Ralph Boyd takes helm as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights

2020 ◽  
pp. 77-94
Author(s):  
Robert Miklitsch

The paradigmatic ’50s exposé is The Phenix City Story (1955). Phil Karlson’s film, set in Phenix City, Alabama, “The Wickedest City in America,” possesses voice-over narration and location photography like other ’50s exposés, but it also emits a vérité vibe that’s unmatched in the ’50s crime canon. What separates Karlson’s film from every other “city confidential,” not to mention syndicate picture, is its deep racial-political subtext, which, in the martyred figure of Alabama attorney general nominee Albert Patterson, evokes the pacifist, civil rights movement spearheaded by Martin Luther King Jr. Accordingly, if the anti-Communist films of the 1950s can be said to constitute what R. Barton Palmer calls a “national confidential,” The Phenix City Story not only exposes the raced political unconscious of the syndicate picture but also foregrounds its status as both a local and national confidential.


1992 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 261-272 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Robinson ◽  
Billie Morgan Allen ◽  
Yohannan T. Abraham

Since the mid-1980s, affirmative action plans (AAPs) have come under ever increasing criticism. Many detractors argue that AAPs serve no purpose other than to veil thinly reverse discrimination against whites. In the twenty-five years since the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, critics contend that substantial progress has been made in the area of equal opportunities for women and minorities and that affirmative action plans now have outlived their usefulness. Additionally, it is argued that affirmative action has created an employment spoils system in which people who actually never have experienced discrimination are reaping benefits at the expense of white males.1 This shift in public opinion was sufficiently strong in 1985 to encourage then Attorney General Edwin Meese to call for an amended Executive Order which would eliminate the “quota system,” referring to AAPs.2 President Reagan, however, did not amend the Executive Order and affirmative action remained throughout his administration and into the next.


1963 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 24-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donald R. Matthews ◽  
James W. Prothro

The vote is widely considered the southern Negro's most important weapon in his struggle for full citizenship and social and economic equality. It is argued that “political rights pave the way to all others.” Once Negroes in the South vote in substantial numbers, white politicians will prove responsive to the desires of the Negro community. Also, federal action on voting will be met with less resistance from the white South—and southerners in Congress—than action involving schools, jobs, or housing.Such, at least, seems to have been the reasoning behind the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, both of which deal primarily with the right to vote. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy and his predecessor, Herbert Brownell, are both reported to believe that the vote provides the southern Negro with his most effective means of advancing toward equality, and recent actions of the Justice Department seem to reflect this view. Many Negro leaders share this belief in the over-riding importance of the vote. Hundreds of Negro registration drives have been held in southern cities and counties since 1957. Martin Luther King, usually considered an advocate of non-violent direct action, recently remarked that the most significant step Negroes can take is in the “direction of the voting booths.” The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, historically identified with courtroom attacks on segregation, is now enthusiastically committed to a “battle of the ballots.” In March, 1962, the Southern Regional Council announced receipt of foundation grants of $325,000 to initiate a major program to increase Negro voter registration in the South. The Congress of Racial Equality, the NAACP, the National Urban League, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee are among the organizations now participating in the actual registration drives.


2008 ◽  
Vol 70 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael E. Solimine

In 1908 the Supreme Court held in Ex parte Young that a federal judge could enjoin a state attorney general from enforcing an unconstitutional state statute, notwithstanding sovereign immunity doctrines, which would normally bar such relief. The case was sharply criticized at the time as another example of an activist federal judiciary striking down Progressive Era regulatory legislation. Congress enacted legislation requiring that Ex parte Young injunctions only be issued by a specially convened three-judge district court. Despite the initial hostility, as has been recounted by Owen Fiss, William Ross, and other scholars, the injunctive power recognized in the case came to be regarded as a powerful and necessary tool to enforce federal civil rights laws, especially in the face of recalcitrant state authorities. In contrast, the history of the three-judge district court has received less attention and has had a different arc. During the Civil Rights era, some federal judges, particularly in the Deep South, were perceived as being hostile to the enforcement of federal law, and a three-judge court was considered by many to be a necessary tool to marginalize such judges and optimize enforcement of federal legal norms. The federal judiciary itself later questioned the court’s usefulness due to the administrative burdens of convening such courts, and the perception that their role in enforcing federal law was no longer necessary. Responding to those concerns, and over the opposition of the NAACP, Congress in 1976 sharply restricted the jurisdictional coverage of the court. The changes in the three-judge district court demonstrate the importance of appreciating the motivations and effects of Congressional regulation of the institutional structures of the federal courts and that of interest groups in influencing Congress.


1940 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
Everett S. Brown

Although much has been written on the general subject of the President's pardoning power, there is still considerable confusion concerning the use of that power for the restoration of civil and political rights to persons who have been deprived of them as a punishment for crime. Particular questions frequently raised are: What rights are lost? How are they lost? How may they be restored? That the issue is a live one is supported by the fact that in the year 1938 no fewer than 203 pardons were granted by the President to restore civil rights.The confusion on the subject is due in large measure to the complexities of our federal form of government. This was clearly noted by Attorney-General Caleb Cushing in his opinion of July 9, 1856, in the case of Oliver Robbins of Sackett's Harbor, New York. Robbins was convicted in 1851, in the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of New York, of an offense against federal law, and was sentenced to imprisonment in the penitentiary of New York. In 1852, he received from President Fillmore a general pardon.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document