The Congress of Racism 1866

"The Congress of Racism 1866"

Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General

With all of the talking heads in overdrive about Confederate flags

and other irresistible topics for the big media boys and girls,

it's useful to put the magnifying glass on each Congress

for perpetuating racism smack dab in the midst of Federal laws

even now codified in the U.S. Code.

Cases in point: 42 USC 1981 and 1982:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981

the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1982

the same right ... as is enjoyed by white citizens

Gee, and you thought at least one Congress

might have repealed such repugnant comparisons

long before now?

WRONG!

The very origins of federal citizenship do

prove that the Congress of 1866 intended

to treat freed blacks differently -- by creating

a federal municipal franchise domiciled in D.C.:

http://supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/citizenship.for.dummies.htm

http://www.supremelaw.org/authors/mitchell/comments.on.citizenship.for.dummies.htm

Forget equal protection: this cunning distinction is all about

maintaining two classes -- not equal, and not separate either!

And so, as the wagging tongues out-duel each other

in relevant and contemporary rhetoric, try to remember

that Congress could have proposed a much simpler solution:

after slavery was finally outlawed by the Thirteenth Amendment,

Congress could and should have allowed those Americans

to declare themselves States Citizens -- by registering as such

with their County Courts of general jurisdiction.

Do ya think a committee of bureaucrats could have designed a

form to facilitate same? Do ya think?

Occam's Razor: the simplest solution is always the best solution.

Don't expect Congress to propose simpler solutions

any time soon, however, because the majority of

federal lawmakers started their legal careers as

attorneys, and there's piles of money to be made

from extraordinarily complex legislation, and regulation,

like the Internal Revenue Code and its implementing rules

-- all growing by leaps and bounds.

Heck, we've even reached an historical high water mark,

now that both Houses of Congress routinely vote

on proposed laws without even reading them beforehand!

Didn't that lunatic from San Frantasia recently say

that she would read the law only after it was enacted?

"Mirror, mirror, on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?"

You know the nation is facing hard times when

narcissism saturates the Capitol Rotunda.

To ATTORN is to supervise the transfer of an estate

from the old lord to the new lord: it is a term from

feudal law, circa the Middle Ages.

Sincerely yours,

/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.

Private Attorney General, 18 U.S.C. 1964

http://supremelaw.org/support.guidelines.htm (Policy + Guidelines)