Faith leaders urge Braun to condemn Beckwith's remarks on Three-Fifths Compromise
The Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis, a group founded as part of the Civil Rights Movement, is asking Gov. Mike Braun to condemn Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith's statement that the Three-Fifths Compromise was "a great move." The 18th century law counted an enslaved person as 60% of a free person.
The agreement made during the 1787 Constitutional Convention counted an enslaved person as three-fifths of a person when measuring states' populations for taxation and congressional representation. The measure was rendered unconstitutional in 1868 by the 14th Amendment , which granted equal protection and due process to all American citizens.
Beckwith's statements came after an emotional debate over Senate Bill 289 on April 24. The bill curbs diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, allowing people to sue publicly-funded schools or government entities if they're required to undergo trainings that use a characteristic like race or sex to blame one group of people for actions in the past.
During the debate, opponents said the bill ignores the U.S.'s historical legacy of discrimination, citing examples such as the Three-Fifths Compromise, Jim Crow laws and real estate redlining.
After Thursday's debate, Beckwith took to X to post a video that he called a history lesson for Indiana's Senate Democrats. In the clip, which is just under four minutes long, Beckwith sits on the edge of his desk and speaks directly to the camera, arguing that the Three-Fifths Compromise actually worked against slavery rather than promoting it.
"I would like to share with you, the Three-Fifths Compromise is not a pro-discrimination compromise. It was not a pro-discrimination or a slave-driving compromise that the founders made. It was actually just the opposite," Beckwith says.
The compromise gave slave states less representation than they would have had if slaves were counted as people, preventing the constitutional enshrinement of slavery, he argues.
He does not address the fact that the law increased slaveholding states' representation in U.S. Congress relative to their number of voters, making it difficult — if not impossible — to pass an amendment abolishing slavery.
In their statement condemning Beckwith's interpretation of history, members of the faith coalition demanded Braun publicly denounce the remarks, mandate that Beckwith issue a formal retraction as well as an apology and affirm Indiana's commitment to an accurate education of history.
"This language is not merely insensitive, it is an affront to human dignity and an echo of a racist ideology that sought to legitimize the inhuman treatment of Black people in America," a Friday news release from the Concerned Clergy of Indianapolis reads in part.
Beckwith — who is himself a pastor — has landed in hot water over social media activity before.
A Feb. 6 post also about Senate Bill 289, which described "taxpayer-funded race hustling," caused a stir on the Senate floor. In October 2024, during his campaign for the lieutenant governor position, Beckwith called his female election opponent a "Jezebel spirit," while in a livestreamed interview, referring to the Bible's archetypal evil woman.
Senate Bill 289 has passed through both chambers of the Indiana legislature with the House voting 64-26 and the Senate voting 34-16. It now awaits Braun's signature.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Bill to amend medically assisted suicide law draws emotional debate from Maine lawmakers
Jun. 9—AUGUSTA — A proposal to allow doctors to waive the waiting period for terminally ill patients who want to be given life-ending drugs drew an emotional debate from lawmakers in the Maine Senate Monday before it was rejected by one vote. The fate of the bill is unclear after the Senate voted the proposal down 18-17. It passed 74-64 in the House of Representatives last week and faces another round of votes in each chamber before it could be sent to Gov. Janet Mills for her signature. The bill would amend a 2019 law known as the Death with Dignity Act, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Maine. It allows certain terminally ill patients to have the option to receive life-ending medication so they have control over their death. Maine's law currently requires a 17-day waiting period from when a person requests the medication to when they can receive the prescription. The change under consideration, LD 613, would allow a doctor to waive all or a portion of the waiting period if they determine it would be in the patient's best interest. Mills supported the original Death with Dignity Act, but it's unclear if she would support the change. Spokespeople for the governor did not respond Monday to questions about whether she has taken a position on the bill. The proposal allowing for the waiting period to be waived drew emotional debate from lawmakers who spoke about how they've personally been affected by illness and death. "This is not an abstract issue for me," said Rep. Kathy Javner, R-Chester, who has metastatic breast cancer, during last week's House debate. "I am living this reality and stand before you today, not in despair, but in hope that we can preserve the dignity and meaning of life, even in the shadow of death." Javner, who was against the change, said removing the waiting period would take away the time that families and physicians currently have to reflect and consider alternative options. "Let us not respond to suffering with surrender," Javner said. "Let us respond with compassion, with presence, with resources for pain management, with palliative care, with love." Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart, R-Presque Isle, talked about his mother, who died at age 50 from colorectal cancer, during Monday's Senate debate. Stewart said his mother "broke out" of hospice care in order to be at home with her family at the end of her life. "I will always be grateful for that extra month we got," Stewart said. "I worry about the scenarios about what if they don't get it right and what opportunities are we forestalling through this," he added. "This was the promise that was made originally with this policy, that there wouldn't be that knee-jerk opportunity because of this protection." Maine is among 10 states and Washington, D.C., where physician-assisted suicide is legal for people with terminal illnesses, according to Death With Dignity, an organization in Portland, Oregon, that advocates for the laws as a means of improving how people with such diagnoses die. Waiting periods for medication vary state to state and can range from one day to more than two weeks, according to Death With Dignity. Some states do allow waiting periods to be waived if the patient is unlikely to survive. Maine's Death with Dignity Act has been used by 218 people since it was enacted, according to Michele Meyer, D-Eliot, the sponsor of LD 613. But another nine people have died during the waiting period because their illnesses progressed too rapidly, Meyer said last week. She said the bill does not change the law's criteria that the patient be terminally ill with a six-month prognosis confirmed by two doctors and that they have the capacity to make informed decisions. "This is simple and straight forward," Meyer said. "It corrects a rare situation that never should have existed in the first place. Some of us will not know the gift of a long, healthy life. ... Medical aid in dying offers decisionally capable adults an option to avoid prolonged suffering." In the Senate Monday, Sen. Tim Nangle, D-Windham, talked about his father's lung cancer and the pain he suffered. Nangle said he didn't know if his father, who lived in another state, would have used the Death with Dignity Act, but he said the option for the time waiver should be there. "This is about their choice," Nangle said. "What do they want to do?" Copy the Story Link
CNBC
17 minutes ago
- CNBC
'Collateral damage': Fund managers lobby Congress over Section 899 to avert foreign investors leaving the U.S.
American fund managers are lobbying Congress over a provision tucked inside President Donald Trump's tax bill that they say could lead to foreign investors "quickly" pulling investments out of the U.S. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act," which passed through the U.S. House of Representatives in May, aims to penalize foreign-owned firms operating in the U.S. and that are from countries with "unfair foreign taxes" under a provision known as Section 899. It is currently being considered by the Senate. The Investment Company Institute (ICI), which represents fund houses in the U.S., is lobbying Congress for an amendment as it warns the bill in its current form also impacts most foreign investments in U.S. stock markets, according to documents seen by CNBC. "In order to avoid the impact of section 899, portfolio investors are likely to retreat quickly from US equities, leading to capital outflows from the United States," the ICI said in a letter sent to Senator Mike Crapo, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, on June 5. "If sustained selling by foreign investors depresses US equity markets, this would harm both US companies and investors." Section 899 aims to introduce retaliatory tax measures against entities from countries that have levies such as the Digital Services Taxes and the OECD's global minimum tax rules. If signed into law, it could impact investors from the European Union, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Switzerland, among others. The tax would start at 5% and escalate by five percentage points annually to a maximum of 20%, on top of existing taxes, which vary by country and tax treaties. That could dent returns for foreign investors in U.S. equities. In the letter, the ICI also suggests that the U.S. fund management industry, which has collectively invested around $18 trillion in U.S. stock markets, would be "collateral damage" due to the impact of Section 899. "We do believe, however, that the current drafting of proposed section 899 should clarify its scope and avoid discouraging foreign investment in US equity markets through 'investment funds' such as US mutual funds and ETFs and their foreign counterparts (e.g., UCITS funds)," the ICI said. The letter to Senators goes on to say, "section 899 would penalize these funds and their shareholders by taxing passive income from US equity investments. To this end, investment funds would be collateral damage to the intended focus of section 899." Funds typically charge fees as a percentage of assets under management, and a withdrawal by foreign investors, over Section 899 concerns, could lead to lower earnings for the investment management firm. The Senate Finance Committee declined to comment, and Senator Mike Crapo's office did not respond to CNBC's request for comment. Foreign investors own $19 trillion in the U.S. stock markets, $7 trillion in U.S. government bonds, and $5 trillion in U.S. credit, according to data compiled by Apollo Global Management. The ICI said it's largely in support of the U.S. government's attempt to "protect US business interests overseas and to address discriminatory foreign taxes." However, it cautions that the current draft of the bill does the opposite. "Some foreign governments may actually cheer this capital flight from the United States because it benefits their local equity markets, which is not the behavioral incentive that Section 899 seeks to achieve," it said. Yuri Khodjamirian, chief investment officer for Tema ETFs, said investors in Europe who are focused on dividend-distributing U.S. companies would be "thinking quite carefully" about their holdings at this stage. "If suddenly you have to pay tax on that income, why would you hold that?" Khodjamirian questioned. Tema ETFs runs the American Reshoring ETF that is available to both U.S. and foreign investors. Tax experts suggest earnings paid out to foreign investors are more likely to be hit by Section 899 than capital gains and other methods of shareholder distributions. The Tema ETFs investment chief cautioned that the impact on the U.S. equities market would be relatively minimal as U.S. companies, say in the S&P 500, are typically not known for their dividends. "In the US, dividend yields are quite low. There's not a lot of companies paying. And most of the capital gets returned to share buybacks," Khodjamirian told CNBC. "Is that actually going to be that big of an issue then?"
Boston Globe
31 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump's latest manufactured crisis has Los Angeles in its grip
Advertisement And it's hard to imagine them voting to trample local local enforcement. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up But then this administration has been just spoiling for a confrontation — especially in Los Angeles, with presidential advisers like And the president threw gasoline on the fire. Even as more demonstrators took to the streets, Advertisement Now there is no excuse for violence on the streets of any American city — and burning Waymo robot-driven cabs is hardly a good image for those with legitimate concerns about tactics used by immigration forces. The initial demonstrations were touched off by immigration raids at a garment factory and But throughout the weekend there was also no evidence that state and local police were incapable of dealing with the situation without the unasked-for federal intervention. In fact, some These are not the LA riots of 1992 in the wake of the verdict acquitting police officers of beating a Black man, Rodney King. Some Trump has long been the master of the manufactured crisis — the kind he has repeatedly used to justify broad use of executive powers. The president had barely finished taking the oath of office, when he declared a crisis at the border, requiring an Then there was the declaration of an equally nonexistent In April, with the Advertisement But by calling out the National Guard in California, on his own initiative and under false pretenses, Trump has entered new and more dangerous territory. 'The people who are causing the problems are bad people, they are insurrectionists,' Trump The president has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act but instead is using a section of the US Code on Armed Services ( That certainly explains Trump's escalating rhetoric and that of his administration, but it is an allegation that at the end of the day would have to be proven in court. 'Federal law enforcement officers were attacked by violent radicals and illegal criminals waving foreign flags because Governor Newsom was too weak to protect the city,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt Those 'foreign flags' were evidence not of an 'invasion' but for many Mexican-Americans in LA, But for this administration there is no detail that can't be used to distort the truth. 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion,' Advertisement Sure, Trump has long had it in for California, threatening to But the truly horrifying thing about Trump's current move is that it could happen to each and every state in the nation — or, more likely, to each and every Democratic state, especially when truth is so irrelevant to the Trump administration and facts are so fungible. The other danger is that having normalized the deployment of troops during manufactured crises, Trump will feel empowered to use them in even more forceful or aggressive ways if and when the nation faces actual crises. California's political leaders will not be fighting this battle on behalf of the rule of law alone. It's our fight too, and it won't be the last. Editorials represent the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us
