vote, I could also see a number of Senators deciding to just not participate in an overt act of point-making.
Yeah, I’m thinking 80 Senators happened to be present when the resolution came to a vote and the twenty not there are being vilified unjustly. While I prefer my Congressmen to work for their pay and show up for all votes I’ll cut them some slack if they are blowing off a feel-good resolution to work on some real business, like meeting with a Cub Scout pack. In addition, I’m pigheaded enough to be one of the “Screw them if they are insisting on a vote!” types JR postulated.
But it would seem odd that all but one of the 20 Senators who “just happened to be absent” were Republicans. There must be something else going on…
There really is no story here. This is a meaningless resolution that expresses regret for not passing lynching laws in the past. 83 Senators cosponsored it. 17 did not. That doesn’t mean they were opposed to it, it simply means they never got around to telling Mary Landrieu (the lead sponsor) that they wanted to be cosponsors. Then the Senate passed the resolution by unanimous consent, like it does with most resolutions and pieces of legislation (only the controversial ones ever get a vote – most things in the Senate happen due to unanimous consent agreements). I don’t know why some are trying to make political hay out of it.
To view a list of the 83 cosponsors, go here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SE00039:@@@L&summ2=m&
Is anyone trying to do that? I think most of us are just trying to understand the process. And I haven’t seen any news reports of Democratic Senators trashing the (mostly) Replublican Senators who didn’t sign the bill.
The “Daily Kos” people in the original post certainly are. From their site: “We can confidently say that there has been plenty of time and attention on this matter, so that those who were inadvertantly left off the original list [of Senators who have not cosponsored the bill] have had the opportunity to get on it. Those who remain on it do so because they support lynching.”
That is perhaps the most idiotic thing I’ve read in a long time on the web. Someone supports lynching because he or she did not cosponsor a resolution apologizing for the Senate not passing anti-lynching laws fifty years ago? It’s just people looking for any reason to bash Republicans.
I’ll agree that it this is the most extreme conclusion that can be drawn, but I’d be surprised if it were really the most idiotic thing you’ve read on the web. However, the truth is that Senators can still add their names as co-sponsors, and several have. Also, Bill Frist’s spokesperson has lied to reporters about the circumstances surrounding the vote (whether a voice vote during business hours had been requested).
So why? If this is a meaningless statement that we are regretful that lynchings happened, why in heaven’s name would it be to someone’s political benefit to intentionally keep their name off of it at this point?
Perhaps my initial assumptions that Senators would be skillful at the political games that go on was too high, and some folks just simply didn’t get around to signing on as a co-sponsor, but I’m not sure why anyone would keep themselves off at this point. What is the political point to doing so?
I guess at bottom, I just wouldn’t want to think that any district, region or state would even be perceived as having a favorable disposition toward lynching that would make a Senator feel he or she should pointedly keep themselves from publically endorsing the resolution. I guess all we (or I) can do is look for the explanations the Senators themselves provide.
Never attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence. Or mistake.
I’m guessing that there is no story here, that these 20 or so senators just never got on the list by accident, mistake, or because it wasn’t a big deal. Perhaps the Dems made a quick push to make sure everyone signed up and the Pubs didn’t. There is no lasting effect one way or the other.
Emphasis added.
What else do you expect from Daily Kos?
There is nothing at all stopping them from putting their names to it after the fact, as far as I know. I’m not an expert on Senate protocol, but I believe Senators can put their names to bills anytime, even after it’s a done deal.
One Senator, Thad Cochran of Mississippi, has explained why he did not co-sponsor the bill. Apparently, it was the wording.
http://www.picayuneitem.com/articles/2005/06/15/news/06lynch.txt
The Thomas link shows that three more senators (including the aforementioned Voinovich) have now signed on and that the measure was passed with “unanimous consent.”
It looks to me as though the KOS site was trying to drum up some unnecessary indignation.