It has been only a few months since the state of South Carolina was the butt of every political joke. The pundits scoffed at the inappropriateness of Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie!” outburst. The late-night comedians howled at South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford’s “I’m hiking on the Appalachian Trial” saga. Just by being from that state warranted an apology on behalf of their leaders. We here in Virginia would tell ourselves that we don’t elect buffoons to public office like they do in South Carolina. Unfortunately, it may be time for us to eat our words.
Our newly elected Gov. Bob McDonnell and his sidekick Virginia Attorney General Ken “The Cooch” Cuccinelli are quickly becoming national embarrassments.
The downward spiral for this dynamic duo began in the middle of February, just a few weeks after being sworn in. McDonnell issued a statewide executive order banning discrimination based on race, sex, age and religion for all state agencies. The order did not protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This means that McDonnell consciously decided that sexual orientation can be a factor in determining someone’s ability to perform a job.
The Cooch was quick to reinforce this state sponsored discrimination by issuing a letter to all state universities (Virginia Tech included). This letter specifically asked the universities to remove all references to sexual orientation from their anti-discriminatory policies. Supposedly, this would mean Tech could only consider homosexuals for new faculty positions — probably a far cry from The Cooch’s intentions.
That letter, coupled with the executive order that fell two words too short, sparked a national outrage. McDonnell and The Cooch were widely condemned on the national media while late-night comedians took shots at these easy targets. All of a sudden, the reputation of the Old Dominion became tainted.
As soon as McDonnell realized how unpopular his anti-gay agenda was, he backpedaled. In March, McDonnell issued a directive to all state agencies that they should not discriminate based on sexual orientation after all. However, this move was a day late and a buck short.
The damage had already been done and Virginia had become known as a place where homosexuals may not be welcome. Also, what McDonnell issued in February was an executive order while what he issued in March was an executive directive. The difference is that an executive order carries the weight of the law while a directive does not.
Apparently The Cooch didn’t think this mess made Richmond look incompetent enough. His next bold move was to file a suit against the federal government, because he didn’t like the new health care reform bill. His claim is that the individual mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional because it just is. He also pointed to a newly passed Virginia law that makes individual mandates illegal.
Unfortunately for The Cooch, every constitutional scholar says he is wasting his time. First, the Constitution allows Congress to regulate commerce. Second, the individual mandate is set up as a tax, and there are no criminal penalties for non-compliance. Third, whenever federal and state laws contradict, federal law wins because of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The Cooch was fully aware that his suit against the federal government stands zero chance of doing anything, but he filed it anyway.
A version of this article appeared in the Apr 14 issue of the Collegiate Times.
Leave a comment 60 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
Don't forget 'The Cooch' is suing the EPA's ability to regulate carbon emission as a pollutant that increases global climate change.
In my book honoring Confederate history is like Europe honoring Nazis Germany.
Reply to this Top
In my book that's an incredibly stupid statement. Not everyone America has fought can be put into the same category. The CSA did not try to take over the U.S. they tried to be independent to do their own thing and the north invaded. It's much more similar to the colonial cause during the American Revolution. To put them in the same category as Nazis is every bit as slanderous and ignorant as this article.
Reply to this Top
The Nazis and the Confederacy were both formed based on prejudice. If your answer to that is "states rights" then you were clearly educated in the South, and are extremely biased. What do you think they wanted states rights for?
Top
No the Nazis were formed as a nationalist movement at the end of WW1. They gained in popularity because of the way Germany was treated post WW1. They were about a new form of government because they were suffering at the hands of the capitalist nations in the west and feared the communists to the east. To say that the Nazis were based on prejudice is a gross oversimplification of history. Now the CSA conversely was based on the desire to be independent and separate of the U.S. Yes it was based on a fundamental disagreement over the power of the states in relation to the Federal Government. The north treated the south like a piggy bank that could be taxed at will to pay for projects they needed. There was no more prejudice in the south than there was in the north, both sides didn't think much of blacks. It's not what they fought over. To say that one most be biased if they disagree with you is an extremely elitist view. It would not surprise me in the slightest if you were a liberal.
Top
breathing emits carbon
Reply to this Top
You shouldn't let CNN do your thinking for you, Roland Martin is a blithering idiot that knows nothing about U.S. history. Your whole article is slander against the governor and I expect this level of ignorance from John Driessnack. The governor did nothing wrong with Confederate History Month stop trying to politicize history. The Civil War was not about slavery it was not relevant to Confederate History Month proclamation because here's the news flash no one was fighting for or against slavery. Some people can't admit that in today's PC climate but in 1860 no one cared about blacks except for a small minority. The north fought to maintain the union and the south fought for states rights. The whole slavery cause was invented after the fact so historians could romanticize the northern cause. You have to admit invading a country to take away freedom isn't as noble sounding as emancipation. As far as the hatred towards our governor goes feel free to leave and don't let the door hit on your ass on the way out.
Reply to this Top
"in 1860 no one cared about blacks except for a small minority"
40% of the population of the Confederacy were enslaved African Americans. I bet they cared about themselves and their family members.
You claim that the South fought for states rights. Which right were they fighting for? They were fighting for the right to have slavery. They were afraid that the Federal Government was going to abolish slavery nationwide. It is pathetic to try to claim that the slavery issue had nothing to do with the Civil War.
Reply to this Top
I was refereeing to American citizens when I was talking about opinions on slavery. You may contend that it is foolish to downplay slavery's role in the Civil War, I argue that it is ignorant to think of it as a cause. The south was fighting for state's rights it didn't have a thing to do with slavery. The south was bitter because the federal government was taxing imports and exports to pay for public works projects in New England. The entire southern economy was based on export agriculture which meant that the south was taking the brunt of the tax burden that went to benefit new england. This was the main cause the election of Lincoln brought on cause number 2 which was a lingering fear of monarchies left over from the American Revolution. This is kind of hard for us to understand today but it's importance can not be overstated. Lincoln's interpretation of the role of Federal Government was a stark contrast to the way the South viewed it and they were concerned that Lincoln would be a tyrant. This was the straw that broke the camel's back and the south left as a result.
Top
Well put, but slavery should still be on your list.
Top
Confederate Soldiers were not terrorists like some in the media are trying to portray them. The civil war was not ONLY fought about slavery. The North didn't invade the South to stop slavery. These are facts.
Confederate soldiers fought to defend their homes and states. People at that time in the South felt the bond to the state was more powerful than to the country. The majority wasn't fighting for slavery. Just look at General Lee, he didn't agree with slavery but he returned to defend his home, his state.
Though the central issue at hand was states' rights, it is hard to ignore the central theme of South Carolina's declaration of secession. South Carolina was upset/frustrated/concerned that Northern states were ignoring the constitution when it came to respecting the laws and property of the other states: returning run-away slaves. They were also upset that the Federal Government wouldn't intercede on their behalf. So yes, it was about states' rights, but the right at the forefront was slavery.
If the North was invading the South to free slaves the following wouldn't have happened. Lincoln wouldn't have proposed and then pushed through congress an amendment making slavery PERMANENT in the US. Lincoln in his famous Emancipation Proclamation would have freed ALL slaves, not just the ones in the deep South. The North invaded the South to prevent them from seceding, something that could have set a horrible precedent for future disagreements.
Top
Slavery had nothing to do with it. After the north won historians went to great lengths to try and link the Civil War and slavery together as a way to punish the south. If the war was about slavery the north wouldn't have had slaves. Abraham Lincoln and Ulysses Simpson Grant both were slave owners.
Top
Well regardless of how you see the war being caused slavery had 0 to do with Virginia getting involved. Virginia did not join the Confederacy until Lincoln started calling for soldiers to fight the south. Virginia left because they could not take up arms against the South. McDonnell was right to not include slavery in his proclamation because in Virginia it was definitely 100% not about slavery.
Top
Lincoln never owned slaves. His wife came from a slave-holding family, but he never owned them. I am not sure where you found your information, but it is incorrect.
Top
Really because I've read some books Ianni that said Lincoln had owned slaves. I have a whole stack of reading you should check out but you should definitely read "The Truth About Lincoln" changed the way I viewed the war.
Top
Mike, is that a book? Who is by? The only book by that name I can locate online is by someone named Ira D. Cardiff, about whom I can only learn that he was a religious man writing from that perspective. What does this book say about Lincoln owning slaves? I am not a Lincoln idolizer, but I have never read anything about Lincoln owning slaves. He grew up mostly in Indiana and lived in Illionis, which weren't slave states. If he had slaves they must have been through his wife, but I am not sure one can argue that because his wife's family owned them, he therefore owned them as well. I would love to be enlightened if I am wrong.
Top
Hey don't just him too harshly, for those who are incapable of independent thought CNN provides a valuable service
Reply to this Top
Great point, and if CNN is not available mindless liberals can go to MSNBC. It's obvious Eric Wood has an agenda in this article.
Top
OK, Anon...
If slavery was not, in fact, a "cause" for the Confederacy, please check out this link to a speech by Alexander Stephens, VP of the Confederacy, delivered March 21, 1861: http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?documentprint=76
Specifically, skip down to the part where it says this:
"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Response?!
Reply to this Top
Sounds just like what Abraham Lincoln himself said:
"I will say that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of Negros, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."
Top
If that's what Stephens said he was wrong. Vice Presidents aren't the most reliable source of information, I'd hate to be judged by the future generations based on the words of Dick Cheney. Think about how he discussed the Iraq War vs the truth of what actually happened.
Top
I like that Anon I'd take it one step farther and say that claiming the Civil War was about slavery is like saying Operation Iraqi Freedom was about liberating the Iraqis from Saddam. You'd find plenty of politicians to quote saying that is the reason why we're in Iraq but we know what it was really about.
Top
Fun fact Robert E Lee was not a slave owner.
Reply to this Top
Not true. Lee defintely owned slaves. Where did you get this information!? Completely untrue.
Top
It's a pretty widely known fact that Lee was not a slave owner, the fact he was documented as being against slavery in 1856 many used him as a symbol reconciliation during the reconstruction because of this. He did inherit slaves when his relatives died but he immediately freed them.
Top
Everything you learned in elementary school about the Civil War isn't necessarily accurate. Directly from the Lee Family Archives. http://www.leearchive.info/rel/index.html Now, will you please stop using this board to spew ignorance?
Top
Somebody is taking this a little personal it seems. I'll concede the point on Lee's slave ownership it still doesn't change the fact that he was one of the biggest champions for the welfare of the blacks. Many of his views more progressive than the North's. Found this out while searching only 6% of the confederate soldiers owned slaves.
Top
Actually educate yourself and read the South's Declaration of the Causes of Secession. Here, I'll make it easy for you: http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Reply to this Top
That's actually Georgia's declaration of succession not the CSA. I read it and Georgia's anger at the North seems to be mainly because they don't want to be part of a system in which the Federal Government could decide to overturn what they viewed as the state right, in this instance slavery but it could easily be about some else important to the economy. They're more upset over the principle of a ruling rather than the actual ruling. Nice try though.
Top
wikipedia: In his farewell speech to the United States Congress, (Jefferson) Davis made clear his view that the secession crisis had stemmed from the Republican Party's failure "to recognize our domestic institutions [an acknowledged euphemism for slavery] which pre-existed the formation of the Union  our property which was guarded by the Constitution."
Top
Wikipedia is not an academic source of information your argument failed before it began. Even if it wasn't wikipedia the argument is based on him meaning slavery by the phrase domestic institutions. Without seeing the quote in context I can't say whether or not he is talking about slavery.
Top
The words of Jefferson Davis to the Provisional Congress of the Confederate States of America (April 29, 1861);
"..the Northern States that prohibited African slavery within their limits had reached a number sufficient to give their representation a controlling voice in Congress, a persistent and organized system of hostile measures against the rights of the owners of slaves in the Southern States was inaugurated and gradually extended. A continuous series of measures was devised and prosecuted for the purpose of rendering insecure the tenure of property in slaves."
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/jdmess.html
In sum, the Northern States changed their mind about slavery and told us what to do...screw them, we're leaving.
The same sentiment can be clearly READ in their Declaration of Causes (for secession). Particularly Mississippi: "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. "
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html
Top
That's just politicians playing to their base. Look at what the Republican party has said in the Red States from 2001-2008 and you find equally gross distortions of fact. For the sake of argument though lets say that a politician was honest for the first time in history. There is a huge difference between succession and the war. The war was about maintaining southern independence and the north fighting to preserve the union. If the war had actually been about slavery the Union would have freed their slaves long before invading the South.
Top
Slavery was part of the reason the South seceded which then led to a war in two months. BTW, Virginia was deeply divided on secession (voted twice against it) until the first shots were fired on Ft. Sumter. Maybe that's why we still feel we were dragged into it whatever the cause. Both Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens (CSA vice president) reversed there postition about slavery AFTER the war. They stated the cause was for states' rights too
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_did_the_South_secede_from_the_Union
Top
It's widely known fact that Virginia joined the cause of southern independence when Lincoln started calling for soldiers. Virginia left because she could not take up arms against the rest of the south. The rest doesn't surprise me politicians are the dregs of society I don't care what they represent. That's why I don't put much stock in what they say. That link is this comment thread in bullet points, nice find.
Top
Executive Orders are supposed to be limited to things such as appointments, military operations, declaration of emergencies, etc. Show me where the Code or Constitution of Virginia would justify orders of this type anyway. In a sense, McDonnell is satirizing the practice of governors exerting influence where they have none by saying, "With regard to discrimination...<points to the General Assembly>...what they said. No more, no less."
Reply to this Top
Did a grad student write this or did CT drop a bunch of scrabble letters on the ground and publish that? (also someone puked on the letters)
Anyway, back to the fail. Several states have sued the Feds about Obamacare. You go on to repeat somethings you saw on cnn or read on democratic underground. You do not know anything about constitutional law so do yourself a favor and stop writing about it. If you're not careful you may just convince a six year old that you know what you're talking about. Then when they turned seven and had surpassed your knowledge of this issue, you would be quite embarrassed.
You say the suit was a waste of money, but you have no idea what Obamacare will cost the state. How embarassing for you.
I can't tell if these articles are getting dumber of if I'm just getting smarter.
Reply to this Top
Could we please agree to stop using the word "fail" as a noun?
Reply to this Top
Yes, please. along with "creeper", "sketch", "sketchy", "like, really...", and "really?? seriously??"
Top
oh i forgot to mention "that's legit" and "awkward..."
Top
Stop failing and it won't be an issue.
Top
I don’t know what disgusts me more, your ignorance or your stupidity. There is so much fail in this article it’s hard to find a good starting point.
You say that every constitutional scholar claims this bill is constitutional. If you expanded your horizons beyond the Huffington post and the Democratic Underground you would know that is an utter falsehood. Maybe it’s because I didn’t waste years of my life in law school learning how to torture the texts of documents to interpret them in new and novel statist ways, but to me the text of the constitution is pretty clear. Unlike the 2,000 page health care bill, the constitution is a measly six pages that, lucky you, any idiot can understand. I’d encourage anyone who’s curious enough to read through it. You will find that article 1, section 8 enumerates the specific powers of congress. The 10th amendment then goes on to say “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.†This simply means if a specific authority is not granted to the federal government by the constitution, that authority is by default the states or the peoples.
Reply to this Top
The same people who claim this bill is constitutional are the same people who claim that federal laws against growing medical marijuana in your home for personal consumption somehow affect interstate commerce, and are thus constitutional. I know it sounds like a joke, but I’m not making this stuff up. Just ask yourself why in 1919 a constitutional amendment was needed to prohibit alcohol, but in 1937 marijuana was banned with no constitutional amendment? The text of the constitution did not change during that time, but our attitude towards it sure did.
Is this idea of the states declaring a federal law unconstitutional really so radical? Two other great Virginians didn’t think so, including the father of the constitution. James Madison and Thomas Jefferson authored the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions in 1798, declaring the alien and sedition act to be null and void and have no force of law.
I’d love to tackle your ignorance about the War Between the States, but it’s past my bedtime. Someone else will have to address your fail.
Reply to this Top
Good lord man, you really need to check yourself. It sounds like you dozed off during intro to ConLaw class and woke up every 20 minutes to write down one incomplete, out of context snippet of something the professor said.
I'm not even trying to be rude here, but your posts are just screaming with cluelessness.
Do your self a favor, read a lot more. Instead of trying to contrive our laws and our constitution to fit your preconceived ideas about them, set the preconceived ideas aside and try actually learning. You might be surprised at what you find. You might develop the calm confidence of a learned man, and shake off the nasty arrogance that stems from feeling like you have something to prove. You might even become a lot better at arguing about this stuff - shutting people down, even, if that's what gets you off. But for f*cks sake man, you're making us all (hokies, conservatives, humans) look bad. Just stop.
Top
I don't know why you say he is making Hokies or conservatives look bad. I had actually never thought about how Alcohol prohibition required an amendment and marijuana did not. That is a prime example of how our views on the constitution have changed. I personally think that the use by the federal government of the Commerce Clause is out of control. The courts have ruled that ANYTHING a person does that COULD POSSIBLY affect the sale of goods between the states falls under that clause. The federal government can bar a family from growing crops for their own consumption (not to sell) because they want to maintain a certain national price for the goods. Their argument, the one accepted by the courts in 1941 was that since that family wasn't buying food they were affected interstate commerce and therefore fell under the scope of the Commerce Clause. Please tell me how that is right; tell me how that is what our constitution had in mind.
Top
"The courts have ruled that ANYTHING a person does that COULD POSSIBLY affect the sale of goods between the states falls under that clause."
No. They haven't. Read before you talk.
Top
Maybe it's because I did spend 3 years of my life in law school learning how to thoughtfully read and analyze our laws, but your condescending vitriol seems to reflect an a severe overestimation of your own aptitude. The Enumerated Powers clause isn't what's at issue in the debate over the constitutionality of health care reform. Even Ken Cuccinelli knows that, which you'd know if you had read his complaint. (It's a measly seven pages, I’d encourage anyone who’s curious enough to read through it.) The central issue is whether health care regulation qualifies as interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, an enumerate power expressly reserved to Congress. I suggest you make sure you have your facts straight before you go trying to belittle people. Arrogance and ignorance are a nasty combination.
Reply to this Top
To the Author of this wonderful liberal view:
Get over yourself hippie. A lot of people are very happy that the Gov brought back Confederate History Month. Get out of your liberal shell of Northern Virginia and visit the "real Virginia" as George Allen calls it. The "real Virginia" is Old South but many have forgotten that due to our stepbrothers in NoVa. We are proud of the South and all of the traditions of the South. A lot of us aren't transplants to Virginia like you must be, we have been here for 100's of years.
Reply to this Top
Apparently you aren't proud of all Southern traditions, just the pleasant ones. That's the problem here. I am from "real Virginia" and proudly so, but we can't whitewash history to suit our political purposes. Like it or not, slavery was one of the big driving forces of our history. It behooves us all to remember that, as it's legacy still affects us today.
Reply to this Top
I'm kind of embarrassed because we wasted our electoral votes on the O-man. Hopefully everyone has learned including the morons of my generation.
Reply to this Top
"The downward spiral for this dynamic duo began in the middle of February, just a few weeks after being sworn in."
"We here in Virginia would tell ourselves that we don’t elect buffoons to public office like they do in South Carolina. Unfortunately, it may be time for us to eat our words."
-- The downward spiral started when we elected the buffoon named Barack Hussein Obama II
Reply to this Top
I like to call him Barry Hussein, just like how the left called Bush W.
Reply to this Top
haha i like that
Top
I'm always amazed how things in this country tend to be completely blown out of proportion...and usually thanks to the good ole' media who seem to take immense pleasure in making mountains out of mole hills! We are a bunch of whiners who insist that no one ever be insulted. Haven't you heard the saying, "You can't please everyone"? Well, it's true. Things happen everyday that at least one of us doesn't like but newsflash...THAT'S LIFE! Everyone needs to put on their big girl/boy pants and deal with it! Grow up already!
Reply to this Top
You're right, lots of things do get blown out of proportion. Slavery isn't one of them. It was actually a big deal.
Reply to this Top
You people are a bunch of babies. I love reading a bunch of comments from moronic college kids who think they are some intellectual geniuses about politics and history.
Reply to this Top
Hey, don't blame us because you dropped out of community college.
Reply to this Top
Wait, I actually go to Virginia Tech.
Top
everyone saying this editorial is uneducated and "ignorant", please read:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/18/opinion/18rich.html?ref=opinion
the new york times doesn't publish unprofessional opinions.
Reply to this Top
That is a bad opinion article the guy is desperate to make any kind of connection. Pat Robertson said this decades ago and McDonnell accepted a check from him, that means McDonnell agrees with what Robertson said, Shut Up! I've seen Uwe Bowel movies that had a more coherent thought flow. There's a reason the Wall Street Journal is handing the times it's ass.
Reply to this Top
Great article!
And yes, it is good that every American should be forced to buy health insurance. We all need to sacrifice to the government so they can help those people who do not have jobs. For Cuccinelli to sue the federal government is out of line. We should never disagree with Washington! Why do conservatives always try to gain back rights from Washington? It is selfish.
Reply to this Top