Islamic Civilization, Amity, Equanimity and Tranquility By Abdul Karim Bangura and Alanoud Al-Nouh

Included in this preview:

• Copyright Page• Table of Contents• Excerpt of Chapter 1

For additional information on adopting this book for your class, please contact us at 800.200.3908 x501 or via e-mail at info@cognella.com

LAW, POLITICS, AND AFRICAN AMERICANS IN WASHINGTON, DC

EDITED BY ABDUL KARIM BANGURA

AND ALICE K. THOMAS

Copyright © 2011 by Abdul Karim Bangura. All rights reserved. No part of this pub-lication may be reprinted, reproduced, transmitted, or utilized in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying, microfi lming, and recording, or in any information retrieval system without the written permission of University Readers, Inc.

First published in the United States of America in 2011 by Cognella, a division of University Readers, Inc.

Trademark Notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trade-marks, and are used only for identifi cation and explanation without intent to infringe.

15 14 13 12 11 1 2 3 4 5

Printed in the United States of America

ISBN: 978-1-60927-840-3

DEDICATION

Residents of Washington, DC

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments vii

Chapter 1: General Introduction Abdul Karim Bangura

Chapter 2: Slavery Melissa Williams

Chapter 3: Reconstruction Cheryl Melody Brooks

Chapter 4: Jim Crow Ewan K. Cobran

Chapter 5: Civil Rights Kimberly Rumph

Chapter 6: Affi rmative action Teron R. Berkeley

Chapter 7: NAACP Legal Defense Fund Joram Regis

Chapter 8: National Conference of Black Lawyers Omonn James-Davis

Chapter 9: Black Entertainment and Sports Lawyers Association Shauna M. Freeman

Chapter 10: Black Lawyers for Justice Rosa Lewis

vi | contents

Chapter 11: Litigants and the Law in Washington DC Alfonz D. Ruth & Alice K. Thomas

Chapter 12: Police Keith O. Royal

Chapter 13: Lawyers Thomas E. Glover III

Chapter 14: Interest Groups Jermaine McKinnon

Chapter 15: Th e District of Columbia Court System Marvin A. Richardson

Chapter 16: Legislative Process Jonathan L. Wharton

Chapter 17: Bureaucracy Sean J. Goliday

Bibliography 239

About the Editors 247

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We, and hopefully many readers, owe gratitude to:

Professors Alvin Th ornton, Daryl Harris, Maurice Woodard and Michael Frazier, for encouraging this type of scholarship.

Professor Charles Harris, for his quiet and gentle inspiration.

Ms. Javenia Lilly, Mrs. Saphronia Drake and Ms. Brentina Taylor, for their genuine friend-ship and administrative assistance.

Th e numerous families to which we belong, for off ering their encouragement and prayers.

PART I

CHAPTER 1

General IntroductionAbdul Karim Bangura

T his is our sixth in a series of books dealing with Washington, DC (District of Columbia). Th e fi rst book, Historical Political Economy of Washington, DC, was published by University Press of America in 2000. Th e second through the fi fth

books—DC Vote: Fighting Against Taxation Without Representation, Washington, DC State of Aff airs, Washington, DC’s Challenges, Education in Washington, DC, and Social Economic Trends in Washington, DC—were published by Writers Press (iUniverse) from 2001 through 2008. All of these books are outgrowths of special seminars conducted in the Department of Political Science at Howard University. Th e present book is also a result of two Administrative Law seminars conducted at Howard University in the spring of 2007 and the spring of 2008. Th e chapters in this book are revised versions of selected papers that were presented at the seminars. Th e major foci of the chapters are on the legal challenges and triumphs of African Americans and law and politics in Washington, DC, a city whose majority population comprises African Americans. We examine the interconnection between law and politics in Washington, DC because it is vital to know the legal conditions under which the African American residents of the most powerful city in the world live, based on sound empirical evidence.

In light of the title and objective of this book, at least the following two major ques-tions emerge: (1) Why study African Americans in terms of law and politics? (2) Why examine law and politics at the local level—in this case, Washington, DC? Th e next two sections address these questions.

4 | Law, Politics, and African Americans in Washington, DC

LAW AND POLITICSTh at law and politics are intertwined is hardly a matter of dispute. In fact, in many ways, the laws which govern society have derived from varied political situations. For example, on the national level, we are reminded of the historical Brown vs. Board of Education case of 1945 in Topeka, Kansas that stemmed directly from the social issues that plagued the day. Th e Terrance Johnson case, rooted in Prince George’s County, received extensive national attention; it stands as a testament that politics continues to infl uence laws.

Th e law is a very broad topic. Th e law is a body of legitimately authoritative statements that have the power of government behind them: i.e. the military or police force. Th e law has two parts: (1) that which is written down on the books and (2) that which is practiced. Th e written part is the abstract part of the law, while what is practiced is the concrete part of the law. Laws deal with the abstract or the way things should be, not with the concrete or the way things are. Th e defi nition of law can include only that which is recognized by the authorities, since a law must go through certain procedures in order to be acknowledged, and it must imitate the concepts of right and wrong prominent in a community. Laws are authoritative rules backed by the state through threats of punishment for noncompliance. Laws are rules declared by public offi cials through the legislative process making restric-tions within a county’s borders. Laws are never neutral, since someone gains and someone loses something of value to them (Jacobs 1995:6–7).

According to Herbert Jacobs (1995:7–9), there are at least seven layers of law. Th e fi rst one is the dimension of federalism. Under federalism, three levels of law developed: (1) the national law, (2) the state law, and (3) local law. National laws are those passed by the United States Congress, state laws are those implemented by the states and ordinances are extensions of the state governments’ authority on the local level.

Th e second layer is the magnitude of pedigree. Th is involves the four sources of law in the United States. Th ese sources are (1) constitutional, (2) legislative, (3) administrative, and (4) judicial.

Th e third layer is court-interpreted law. Th is means every form of law is subject to court interpretation. Courts mostly interpret laws made by legislative institutions.

Th e fourth layer involves the functional divisions of the law. Th ese are criminal law and civil law. Criminal law leaves no room for doubt: either an accused did an act or s/he did not do it. Civil law leaves more room for doubt.

Th e fi fth layer deals with the issue of private and public law. A private law is the prod-uct of private process. A public law pertains to the institutions of government: i.e. their operations and interactions with private citizens. Public law is always made in the public arena. A private law centers on the relationships among private citizens such as commercial contracts and family disputes.

Substantive law is the sixth one. Th is involves the law in terms of its apparent substance. And the last one is law as procedure. Th e law often specifi es procedures for engaging in certain activities. If those procedures are followed, the activities are considered to be

General Introduction | 5

lawful; if not, those proceedings are considered illegal. Specifi ed procedures are not trivial in any sense. Th eir principal purpose is to provide essential protection against lawsuits. An example of this is the requirement of a permit to march in the streets.

As stated earlier, law and politics are so interwoven that the level of one predicts the outcome of the other. Th is cause-eff ect relationship has redesigned local governments. All institutions, private and public, are now involved either in making law, interpreting it, or implementing it. Th e degree of involvement varies between agencies, but it is defi nitely present in each. Th is phenomenon is not limited to specifi c areas of the nation. Major suburban jurisdictions across the nation now operate within this arena.

Th e local government (i.e. City Council) of Washington, DC is a typical case in point. Traditionally, there are three levels of all legal systems. Th ese are described by Herbert Jacob as “the outer ring, middle ring of gatekeepers, and inner ring of core institutions” (1995:10–13). Each of these rings interface on the political playing fi eld diff erently, each attempting to reach its own goal.

Th e outer ring is composed of victims of crime, criminal off enders, litigants and disputants. Th ese individuals are considered peripheral members. However, crime in Washington, DC has become a major political issue. Th us, the outer ring movement into the political agenda has become more prevalent in recent history.

Th e middle ring/gatekeepers is comprised of the police, lawyers, and interest groups. Th is group’s focus is either to help people use the law or to apply it to others. Politics is, of course, a major component at this level. However, the socio-economic makeup of the city is now playing a signifi cant role as well. Th e more affl uent an area, the lesser the number of its petty crimes with which police offi cers have to deal. Th e more infl uential an area, the more its lobbying opportunities. Individuals who stand to lose a great deal will be more vigilant to protect what they have.

Th e inner ring institutions consist of the most politically visible groups. City Council, administrative agencies and courts generally depend on the political machinery for their success or failures. Th erefore, the members of these institutions are the professional politicians. Th eir daily task is comprised of making and implementing the laws that aff ect Washington, DC residents. A large portion of their funding is generated from the city budget, and as the city develops so does its tax base.

LAW AND POLITICS AT THE LOCAL LEVELA student interested in studying law and politics will be astonished by the fact that only one text exists on the subject at the grassroots level (Bangura and Fenyo 2003). A number of bold policy initiatives, such as the right to have an abortion, Miranda warning, civil rights and consumer protection rights had started there and then found their way to a national government audience. Even Introduction to American Government courses pay scant attention to law and politics at the grassroots level. It is, therefore, apparent that

6 | Law, Politics, and African Americans in Washington, DC

the norm in Political Science is indeed to tread lightly, if at all, on the subject of law and politics at the grassroots level in our introductory courses.

Why are we teaching less about law and politics at the grassroots level when we intro-duce our students to American government? Th e answers provided by Wallin (1988:2) about why we teach less about state and local governments in general are quite relevant here.

Th e easy answer, according to Wallin, is that we are led by our textbooks. Most American Government texts designate an early chapter to provide an overview of the history and development of federalism. Little is said about the great diversity of state gov-ernment political patterns and their resultant policies. After the discussion of federalism, most texts turn exclusively to the actors, institutions, processes and policies of the national government. A few authors would tuck away near the end of their texts a chapter on local government in the United States.

In the United States, legal and political activities are often split into myriad pieces. Th e fragmentation of politics across the three levels of government—federal/national, state and local—splinters the political process in ways that fundamentally aff ect the legal system, for each level has its own core institutions responding to its own constituencies. Moreover, within each level, politics is fragmented among the core institutions because the principle of separation of powers has guided the design of government throughout the nation. Each of the core institutions in turn is fragmented into many pieces. Th e political forces underlying the making, implementation and interpretation of law are consequently often a confusing swirl of activities. Yet, available works on law and politics in the United States either examine the subject at the macro level—i.e. national or United States-wide (e.g., Friedman 1977, Jacob 1995) or investigate specifi c law cases (e.g., Stern 1976, Sobol 1991).

Th us, for several reasons, these studies are not comprehensive enough to tell the whole story. First, local ordinances, which are the product of local governments, are in one sense simply an extension of the authority of state governments, because local governments do not have their own constitutions but are chartered by state law. From a political perspec-tive, however, local ordinances should be viewed as a third set of laws (the fi rst and second being federal laws and state laws) because they are the outcome of a quite separate political process that is centered almost entirely in local interests, history and institutions. Although the scope of local law is quite limited, it is not insignifi cant. Many taxes are local, and the regulation of land use and construction is governed mostly by local ordinances. Even some criminal law emanates from local authorities.

Second, since local governments do not have their own constitutions, it is imperative to investigate just how much their ordinances conform to state constitutions and to the United States Constitution. Such an investigation will help to provide a comprehensive picture of the persistence of the institutional origins of the structure of American law, comprising the Constitution, statutes, regulations and case law.

General Introduction | 7

Th ird, legal procedures have another eff ect. Th ey are often expensive, and generally require an attorney who knows the correct legal forms. Th e complexity of the task is suggested by the numerous volumes on library shelves containing nothing but legal forms for local courts and agencies. In addition, lawyers must know the deadlines for each form and the places at which each step must be performed. Fees are required for fi ling a case in court and for using the sheriff ’s offi ce.

Finally, although fear of crime is measured on a national scale and politicians at all levels often talk about the crime problem, the police, who are major gatekeepers in the legal arena, are very much a local institution. Unlike police in other countries, American police are not centralized under the aegis of the federal government. Th ere are national police agencies, such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), but they constitute only a tiny portion of all police in the United States. Nor are police functions concentrated at the state level, although states have small police forces to patrol rural highways and to perform other specialized duties. Instead, most police departments are responsible only to the most local units of government: cities and counties. Each city possesses its own police force, which has no organizational ties to police departments in neighboring communities and is not respon-sible to a higher police authority at the state or national level. Counties also have police forces organized in a sheriff ’s department; in urban areas such county police play only a minor law enforcement role, but in rural areas they are the primary police force. Th is organizational structure produced 17,358 police and sheriff ’s departments in 1992 (Reaves 1993:4).

Th e autonomy of police departments means that there is no national or state offi cial responsible for planning police services or supervising law enforcement policy. No na-tional or even statewide strategy exists for combating crime. Likewise, no superior agency routinely supervises or even audits the work of local police departments. How well or poorly they perform is almost entirely the business of local offi cials.

Th e local character of policing in the United States is refl ected in police expenditures and staffi ng. Of the almost $31.8 billion spent on police protection in 1990, 72.3 percent was consumed by local police agencies, and city police accounted for three-fourths of that amount (Maguire, Pastore & Flanagan 1993:2). Th e federal government spent only 12.5 percent, and state governments spent only 16.3 percent of that $31.8 billion. Th e same story is told by the employment of police offi cers. In 1990, the United States employed about 800,000 police offi cers, 58 percent of whom worked for city police agencies and another 19 percent for counties, mostly policing sparsely inhabited rural areas. Th e re-maining 23 percent wore the uniforms of the state police or worked under the aegis of the various federal agencies such as the FBI, the INS, or the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) (Maguire, Pastore & Flanagan 1993:23).

Budgetary and personnel statistics, however, do not tell the entire story of the de-centralization of police power in the United States. Th e funds that pay city and county