Transcripts For CSPAN American 20240706 : vimarsana.com

CSPAN American July 6, 2024

Good morning, everyone and welcome on the second day of the 2023 national convention. After last night, i hope youre all feeling half as engaged and inspired as i do. Im sure youre telling me the truth. You loved this program. Its marchous and we thank the speakers. As i and many other speakers last night talked about this, this country is facing a tremendous challenge in which a small group whose hands remain firmly on levers of institutional, economic and political power, and if you like the rules and the laws to maintain that policy, despite, really, a lack of real popular support, this manipulation of and sometimes outright disregard for the rule of law will have serious consequences unless we respond. You have to call it out for what it is. And we seek to shore up and reform and in some cases, transform our political, legal, and economic institutions. And if any of you have already heard, which were going to have a great presentation to kick us off on this this morning, but unfortunately, due to unforeseen travel complications, chair lina khan is unable to be with us this morning and what shes doing is historic in light of the conversation we had yesterday about economics and the law and the way in which they kind of cut against a lot of the other considerations that should be given with regard to Public Policy and law. So, we look forward to having her here in the future, but im really pleased to be having a chance to work with this great panel. A few housekeeping notes before we begin, to receive cle credits for the program. Youll need to submit two codes which ill provide during the program, once at the beginning and once in the middle. Please write down these codes and youll enter these codes into the google form that you received in your email and the form is available on the acs convention paid under the cle tab. If you need help, you can ask one of our volunteers for help. After the program or email lce mail at acs law. Org. The first cle code is oak. All caps. Oak. We will reserve time at the end for q a. Please write down questions on index cards provided at your tables and then raise index cards to alert our staff and volunteers if you have a question, theyll collect it from you. And those participating virtually have also been given instructions for submitting questions. Let me just kick it off with a few remarks about what this panel is about. Over the past several years, acs has been dedicated to further considering and incorporating perspectives on what is happening on the International Stage as a part of our work. This is not traditionally been a major focus of acs, although always theres been awareness. We are particularly focused on issues that acs, of course, already engages in domestically, such as democracy, equality in liberty, reproductive rights and the criminal legal system, including the Death Penalty. This effort is particularly important in this moment, we find ourselves in. When Civil Society is not only here, but throughout the world, acknowledged that were in a moment of democratic decline. And it would be irresponsible if this organization did not connect with what is happening here at home, the rise of election denialism, attacks on the Abortion Access and other reproductive rights. Abuse of institutional power to strip actually elected representatives of their seats are voices and legislatures. The resurgence of White Nationalism and antilgbtq plus animus and the conservative capture of our nations highest court with whats going on around the world. In democracies throughout the world, Democratic Institutions have eroded or been manipulated to provide space for authoritarian, autocratic forces to gain a foot hold in and in some places what seems like a stranglehold over the past decade to a decade and a half, authoritarian, autocrat regimes have worked to foster not only domestic in their country, but environmental environment for themselves, in part, because of, actually waning measures from democracy. While not solely responsible, a shift in the United States diplomatic posture in the late 2010s did a lot to create some space and energy for these very disturbing efforts. And more so than in the past 30 years or more, authoritarian regimes feel less like holdups in a democratiing world, through well established authoritarian regimes, particularly in countries that have fragile democracies. Anyone playing attention knows the United States is not immune to these efforts. The United States has historically had a robust democracy, but recent events for those willing to Pay Attention that theres always been significant weaknesses in our foundation and those weaknesses are being exploited more brazenly than they have been certainly in my lifetime than i can remember. The purpose of this panel then is to demonstrate that what happens internationally regarding authoritarianism and human rights. Democrat and international authoritarianism are very much intertwined and we would actually ignore that fact at our peril. So with that sort of framing and something that weve spent a lot of time thinking about in the last couple of years, id like to turn to our wonderful panel. Im honored that we have with us today kate professor of history at northwestern university. Craig jackson, professor of law at Texas Southern university. Thurgood Marshall School of law, who in full disclosure, has graciously stepped in for panelist justin ansford, was unable to join us due to travel. We wont let two travel complications keep us down because hes going to step in and do a wonderful job. And alicia, senior fellow on health and rights, health law policy. Biotechnology and bioethics at harvard law school. And jameel, the director of Human Rights Program with American Civil Liberties program. Thank you for joining us this morning. Let me kick it off with you, kate. I think its important to awn our countrys history to understand whats happening both in the United States and internationally today. There is this narrative of american exceptionalism, that the u. S. Has always been this shining beacon of freedom and democracy, but does our history really bear that out . Well, thanks so much. Thanks for having me here. Its really wonderful to be here and i so enjoyed and was inspired by last nights proceedings. So i want to start with a moment that made a huge impression on me, january 6th, 2021, im sure made an impression on you all, too. When president elect joe biden came out to address the nation and what he basically said, themes of his remarks on that really serving day is really, this is not who we are. When we see these scenes at the capitol, this does not reflect the true america, joe biden said. And i think at that moment many historicalions shared the same response as i did, which was, well, this is kind of who we are. And thats something that we need to recognize. I felt that way in part because ive spent a lot of time working on the era of the civil war and construction. And so what i want to talk about briefly now is how the real history of the United States, especially from the civil war and mid 20th century has in fact been difficult for Many Americans to come to terms with. This period furnishes many examples of americans turning to violence and rejecting forms of government and political hour to previously marginalized groups. Talking about the success of 11 Southern States after the 1860 election, resistance to the creation of a multiracial democracy during reconstruction, and the systemic disenfranchisement at the turn of the 20th century. My main point, in many quarters there are attempts to deemphasize these points of history and exceptions of a world of democracy and rule of law and maybe we file them away as southern and therefore not really american. Essentially many people say, with president biden, this is not who we really are. But this is wrong. Racist and antidemocratic politics struggles to combat them have been central to u. S. History and to the u. S. Constitution itself and remain crucial in the world we live in today. Antiliberal, antidemocratic, traditions are baked into our history and culture and we cant alter that fact by wishing them away, and exceptions or con signing them to the past as if they dont have any impact on the present. So to quickly go beyond the general statements that i just made, let me just give three examples from the time period i studied most. First of all, we can understand the Succession Movement that led to the civil war, a significant example of americans refuse to go accept the results of an election, everyone agreed at the time was conducted fairly according to their standing. The southern elite had what we consider significant authoritarian tendency and resisted portions population, put out bounties for the arrest of abolitionists who dared to enter their jurisdiction. When lincoln won the presidency in november of 1860, the slave owning elite rejected the results of the election. They feared restrictions on slavery and maybe abolition. Rather than accept the Election Results as a result of 15 political wins and demographic changes and trying to manage within the american political order, they declared themselves outs of it. The slave owners rebellion, their assault on the american democracy ended up costing more than 750,000 750,000 american lives and what the slave owners had not wanted. Moving on, during reconstruction, large squads of americans used every means at their disposal to halt advances towards multiracial democracy and the federal government, including the Supreme Court, largely allowed it to happen. When the war ended, when the civil war ended, republicans who were in charge of congress and the presidency, attempted to place the country on a new footing. Making it for the first time a multiracial democracy. Republicans drafted and pushed for ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, by federal mandates, black men began voting in the southern elections in the late 1860s, but powerful coalitions of white americans completely rejected this new order. And attempted to stop american 2023 annual meeting now in progress. These enclaves of authoritarianism were until they were broken up in the second half of the 20th century. We might be accustomed to thinking about 1890s as stark racism, and it was, but it was a political strategy led by democrats at the time to entrench their parties in power at the state level to achieve their priorities. Priorities associated with prosperity for the already wealthy and low wages and few opportunities for everyone else. These state level democrats achieved power through authoritarian means, including by squelching voter turnout and often through threats of violence and again, these regimes were not broken up until the second half of the 20th century. At the end of the 19th century, as white southern democrats were consolidating power. Authoritarian rule in their states, United States projected power outside of north america in conquests particularly in puerto rico and the philippines. Their they drew lessons not only from one party rule in the south, but also, from decades of military conquests, expulsion and concentration of native americans. Americans of Many Political persuasions understood at the time that they were part of larger global dynamics. Indeed, web deboise made that clear in published in 1905 when he wrote the problem excuse me the problem of the 20th century is a problem of the color line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in asia and africa, in america, and the islands of the sea. So its really important to see the history ive just briefly described here, not as anomalous, not as exclusively southern, but profoundly american with consequences extending everywhere. Thanks. Let me follow up with that, this is precisely why, one of acss Top Priorities is to demand a national truth, racial healing and transformation process. Because its not just because some guy in florida is running for president and doesnt want to make a political points by not letting people hear about Roberto Clemente and rosa parks. Its a deep contest, as you just indicated. Im wondering if you could connect that with today . How does the u. S. History of slavery and racial apartheid inform some of the political struggles that were experiencing today . Especially in terms of, you know, the efforts that are being made to delegitimize certain voices or communities and argue that theyre therefore less worthy of less democratic participation. Thinking of lies, denigrating cities as being sites of out of control voter fraud, the people live in cities as unruly and violent . Could you connect that with the long history of White Nationalism . Well, i think, its exactly as you just said. When we understand the history that i described, some of these moves now, whether its to kind of use coded language to talk about the dangerousous of cities or suppress this history. These are a piece of what weve seen in the past and i want to come back to, you know, what chairman began with last night, were living in a backlash. Part of what were seeing is a response to the progress that people have made, that people have made toward i am illuminating a more truthful United States, that includes the tremendous things that have gone on in this country and also, some of the things that we dont feel proud of that has become more inclusive in terms of multiple voices in our history and held up Human Dignity and human rights as kind of central values in our history. When we see those ideas making inroads into a public education, into our politics, there have always been contingents of americans who reject that and refuse that and they feel threatened. And whats going on, i think that the authoritarian enclave idea is so helpful because whats going on is the federalist structure of the United States allows for the possibility that people, in particular, jurisdictions, can then use their power and it doesnt have to be at the National Level. It can be a minority of people, but using power in particular ways, even in some national jurisdictions, to do the kinds of things that those people have always wanted to try to do, and thats to marginalize, to owe opress. And turn to you now, your history of slavery and racial apartheid didnt just have an impact here in the United States. If you talk a bit about the interconnectedness of authoritarianism domestically and internationally, particularly in the early to the mid 20th century, this is precisely why we wanted this to be the opening plenary to help us make that connection. Well, you know, i have to say that what youre going to hear for the next few minutes is the musings of someone who was on a plane last night at 9 00 and, but fortunately, i teach constitutional law and i Teach International law so i do have some perspectives on that. And it seems to me that the notion of tyranny, this may sound dark, but it strikes me as kind of an instinct of humans, to tend toward that and the democracies in the world today have fought that. I think we find that in the framers who attempted and im not a big fan of the framers because they have their problems and, but they did structure partially, only partially, a constitution that dealt with, at least the tyranny that they addressed and that was the tyranny of Great Britain. England before Great Britain and england in these periods. They attempted to try to deal with that by structuring their government in a way that would prevent any dictators from occurring and they assumed there would be responsible men, as it was assumed in that time and as we understand now, responsible persons, who would structure policy based upon a good faith attempt at addressing constitutional limitations. Well, we learned differently in 2016 that thats not always going to work because we dont always have people going into office with good faith. Thats a preliminary matter. They understood the nature of tyranny, the framers, and addressed it only partially because they did not really fully address human rights. They wanted to have a federal system, but didnt want to address human rights at the federal level, it was at the state level. So the result was a civil war and finally a realization, a chance to have some kind of single body of human rights that govern the whole nation. Now, that being said, from the international perspective, i think its clear that we didnt invent all the evils of human rights in this country. They came from elsewhere. We are the product of european denials of human rights, slavery didnt start here. We may have perfected it, but slavely didnt start in the United States. It started elsewhere. It started in europe and the tradition of slavery began from the continent and extended over here colonialism. And one they think i want to talk about it, put it more in a constitutional perspective, if you will, is this conversation, this twocentury vote conversation that i find fascinating between Abraham Lincoln, Thurgood Marshall and clarence thomas. The conversation that basically took part in a series of Supreme Court opinions, statements, articles, about the structure of our own constitution, and our own system. A chief justice to the Supreme Court believed that the constitution did not create any rights that were due to africans and he wrote so in the dread scott opinion. Abraham lincoln said that was i was about to curse, Abraham Lincoln said that was bull. Thurgood marshall, 100 later, 120 years later after Public Policy<\/a> and law. So, we look forward to having her here in the future, but im really pleased to be having a chance to work with this great panel. A few housekeeping notes before we begin, to receive cle credits for the program. Youll need to submit two codes which ill provide during the program, once at the beginning and once in the middle. Please write down these codes and youll enter these codes into the google form that you received in your email and the form is available on the acs convention paid under the cle tab. If you need help, you can ask one of our volunteers for help. After the program or email lce mail at acs law. Org. The first cle code is oak. All caps. Oak. We will reserve time at the end for q a. Please write down questions on index cards provided at your tables and then raise index cards to alert our staff and volunteers if you have a question, theyll collect it from you. And those participating virtually have also been given instructions for submitting questions. Let me just kick it off with a few remarks about what this panel is about. Over the past several years, acs has been dedicated to further considering and incorporating perspectives on what is happening on the International Stage<\/a> as a part of our work. This is not traditionally been a major focus of acs, although always theres been awareness. We are particularly focused on issues that acs, of course, already engages in domestically, such as democracy, equality in liberty, reproductive rights and the criminal legal system, including the Death Penalty<\/a>. This effort is particularly important in this moment, we find ourselves in. When Civil Society<\/a> is not only here, but throughout the world, acknowledged that were in a moment of democratic decline. And it would be irresponsible if this organization did not connect with what is happening here at home, the rise of election denialism, attacks on the Abortion Access<\/a> and other reproductive rights. Abuse of institutional power to strip actually elected representatives of their seats are voices and legislatures. The resurgence of White Nationalism<\/a> and antilgbtq plus animus and the conservative capture of our nations highest court with whats going on around the world. In democracies throughout the world, Democratic Institutions<\/a> have eroded or been manipulated to provide space for authoritarian, autocratic forces to gain a foot hold in and in some places what seems like a stranglehold over the past decade to a decade and a half, authoritarian, autocrat regimes have worked to foster not only domestic in their country, but environmental environment for themselves, in part, because of, actually waning measures from democracy. While not solely responsible, a shift in the United States<\/a> diplomatic posture in the late 2010s did a lot to create some space and energy for these very disturbing efforts. And more so than in the past 30 years or more, authoritarian regimes feel less like holdups in a democratiing world, through well established authoritarian regimes, particularly in countries that have fragile democracies. Anyone playing attention knows the United States<\/a> is not immune to these efforts. The United States<\/a> has historically had a robust democracy, but recent events for those willing to Pay Attention<\/a> that theres always been significant weaknesses in our foundation and those weaknesses are being exploited more brazenly than they have been certainly in my lifetime than i can remember. The purpose of this panel then is to demonstrate that what happens internationally regarding authoritarianism and human rights. Democrat and international authoritarianism are very much intertwined and we would actually ignore that fact at our peril. So with that sort of framing and something that weve spent a lot of time thinking about in the last couple of years, id like to turn to our wonderful panel. Im honored that we have with us today kate professor of history at northwestern university. Craig jackson, professor of law at Texas Southern<\/a> university. Thurgood Marshall School<\/a> of law, who in full disclosure, has graciously stepped in for panelist justin ansford, was unable to join us due to travel. We wont let two travel complications keep us down because hes going to step in and do a wonderful job. And alicia, senior fellow on health and rights, health law policy. Biotechnology and bioethics at harvard law school. And jameel, the director of Human Rights Program<\/a> with American Civil Liberties<\/a> program. Thank you for joining us this morning. Let me kick it off with you, kate. I think its important to awn our countrys history to understand whats happening both in the United States<\/a> and internationally today. There is this narrative of american exceptionalism, that the u. S. Has always been this shining beacon of freedom and democracy, but does our history really bear that out . Well, thanks so much. Thanks for having me here. Its really wonderful to be here and i so enjoyed and was inspired by last nights proceedings. So i want to start with a moment that made a huge impression on me, january 6th, 2021, im sure made an impression on you all, too. When president elect joe biden came out to address the nation and what he basically said, themes of his remarks on that really serving day is really, this is not who we are. When we see these scenes at the capitol, this does not reflect the true america, joe biden said. And i think at that moment many historicalions shared the same response as i did, which was, well, this is kind of who we are. And thats something that we need to recognize. I felt that way in part because ive spent a lot of time working on the era of the civil war and construction. And so what i want to talk about briefly now is how the real history of the United States<\/a>, especially from the civil war and mid 20th century has in fact been difficult for Many Americans<\/a> to come to terms with. This period furnishes many examples of americans turning to violence and rejecting forms of government and political hour to previously marginalized groups. Talking about the success of 11 Southern States<\/a> after the 1860 election, resistance to the creation of a multiracial democracy during reconstruction, and the systemic disenfranchisement at the turn of the 20th century. My main point, in many quarters there are attempts to deemphasize these points of history and exceptions of a world of democracy and rule of law and maybe we file them away as southern and therefore not really american. Essentially many people say, with president biden, this is not who we really are. But this is wrong. Racist and antidemocratic politics struggles to combat them have been central to u. S. History and to the u. S. Constitution itself and remain crucial in the world we live in today. Antiliberal, antidemocratic, traditions are baked into our history and culture and we cant alter that fact by wishing them away, and exceptions or con signing them to the past as if they dont have any impact on the present. So to quickly go beyond the general statements that i just made, let me just give three examples from the time period i studied most. First of all, we can understand the Succession Movement<\/a> that led to the civil war, a significant example of americans refuse to go accept the results of an election, everyone agreed at the time was conducted fairly according to their standing. The southern elite had what we consider significant authoritarian tendency and resisted portions population, put out bounties for the arrest of abolitionists who dared to enter their jurisdiction. When lincoln won the presidency in november of 1860, the slave owning elite rejected the results of the election. They feared restrictions on slavery and maybe abolition. Rather than accept the Election Results<\/a> as a result of 15 political wins and demographic changes and trying to manage within the american political order, they declared themselves outs of it. The slave owners rebellion, their assault on the american democracy ended up costing more than 750,000 750,000 american lives and what the slave owners had not wanted. Moving on, during reconstruction, large squads of americans used every means at their disposal to halt advances towards multiracial democracy and the federal government, including the Supreme Court<\/a>, largely allowed it to happen. When the war ended, when the civil war ended, republicans who were in charge of congress and the presidency, attempted to place the country on a new footing. Making it for the first time a multiracial democracy. Republicans drafted and pushed for ratification of the 13th, 14th, 15th amendments, by federal mandates, black men began voting in the southern elections in the late 1860s, but powerful coalitions of white americans completely rejected this new order. And attempted to stop american 2023 annual meeting now in progress. These enclaves of authoritarianism were until they were broken up in the second half of the 20th century. We might be accustomed to thinking about 1890s as stark racism, and it was, but it was a political strategy led by democrats at the time to entrench their parties in power at the state level to achieve their priorities. Priorities associated with prosperity for the already wealthy and low wages and few opportunities for everyone else. These state level democrats achieved power through authoritarian means, including by squelching voter turnout and often through threats of violence and again, these regimes were not broken up until the second half of the 20th century. At the end of the 19th century, as white southern democrats were consolidating power. Authoritarian rule in their states, United States<\/a> projected power outside of north america in conquests particularly in puerto rico and the philippines. Their they drew lessons not only from one party rule in the south, but also, from decades of military conquests, expulsion and concentration of native americans. Americans of Many Political<\/a> persuasions understood at the time that they were part of larger global dynamics. Indeed, web deboise made that clear in published in 1905 when he wrote the problem excuse me the problem of the 20th century is a problem of the color line, the relation of the darker to the lighter races of men in asia and africa, in america, and the islands of the sea. So its really important to see the history ive just briefly described here, not as anomalous, not as exclusively southern, but profoundly american with consequences extending everywhere. Thanks. Let me follow up with that, this is precisely why, one of acss Top Priorities<\/a> is to demand a national truth, racial healing and transformation process. Because its not just because some guy in florida is running for president and doesnt want to make a political points by not letting people hear about Roberto Clemente<\/a> and rosa parks. Its a deep contest, as you just indicated. Im wondering if you could connect that with today . How does the u. S. History of slavery and racial apartheid inform some of the political struggles that were experiencing today . Especially in terms of, you know, the efforts that are being made to delegitimize certain voices or communities and argue that theyre therefore less worthy of less democratic participation. Thinking of lies, denigrating cities as being sites of out of control voter fraud, the people live in cities as unruly and violent . Could you connect that with the long history of White Nationalism<\/a> . Well, i think, its exactly as you just said. When we understand the history that i described, some of these moves now, whether its to kind of use coded language to talk about the dangerousous of cities or suppress this history. These are a piece of what weve seen in the past and i want to come back to, you know, what chairman began with last night, were living in a backlash. Part of what were seeing is a response to the progress that people have made, that people have made toward i am illuminating a more truthful United States<\/a>, that includes the tremendous things that have gone on in this country and also, some of the things that we dont feel proud of that has become more inclusive in terms of multiple voices in our history and held up Human Dignity<\/a> and human rights as kind of central values in our history. When we see those ideas making inroads into a public education, into our politics, there have always been contingents of americans who reject that and refuse that and they feel threatened. And whats going on, i think that the authoritarian enclave idea is so helpful because whats going on is the federalist structure of the United States<\/a> allows for the possibility that people, in particular, jurisdictions, can then use their power and it doesnt have to be at the National Level<\/a>. It can be a minority of people, but using power in particular ways, even in some national jurisdictions, to do the kinds of things that those people have always wanted to try to do, and thats to marginalize, to owe opress. And turn to you now, your history of slavery and racial apartheid didnt just have an impact here in the United States<\/a>. If you talk a bit about the interconnectedness of authoritarianism domestically and internationally, particularly in the early to the mid 20th century, this is precisely why we wanted this to be the opening plenary to help us make that connection. Well, you know, i have to say that what youre going to hear for the next few minutes is the musings of someone who was on a plane last night at 9 00 and, but fortunately, i teach constitutional law and i Teach International<\/a> law so i do have some perspectives on that. And it seems to me that the notion of tyranny, this may sound dark, but it strikes me as kind of an instinct of humans, to tend toward that and the democracies in the world today have fought that. I think we find that in the framers who attempted and im not a big fan of the framers because they have their problems and, but they did structure partially, only partially, a constitution that dealt with, at least the tyranny that they addressed and that was the tyranny of Great Britain<\/a>. England before Great Britain<\/a> and england in these periods. They attempted to try to deal with that by structuring their government in a way that would prevent any dictators from occurring and they assumed there would be responsible men, as it was assumed in that time and as we understand now, responsible persons, who would structure policy based upon a good faith attempt at addressing constitutional limitations. Well, we learned differently in 2016 that thats not always going to work because we dont always have people going into office with good faith. Thats a preliminary matter. They understood the nature of tyranny, the framers, and addressed it only partially because they did not really fully address human rights. They wanted to have a federal system, but didnt want to address human rights at the federal level, it was at the state level. So the result was a civil war and finally a realization, a chance to have some kind of single body of human rights that govern the whole nation. Now, that being said, from the international perspective, i think its clear that we didnt invent all the evils of human rights in this country. They came from elsewhere. We are the product of european denials of human rights, slavery didnt start here. We may have perfected it, but slavely didnt start in the United States<\/a>. It started elsewhere. It started in europe and the tradition of slavery began from the continent and extended over here colonialism. And one they think i want to talk about it, put it more in a constitutional perspective, if you will, is this conversation, this twocentury vote conversation that i find fascinating between Abraham Lincoln<\/a>, Thurgood Marshall<\/a> and clarence thomas. The conversation that basically took part in a series of Supreme Court<\/a> opinions, statements, articles, about the structure of our own constitution, and our own system. A chief justice to the Supreme Court<\/a> believed that the constitution did not create any rights that were due to africans and he wrote so in the dread scott opinion. Abraham lincoln said that was i was about to curse, Abraham Lincoln<\/a> said that was bull. Thurgood marshall, 100 later, 120 years later after Abraham Lincoln<\/a>s period when asked to take part in the celebration of the constitution, he declined because he shared the view of roger, not necessarily the purpose of the meaning that roger had, that believed that the constitution did not have any rights for blacks and i think thats actually true, but i think he celebrated that idea and his opinion in dread scott. But what Thurgood Marshall<\/a> was saying in 1987 when former chief Justice Warren<\/a> burger took place in a celebration in hawaii of all places to sorry, i didnt mean that. But to celebrate and we didnt commit ourselves to any kind of civil to any kind of i feel is rights or human rights to ending what you call the enclave of tyranny until after the civil war, the 14th amendment. Thats when it really began. So he didnt see any points in the constitution that really exists until the 1860s. Clarence thomas wrote an article in response to Thurgood Marshall<\/a>s position, both were in the howard law journal, saying essentially that Abraham Lincoln<\/a> was right, that you have to read the constitution, the content of the declaration independence and that it was a constitution that was designed to fight tyranny and thats that. Well, this conversation is one that i can barely have in texas right now at a state school at least where i teach, but it is important to understand that youre right, that our system began as a justification for a certain kind of tyranny. Now, around me right now, i must admit, but i want to make this one final point, much of the conversation about the threat to democracy that were having right now, even among progressive circles, does not address the real core problems having to do with race. I think we tend to limit our discussion about with regard to voter denial, election denialism and other aspects of authoritarian edicts from the right, but this really began and i wasnt here to hear ms. Eiffel last night, but i think she did say we were living in an era of i forget the exact term, the era of retrenchment because of the racial advances that have been made in the past, i think thats absolutely true. But i think the one thing that we have to realize that this began as a response and as a reaction to the election to barack obama. That he is thats what made a lot of people angry and we see much of this right joining forces with other enclaves internationally of tyranny because the resentment growing, in our country has a lot to do with the obama presidency, not to mention immigration and in other parts of the world, including europe, immigration there. I know my statement is dark, its unprepared, but i think that at one time our framers had a sense that we could overcome that, but we have to overcome it not with broad statements, which is where our constitution is structured, we have to overcome it with specifics, either legislation or constitutional reform or something of that sort. But the good faith of people of goodwill model of our constitution, i think, is has pretty much grown kind of old and its not really working and i think we need to think about some serious constitutional reform. In terms of the nine members of the Supreme Court<\/a>, but thats something thats on my thinking list, ap and recognize we have to be more on our structure and our fight against tyranny. With their negotiations with Great Britain<\/a> and he was a civil rights leader here. Brown vs. School board was in in an actual case revered by anticolonial forces throughout the world and asked to take part in the negotiations and he did. Thats the exact million. I think we find in case law of the constitution of south africa references to our case law of civil rights including brown versus school board. Theres common law and do law from the systems above it and common law entries as well and you see examples of that, not overwhelmingly but citations of the civil rights history in the cases. I think what we want to understand in the localism in a Civil Rights Movement<\/a> it was encouraging a lot of anticlone rale movements worldwide. As such weve learned a lot in terms of like nelson mandela. Thank you so much. That was darn good. Having found that out. Perhaps underdiscussed tool and the authoritarian regime and controlling members with the marginalized represented communities and restrictions of body autonomy. Discuss how that plays out both abrowed and here in the United States<\/a> and abrowed broad abroad and here in the United States<\/a> and why its a cause of concern here and abroad. Sure. I want toed a my thanks to. Acs for inviting me to be on the innervedable panel. Long before dobbs, we recognize many pregnancy capable people didnt have cassioppi toss to abortion rights and the framing and u. S. Constitution that the course had to deal with. As craig suggested and the framing of autonomy within loy cal privacy. People with abortions never decide its a purely private matter and its a web of relationships and conditions in hair lives. Im shortly therefore the poor women didnt have a right to have abortions funded and that was huge. Weve seen over the years trapped laws and restrictions of abortion before even dobbs came down. There was a important launch of the reproductive movement and recognizing the focus of norrow legal entitlement was not relevant to so many peoples lives and focusing on the conditions of if, which and how. All people want to and can have children and raise them in decent conditions. The Development Held<\/a> in cairo where there was a major shift from focusing on demographic imperatives to reproductive rights and reproductive rights again understood in this more hololist ick sense of needing holistic sense of needing material condition and being generally free and choosing over your body and life. And since then and pioneers are the Reproductive Justice Movement<\/a> taking the example will say how much synergy there was between what they were trying to achieve in the country and what the International Human<\/a> Rights Movement<\/a> was doing. Since then theres been a continued effort on synergy, functionality and moving beyond a formal legal equal protection to a broader notion of substantive equality that takes account of different positionalties and starting position. And over these 30 years, theres been an incredible interaction between u. S. Advocacy and International Advocacy<\/a> and theres now really an irrefutable overlapping consensus of International Law<\/a> and seas draconian restrictions on abortion and reproductive autonomy as a violation of a right to life with dig any time thinking a violation of right to help because abortion is healthcare and a kind of genderbased violence as well. So tree dom from gender freedom from genderbased violence. You see the Russian Federation<\/a> and watch ago resolution at Human Rights Council<\/a> and rights of traditional families and collective rights of traditional families as opposed to individual rights. Pompeo created what he called a commission on unalienable rights and it was supposed to inform him on International Human<\/a> rights law. But to inform him where the human rights law and discourse deviated from our founders values and natural rights and natural law. At the time several democratic senator process tested but didnt get a lot of attention. In 2020, he also worked a lot with other countries around the world and in 2020, they launch what had is called the geneva consensus deck ragainilation on declaration on promoting Womens Health<\/a> and lengthening the family. We have something called statue of three lives and this declaration is the one of the three lives and it nothing to do with geneva or the three ns and binding and not under international and executive law and promote Womens Health<\/a> or strengthen real families. Its really an antiabortion screed where it says theres no right to abortion under International Law<\/a> and states absolutely do not facilitate this and no obligation to change criminal or civil codes. The like minded countries of which we launched this census deck ragainilation include countries like bahrain, uganda, belarus, sudan and south sudan, pakistan, saudi arabia, the United Arab Emirates<\/a> and put the United States<\/a> in pretty bad company in terms of hitoxy and gender abortion. Its something wee need to take seriously and the idea peeling back all of the processes and consensus over the normal frame work over the last 75 years to 1948 and the universal declaration of human rights is not going to stop with abortion and reproductive rights and lgbtq rights. There was a lot of things that did not exist in 1948 and we need to be really attune to it. Im thinking of the way it was a tactic of Broader Authority<\/a> in the purpose and the way in which group of americans religion yous people decided to persuade ewe uganda to develop a brutally antigame regime. Perhaps people were very upset about gay people in uganda at the time, but i have a feeling it was more to cover what theyre actually what was going on in that regime and thats the question follow up to what extent is this focused on these things a way in which they can distract people. The abortion and gay issues and devours the amount of oxygen in the room about things that most people would rather leave for private business and solve the problems we all have together. It strikes me as a tactic and strategy as well. It was its a direct attack. Its highly, highly effective but its clear that the dont say gay and aif i wering care and the pate yardeni cal family and antiabortion and reproductive rights and all of that is a giant smoke screen for the economic precarety we feel in this country. Of course when economic and political and legal institutions have not provided what people thought they were promised and feel reventful, it resentful, it feeds on that and we have the moral high ground and if we can construct reproductive justice, its social justice. Its racial juice tis and these are not woke upper middle class white people. These are not people that look like me that are dying because they dont have a right to access abortion. This is an issue opportunistic social juice tis and broaden it is out and create and hold the narrative, well be much, much better off. In this country and abroad because the same thing is happening at International Level<\/a>. Globalization is the fault of people that want rights for gender equality and lgbtq population. And theyre against the natural order and we need to fight that. Thank you. Before i turn to jameel, is this the time for the second code or am i premature here . Okay. Palm, all caps, palm, second cle code. Youre the perfect person to give the next presentation. Something weve seen a great deal of here in the United States<\/a> appeals to the religion yous right and religious rights and undermine the rights of Lgbtq Community<\/a> and other marginalized groups. Are we seeing in happen in other places in the world . I eluded to that in places and how much does this reflect an effort to export these ideas developed here in the United States<\/a> to oppressive reschumm throughout the world. Thank you for inviting me and listening to the distinguished speakers and theres a lot that i would describe as transnational ideological conservative movement that you describe as not only learned from the play book of the growing movement and theyve realized the way to make the change is not an International Level<\/a> and bringing back to very local level and very National Level<\/a>. This is where the disconnect, where our movement for Progressive Movement<\/a> i would say advance rights internationally. It has been stuck in how do you really bring it back to local and National Level<\/a>. The conservative Rights Movement<\/a> on issues of womens rights, gender and equality and gender inequality, family, unity of family and all the things of lgbtq agenda is rooted in the idea that we have to protect this kind of that were described but prevent Movement Toward<\/a> the multiculturalism, maltolture society and democracies and ting an International Organization<\/a> and focused on the United States<\/a> and we interact and we have international Civil Liberties<\/a> and human rights policy. I joined aclu and looked tat from the founders of aclu and in the International Connections<\/a> to Civil Liberties<\/a> and even though it happened in a very interior way i would not agree with today. There was a sense that i know its contributional and in 1948 theres a sense of what happened internationally impacts us and vice versa. What the aclu did was get the set backs and attacks on from the mental rights from Civil Liberties<\/a> and human rights happening and many other International Context<\/a> and we came together with other similar situations from what is now 15 countries going from india to argentina and all continue nets from south africa and middle Southeast Movement<\/a> in oppressive movement continuing and we created International Organization<\/a> for addressing these we have them going with similar abuses and setbacks and attacks on individual record but also on communities particularly in the use of religion and and particularly with gender and a way to trying fee dromoof expression and seeing a huge attack on that happening worldwide. And that would include freedom Internet Freedom<\/a> online and so the right to express yourself online and offline and last was looking at the closing of the civic and democratic state. From ngos and Side Organization<\/a> thats readily and declared legal and terrorist entities that have been really exported by the u. S. Laws after 9 11. Liz eight hours nating certain entities shortly after 9 11 continued to press for more legally binding measures of the National Level<\/a> that were really adopted at the International Level<\/a> by the Security Council<\/a> under chapter 7 of the un charter where countries had to other measures in order to address terrorism threats. And many of the regimes was a gift. Taking something that was owed, the un compel us as we have to act based on un charter obligation and what happened in many countries enacting these impressive laws that had an impact on the most marginalized communities and the post 9 11 era is important to highlight because there was huge setbacks of the national Rights Movement<\/a> and many structures and architecture created after 9 11 became normalized and that impacted different people but i think the other thing we see is that theres an exclusion of legitimate voices from participating in any area and theres a spectrum from countries like india and one of the largest democracies in the world sliding back into a country that is designating against entities of the organization limiting very basic freedoms and using both antiterrorism laws and Foreign Agent<\/a> laws weve seen in russia and other countries. The increase warned against the designations and not only laws that adopted in israel. With the entities and declare themselves as receiving foreign money but use antiterrorism frame work to designate six of the organizations of terrorist organizations. Its a matter of how do we change our strategies in a way that we push back against those actions but we also have a proactive strategy to create space and to ensure these communities and activists and human rights defenders are able to act without being convicted of these. We take for granted some things here and all though i think i want to echo some sentiments made for the u. S. Context, the most marginalized communities for centuries and decades and american democracy and freedoms taken for granted and something we all enjoy. When we see those happening, not just in the summer of 2020 but before that. But black lives matter activist and the pipeline and indigenous move against extraction Development Projects<\/a> and from south dakota to minnesota to other parts of the country and weve seen all of a sudden the same actors that have been on issues of abortion rights and forceful fuels and pushing for measures at the state level to restrict the right to protest. Restrict the right to peaceful assembly. I dont know how many of you know but since 2017, weve had 21 states enacting at least 40 antiprotest bills that apply draconian penalties for common nonviolent protests and im talking about harsher penalties, damages to security costs and blocking traffic and damaging monument and for insighting riot and nobody provide inciting riot and nobody provide hag that means and drivers that 40 other states have other actions and those are serious setbacks with panels in other countries and one other thing to mention and again even fundamental First Amendment<\/a> rights is the right to boycott and it was seen at least since 2016, 28 state haves passed laws requires individuals and businesses that receive government contracts it has been adopted as copy cat again and the context of the fossil fuel advocacy and industries and its been adopted and make it is problematic from our point of view and one last thing with the concentrated effort and not happening but where legislature saying we have a problem in the state and we saw with the antisharia laws and competitive International Law<\/a> and that was really no problem and the issue had no basis at all and had no bearing on u. S. 308 seizure disorders or u. S. Laws and yet that was intended to attack the idea that even though legislature and faith coaches were not really adopted or looking at internags that will law for competitive law but yet seeing the movement and particularly looking at other muslims in particular who have seen as a threat after 9 1 service apart of it. Those legislative initiatives were organized cpi and organized by aleck and ask you provide and provide the legislative processes with the copy cat and bring supporter and connect them with businesses and make that influence. These are not something that are unrelated. I want to stop you because theres a lot we can cover and i want to mention a few other things to talk about in our discussion is that the same resection we see in other areas and media restrictions and penaltyization of active as i mentioned and these are all with the protest law. Last night we heard that incredible presentation about prisons and thinking about ac ss and substantial involvement in the International Coalition<\/a> of the penalty and weve been doing it in the last couple of years and talk about how the criminal legal system plays a role in attacking the marginalized community. Absolutely. This goes back to connecting what greg was talking about in original sin of of the constitutional legal system and forcing them into denying their basic human rights of day one and not only the people of enslaved africans and Indigenous People<\/a> and coming into the more recent history of seeing the notions of how motivation of different legislation and policies and we move from the civil war era for civil war era and jim crow and post jim crow with certain laws remain on the books that allowed the disenfranchisement of certain people and Voting Rights<\/a> and the disenfranchisement franchisement laws are a huge impedment to millions of americans with the right to vote and over 5 million i believe the number is. The fact that we have not abolished what we call the the provision in our constitution and federal constitution and state and abolish slavery in their constitutions. Whats happening in mass incourse ration and resulting from the narrative and the describing of the reality that there should be laws that would be fighting crime laws in in being tough on crime and had a particular singling out marginalized computer particularly black and brown communities had dire consequences. Weve seen that continuing and thats why people are not just talking about performing some of the laws like mandatory minimums or like abolishing the Death Penalty<\/a> we know is racist and arbitrary and tiers of wrongful convictions and all of these problems but its were talking about systemic changes that need to be made, particularly in the way that we have seen the criminal legal system being root causes weve not really addressed and not reckoned with the root causes. How do we move from that system to system that really values peoples Human Dignity<\/a> and rights, invest in communities, not in police, policing and then cursory system. Not in punitive but more other alternatives to ways of doing justice. All these things are so important and they have and International Echo<\/a> chamber. We seen at the Human Rights Council<\/a> the summer 2020 because of the cult the families of victims of Police Violence<\/a> in the United States<\/a> including George Floyds<\/a> family, a call for the u. N. And the International Community<\/a> to look at extrajudicial killing a black americans and systemic racism and the crackdown on antiracism protesters. And that led to even though the use of the time under the Trump Administration<\/a> vigorously opposed and rejected the notion that the u. S. Would be singled out for an international investigation, it gathers other former colonial powers, back to the point about the role of colonialism to present day, former colonial powers doing the bidding for the United States<\/a>, like uk and australia and new zealand and canada joining as well, and the eu, and pushing back and said no, no, no, no. This is not u. S. Problem. This is world phenomenon. Its not an issue just for the u. S. Here and push for moving away from using the moment of the black lives Matter Movement<\/a> calling out the u. S. And doing something that havent been done and should have been done since the boys appealed to the world in 1947 where he called on the u. N. To do what it promised to do, that is to address human rights issues. The u. S. Since thinking 4748, declaration, we have really, that is actually true to both democrats and republicans. We have as a country denied the idea of implementing International Human<\/a> rights in the United States<\/a> because it was again seen as a framework that would expand rights, provide marginalized communities with the basic human rights that the constitution did not provide. We only have marvels answer. We just have a little over ten minutes left what im going to do is im waiting for shouldnt a given set it. It happens. Let me throw a jump ball question to you folks and then take some of the questions from the audience. Talk a a little bit about effs of authoritarians or would be authoritarians for the independence of in captured courts, the import of independent judiciary. Can a jump in here . Because i think it follows on what jamila was saying. My family is from argentina and i very well could have grown up there but for brutal dictatorship. If you go back to the 1970s, the courts were quite irrelevan irrelevant. The right look to the military to protect property. The left went to the politics of the street, to the bush, two insurgencies, and it was later at the end of the 1980s after democracy returned, the beginning of the 1990s the same thing happened in postapartheid south africa and later a whole nother wayfair of involved in the 2010 kenyan constitution and now in the chilean process. But this was the idea that constitutions could be transformative. Its called transformative constitutionalism or new social constitutionalism. Those constitutions were very different from the former ones that were like ours was very austere sets of rights. They incorporated socioeconomic rights. They incorporated International Human<\/a> rights law to different degrees, sometimes directly io the text. That set up a very different role for courts. I think of judicial and defense as to things. Judicial autonomy for how politics influences the courts, both preappointment and then how beholden judges are after appointment, and authority or scope of jurisdiction, how the courts influenced society. And in both of those that sort of a two by two analysis, this changing constitutionalism really change the relationship between courts and society. Again im not claiming latin america is a paradigm of the rule of law by any stretch of imagination but it was absolutely critical for allowing what jamil to talk about this recursive influence that is back to a International Law<\/a> in form, not top ten dictate, but inform broader dialogues, taking reasons seriously, thinking about things in a way that may be catholics all schools didnt allow them to do. That is what has allowed progress on the issues that i talked about first on samesex marriage, on civil unions, on abortion and other issues of reproductive justice. We just saw the green wave and sever the most populous countries in the region through legislation in argentina but the judicial opinions in mexico and colombia and further in other countries. So that has been extremely important that recursive relationship between international and National Constitutional<\/a> law that is as jamil said is somewhat very much more blocked and constrained here unless we think about in a different way. I do what you shortchange our audience which estimate some good questions. Im going to switch to that. Professor, how are you and other historians trying ensure people still learn the history in situations in which resistance might not be fully successful, how should lawyers and law professors think about that challenge . This is such a great question. I mean, how do we fight back against the current restriction on honest teaching of history this is an issue as you know at the state level in many different states. It is an issue in k12 education but also in higher education. And in illinois, for example, its not an issue at the state level where security enhanced of a Democratic Legislature<\/a> and governor that as in some certain counties and School District<\/a> levels. And so no, i dont have a single answer to this. The American Historical Association<\/a> which is a largest professional association of historians is doing what he can as a Nonpartisan Organization<\/a> to respond when people in states that are under threat ask for them to come in and kind of write a letter or lobby and say heres what our profession understands to be good history teaching on an individual state by state level know educators are coming together to push back against these laws. My sense from reading reporting on this is some of the organizations that are pushing for these laws are loud but small, mom for liberty, these organizations dont necessarily represent the majority of people in their communities but they are very well organized. We need to look at this at every level. I have been flummoxed by the christmas of because not in a place like a drug if you like i can do something. I know though, as shown i said last night as well, teachers and libraries are also people, that teachers have been through hell in the last years because of the pandemic. They are already underpaid in underresourced, and so anything we can do to stand behind teachers to support teachers, to put resources in hands of teachers, to create alternative curricula, and there is a lot of that going on with a gun drawn from outside of the textbooks they are required to teach. I think theres any kind of level we can think about this on and i think the question itself for the opens a door to a lot of different types of action we can take. Let me read this one and see who wants to respond. Of the return degradation of democracies is not a new phenomenon, that the historical counsel often focus on countries who did not pull out of that tailspin from myanmar germany to tunisia. What Example Community<\/a> point you to a country that did successfully regain its degrading democracy and what can we learn from that to save hours . Stumping of the panel. The panel is stumped. I would say something. A go ahead. South africa, its a growing democracy and we could have a whole panel on constitutional system in south africa. But to wrest control from the government and it created the process created what many people regard as, as the best constitution in the world. Along the what line what you talked about south africa constitution, i think constitutionalism is a key. South african constitution along with some of the more, the new constitutions, did specify what the human rights are. Instead of the broad language that we use in our constitution that you alluded to, south african constitution was very specific as to what the rights are and how they are did understood. Giving less leeway if you will to the court for interpretation. We have seen this in the past year since last june, a court can go off the rails with bizarre interpretations of basic human rights. The more detailed the constitutions are, the less likely thats going to happen with regard to high court in this country. I think thats an example. South south africa is a t example given one second. Now theyre talking about challenging the very strong Constitutional Court<\/a> which you important part of the constitution so there been tested but if they can get to it it will be marvelous. I think theyre being tested in that regard. I also think south africa points to the need to take other structural measures to dismantle apartheid. The economic disparities in south africa are horrific. They are still racialized economic disparities. So while i agree with the court and some of the most amazing jurisprudence, one my favorite quotes i always use in class is from the first president of course you said isnt the function of constitutional justice to convert misfortune to be endured to an justice to be remedied. I think in south africa just as here we need to start to think more broadly about what are the kinds of economic and social injustices that really required remedies. Having grown up in argentina i can say that democracy, its been very imbued into meat is not something you can ever take for granted. Something that you have to cultivate and protect and willing to go to the streets for all the time. Just what is an south africa that we know from what happened in the last decade and also the way that south africa treated migrant and refugees is a horrible way. So the issue of migration, even of african like, that was even with the best constitution that you have, those issues were really serious threats and e with the economic disparity and economic structural problems that remain. We hear it from our partner e legal resource center. So i think yes, it made huge progress and abolishing apartheid but anyways i think its also sliding on International Level<\/a> where, for example, its position on the icc, its very troubling where it was one of the champions of International Accountability<\/a> mechanism, now were seeing that they are doing some zigzagging on that which is really not really great for a country like south africa. Two minutes left side time for one more interesting question from the audience. Do liberals and progressives they are responsible for setting the conditions in which authoritarianism and fascism can take root and thrive in the United States<\/a> at a popular level . For me . You look like you want to answer. Go ahead. I mean, i wonder whether question is coming from. You know, in i think, heres what i dont know, of course to the extent that people come we could sort of always criticize liberals and progressives for not doing enough, for not fighting harder, for being complicit or subscribing to systems that are ultimately really coerces are really degrading. And yet i had a hard time right now because of the context were all talking about really emphasizing that as opposed to the need to find common cause, right, and the need to kind of come together with people with whom we share some things in common, maybe not everything in common. And to say look, we cant really afford to be terrorists about every issue right now when the house is on fire. And so i think we all can deal with some selfexamination about our own shortcomings and about the things we couldve done for the things that our allies could have done. I also think this is a time to kind of move forward and think about the ways that we need to come together, find allies, and create agendas that can really combat the crisis that we are in. So yes, and is my sort of answer to that question. Thank you so much everybody. It is very important to have this sort of panel, acas feel strongly about the connectivity between domestic and international authoritarianism and the way to contrast it and we want to continue this work. Nothing could be better than have panel like this to help us really advanced i work in this area. Thank you so much, everybody. [applause] amazing. Breakout session. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] giving you a front row seat to democracy. Now michael","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"archive.org","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","width":"800","height":"600","url":"\/\/ia800700.us.archive.org\/16\/items\/CSPAN_20230520_032300_American_Constitution_Society_Convention_on_Threats_to_Democracy\/CSPAN_20230520_032300_American_Constitution_Society_Convention_on_Threats_to_Democracy.thumbs\/CSPAN_20230520_032300_American_Constitution_Society_Convention_on_Threats_to_Democracy_000001.jpg"}},"autauthor":{"@type":"Organization"},"author":{"sameAs":"archive.org","name":"archive.org"}}],"coverageEndTime":"20240707T12:35:10+00:00"}

© 2025 Vimarsana