Posted on Mar 19, 2021
"Jim Crow in new clothes": Why Raphael Warnock's inaugural Senate speech just got a standing...
446
6
1
4
4
0
There is a long tradition of freshmen U.S. Senators delivering their maiden speech about a signature issue — but it is rare that they get a standing ovation at the end of it. That's what happened on Wednesday when the newly elected Democratic Senator from Georgia, Reverend Raphael Warnock spoke on the floor for the first time, giving an impassioned plea to guarantee voting rights around the country.
We shouldn't be surprised that Warnock would give such a memorable speech. After all, he was the pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Martin Luther King's church. One of his most important mentors was the late civil rights hero John Lewis, also from Atlanta. So he is a product of a very important American tradition and he lives up to that legacy. The Senate is immeasurably richer having someone with his passion and eloquence making the case for this important issue.
We shouldn't be surprised that Warnock would give such a memorable speech. After all, he was the pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, Martin Luther King's church. One of his most important mentors was the late civil rights hero John Lewis, also from Atlanta. So he is a product of a very important American tradition and he lives up to that legacy. The Senate is immeasurably richer having someone with his passion and eloquence making the case for this important issue.
"Jim Crow in new clothes": Why Raphael Warnock's inaugural Senate speech just got a standing...
Posted from salon.com
Tradition
United States Senate
Voting
Elections
Rights
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 1
2
2
0
I have listened to him speak a couple of times. He is an eloquent and impassioned man, and a pretty darned good orator. On that count, he is a worthy addition to the Senate.
He just happens to be wrong, here.
The solution to states screwing up - but doing so LEGALLY and Constitutionally - is not to impose federal rules to make them do things the way we want. The states have the right to run their states however they want, within the VERY broad guidelines of the Constitution. If a state is stepping OUTSIDE of Constitutional guidelines, we have the courts. We should not be creating laws at the federal level just because we don't like the laws being created at the state level. Either the laws are allowed - and should thusly stand. Or they are not, and should be attacked through the courts.
This is another example of Democrats deciding that every state has to comply with THEIR vision and creating more power in a federal government that is SUPPOSED to be very limited.
He just happens to be wrong, here.
The solution to states screwing up - but doing so LEGALLY and Constitutionally - is not to impose federal rules to make them do things the way we want. The states have the right to run their states however they want, within the VERY broad guidelines of the Constitution. If a state is stepping OUTSIDE of Constitutional guidelines, we have the courts. We should not be creating laws at the federal level just because we don't like the laws being created at the state level. Either the laws are allowed - and should thusly stand. Or they are not, and should be attacked through the courts.
This is another example of Democrats deciding that every state has to comply with THEIR vision and creating more power in a federal government that is SUPPOSED to be very limited.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google