The Miraculous Presidency

Jim Porter was elected as the new President of the National Rifles Association (NRA). This is a man who is on record saying: 

"NRA was started 1871 right here in New York state. It was started by some Yankee generals who didn’t like the way my Southern boys had the ability to shoot in what we call the 'War of Northern Aggression.' Now y’all might call it the Civil War, but we call it the 'War of Northern Aggression' down south.

...
That was the very reason that they started the National Rifle Association, was to teach and train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm and I am one who still feels very strongly that that is one of our greatest charges that we can have today, is to train the civilian in the use of the standard military firearm so when they have to fight for their country, they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they’re ready to do it. Also, when they’re ready to fight tyranny, they have the wherewithal and the weapons to do it."

You can watch his full speech here.  I don't think its a stretch to suggest that Jim Porter is suggesting that the types of government tyranny they are working to protect US citizens from is the type of tyranny observed in the Civil War, i.e. the aggression by the North/Union in trying to maintain the Union and in trying to ban slavery.

It made me think about the miracle that is the Obama Presidency.

We now have President in the US who is African American and an offspring of an interracial marriage.  He has won twice, each time with more than 50% of the votes, a feat last achieved by Reagan.  This has perhaps made us forget just how astonishing it is that a child from an interracial marriage is President of the US.

When Obama was born, in 1961, his parents' interracial marriage was illegal in 13 states.  Those states included Virginia, which had one of the strongest proscriptions.  It would take another five years before the decision in Loving v Virginia by the Supreme Court ruling antimiscegenation statutes unconstitutional.  

In 1966, when the Loving case was being argued at the Supreme Court, the counsel for Virginia argued that antimiscegenation statutes were Constitutional.  I was curious to know what they argued.  It just so happens that there is now a wonderful site called www.oyez.org where they have posted not only the transcripts of a number of historical cases argued before the Supreme Court but also provided the audio recording of those arguments.  As it happens, the site has the Loving case.  I spend a very interesting couple of hours listening to the case.  

Here are some of the more interesting quotes from the defense of the laws by Mr. Mcllwaine.

"We have the question of whether or not that marriage would be recognized as valid in Virginia even though it was contracted by parties who are not residents of the State of Virginia under the conflict of laws principle that a marriage valid were celebrated is valid everywhere. 

This would be a serious question and under Virginia law, it is highly questionable that such a marriage would be recognized in Virginia, especially since Virginia has a very strong policy against interracial marriage and the implementing statutes declare that marriages between white and colored people shall be absolutely void without decree of divorce or other legal process, the implementing statute which forbids Virginia citizens to leave the State for the purpose of evading the law and returning, the exception to the conflict of laws principally I've stated that a marriage valid was celebrated would be valid everywhere except where contrary to the long -- to the strong local public policy

... 

It is clear from the most recent available evidence on the psycho-sociological aspect of this question that intermarried families are subjected to much greater pressures and problems then those of the intramarried and that the state's prohibition of interracial marriage for this reason stands on the same footing as the prohibition of polygamous marriage, or incestuous marriage or the prescription of minimum ages at which people may marry and the prevention of the marriage of people who are mentally incompetent.

... 

And that the interracial marriages bequeath to the progeny of those marriages, more psychological problems than parents have a right to bequeath to them....As I say, it was published in 1964 and some of the statements which made in it based upon the demonstrably -- statistically demonstrably greater ratio of a marry -- of divorce, annulment in intermarried couples than intramarried couples. 

Dr. Gordon has stated it as his opinion that it is my conviction that intermarriage is definitely inadvisible, that they are wrong because they are most frequently if not solely entered into under the present day circumstances by people who have a rebellious attitude towards -- towards society, self-hatred, neurotic tendencies, immaturity and other detrimental psychological factors.
... 

It is the attitude which society has taught interracial marriages, which in detailing his opposition says, "Causes a child to have almost insuperable difficulties in identification and that the problems which a child of an interracial marriage faces are those which no child can come through without damage to himself."...It is not infrequent that the children of intermarried parents are referred to not merely as the children of intermarried parents but as the victims of intermarried parents and as the martyrs of intermarried parents.
...
But in that case, you do not come to the proposition of the power of the State to forbid interracial marriages and the interest of the state in doing so on the basis of the valid scientific evidence that exists on the detrimental effects of interracial marriage. 

I don't see how you can start with the right and come to the proposition that the state statute infringes the right unless you exclude the evidence which tends to show that the statute in question is rational because even rights, a right to marry is subjective to reasonable limitations by the State as always been. 

Polygamy statutes have never been questioned. 

Incest statutes have never been questioned. 

They have in fact been specifically upheld and upheld against the charge in Reynolds against the United States that the person convicted there had religious duty to marry, not to the other right to marry, his religious tenet as a Mormon required him to marry.

And this Court held that the fact that its religious tenet required him to do so, did not prevent him from being convicted criminally about engaging in a polygamous marriage. 

So you can't reach the conclusion that this statute infringes, a right under the Fourteenth Amendment without examining evidence on behalf of the State to show that the infringement is a reasonable one, just as reasonable as far as we can determine, as far more evidence of the reasonableness of a ban against interracial marriage than there is against polygamous or incest marriages so far as the scientific proposition is concern. 

But I cannot conceive to this Court striking down the polygamy or incest statute on the basis of scientific evidence, and I submit that it would be no more appropriate for this Court to invalidate the miscegenetic statute on that basis."

I recommend you listen to the entire arguments.  Here is the link to the Loving v Virginia case.  

Let me highlight a few points.  In 1966, the lawyer for Virginia was arguing that there is "far more evidence of the reasonableness of a ban against interracial marriage than there is against polygamous or incest marriages so far as the scientific proposition is concern."  Moreover, if you follow the logic, Obama is psychologically "damaged".  What he also explains in an exchange I have not quoted is that Virginia did not recognize interracial marriages from other states and there were proscriptions on interracial cohabitation in Virginia, which was a misdemeanor and not a felony.  The implication would be that Obama's parents could have been prosecuted in Virginia as late as 1966. 

While the Supreme Court struck these laws down, some of the now unconstitutional statutes still remained on the books for a while. In 2000, the last of these statutes was finally struck from the books in 2000 in Alabama through a ballot initiative, BUT 40% of the state voted against the removal of the unconstitutional statute.

It's incredible, nearly miraculous, that a man whose parents' interracial marriage would have been considered illegal when he was born, should have grown up to become the President of the US just about four decades later.  It puts the debate about Obama and his legitimacy into perspective.