Shirley Chisholm – A Black Woman Who Ran For President – By Dr. Dhanpaul Narine

Shirley Chisholm – A Black Woman Who Ran For President – By Dr. Dhanpaul Narine

Before Hillary there was Shirley and before her there was Victoria. There were five women who ran for President of the United States, each making an impact chisholmin a unique way.

The first was Victoria Woodhull who ran in 1872. She fought for civil rights and social welfare.

She announced in 1870 that she was running because of the prejudice that existed against women. She picked Frederick Douglass as her running mate. Woodhull was arrested on obscenity charges and that was the end of her campaign. She was, however, the first person to print Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto in the United States.

In 1940 Gracie Allen from the ‘Surprise Party’ ran for President. She received some ‘write-in’ votes but her candidacy petered out. Linda Jenness ran on a socialist platform in 1972 and received 83,000 votes while Jill Stein picked up over 400,000 votes in 2012 campaigning on a ‘green’ platform. 

But one candidate in the quintet that continues to excite the imagination is Shirley Chisholm, the first Black woman elected to Congress and Black candidate for President. Shirley was definitely ahead of her time by taking on the establishment in her fight for ‘equal rights and economic justice.’ As voters in the United States follow the fortunes of Hillary Clinton attention is being focused on the contributions of Shirley Chisholm.

[Read more – Shirley Chisholm – by Dr. Dhanpaul Narine]


Advertisement –

New e-mail laead in for diaspora (29 Jan 16).jpg

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/16/2016 at 3:56 am

    As I see it, Hillary Clinton is on the right trail – She is aligning her campaign on her accomplishments; her contributions to the USA and those of the man who these racist Republican-Tea Party fools vowed to make a one-term President – Barack Hussein Obama. He turned out to be an exceptional President – a Good Man.

    In spite of all the obstructions these racist fools in the USA threw at him, he has accomplished much – they slowed him down just enough to convince other fools that he is a disaster. I suspect this is just another child-like tantrum grown people throw every now and then – because they can!

    Now, they are going to stop him from appointing a USA Supreme Court Judge – We will see!

    Whoever wrote “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.” speaks for me. Given his racist interpretation of the USA Constitution and the Law; the exit of the judge is fortuitous and opportune – I am glad he quit the job. Goodbye and Good riddance, I say.

  • Albert  On 02/16/2016 at 12:32 pm

    Everyone agree the system is broken. Bernie do is shouting, the young voters believe him but must know he cannot bring about real changes. Youth rebellion with no result.
    Hillary thinks she could make the system work with a few bandages.
    Now we have something of substance to bring out voters………selection of a new
    Judge for the Supreme Court.
    I think Obama should nominate the Attorney General. Loretta Lynch…..The Republicans in the Senate will block her but it will cost them.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/22/2016 at 11:10 pm

    Scalia was an intellectual phony: Can we please stop calling him a brilliant jurist?

    No one wants to disrespect the dead. But we disrespect the truth to hail his legal mind and phony, grand principles

    by Paul Campos

    George Orwell once noted that when an English politician dies “his worst enemies will stand up on the floor of the House and utter pious lies in his honour.” Antonin Scalia was neither English, nor technically speaking a politician, but a similar tradition can be witnessed in the form of the praise now being heaped on him.

    For example prominent liberal legal academic and former Obama administration lawyer Cass Sunstein has just offered the opinion that Scalia “was not only one of the most important justices in the nation’s history, he was also among the greatest.” Scalia’s greatness, Sunstein claims, “lies in his abiding commitment to one ideal above any other: the rule of law.”

    Sunstein’s assessment strikes me as not merely wrong, but as the precise opposite of the truth. Scalia was not a great judge: he was a bad one. And his badness consisted precisely in his contempt for the rule of law, if by “the rule of law” one means the consistent application of legal principles, without regard to the political consequences of applying those principles in a consistent way.

    One of Scalia’s many obnoxious qualities as a jurist was his remarkably pompous, pedantic, and obsessive insistence that the legal principles he (supposedly) preferred – textualism in statutory interpretation, originalism when reading the Constitution, and judicial restraint when dealing with democratically-enacted legal rules – were not merely his preferences, but simply “the law.”

    Given that those principles are and always have been controversial among American judges, lawyers, and politicians, insisting that they ought to control judicial interpretation as a matter of definition makes about as much sense as arguing for the desirability of, say, a particular income tax rate by claiming that the advocate’s preferred rate simply is the “true” rate (in other words it’s a nonsensical argument on its face).

    But this kind of question-begging nonsense was the least of Scalia’s judicial faults. For the truth is that, far more than the average judge, Scalia had no real fidelity to the legal principles he claimed were synonymous with a faithful interpretation of the law. Over and over during Scalia’s three decades on the Supreme Court, if one of his cherished interpretive principles got in the way of his political preferences, that principle got thrown overboard in a New York minute.

    I will give just three out of many possible examples. In affirmative action cases, Scalia insisted over and over again that the 14th Amendment required the government to follow colour-blind policies. There is no basis for this claim in either the text or history of the amendment. Indeed Scalia simply ignored a rich historical record that reveals, among other things, that at the time the amendment was ratified, the federal government passed several laws granting special benefits to African-Americans, and only African-Americans.

    No honest originalist reading of the Constitution would conclude that it prohibits affirmative action programs, but Justice Scalia was only interested in originalism to the extent that it advanced his political preferences.

    Similarly, the men who drafted and ratified the First Amendment would, it’s safe to say, been shocked out of their wits if someone had told them they were granting the same free speech rights to corporations they were giving to persons. Again as a historical matter, this idea is an almost wholly modern invention: indeed it would be hard to come up with a purer example of treating the Constitution as a “living document,” the meaning of which changes as social circumstances change. In other words, it would be difficult to formulate a clearer violation of Scalia’s claim that the Constitution should be treated as if it is “dead dead dead.”

    Finally, and most disgracefully, Justice Scalia played a key role in the judicial theft of the 2000 presidential election. He was one of five justices who didn’t bother to come up with something resembling a coherent legal argument for intervening in Florida’s electoral process. A bare majority of the Court handed the election to George W. Bush, and the judges making up that majority did so while trampling on the precise legal principles Justice Scalia, in particular, claimed to hold so dear: judicial restraint, originalist interpretation, and respect for states’ rights.

    These examples are not rare deviations from an otherwise principled adherence to Scalia’s own conception of the rule of law: they were the standard operating procedure for the most over-rated justice in the history of the United States Supreme Court.

    Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado at Boulder.

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/24/2016 at 12:11 pm

    Frank Schaeffer Explains …

  • Clyde Duncan  On 02/24/2016 at 12:14 pm

    Noam Chomsky Explains …..

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s