NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — A panel at the Conservative Political Action Committee on Republican minority outreach exploded into controversy on Friday afternoon, after an audience member defended slavery as good for African-Americans.

The exchange occurred after an audience member from North Carolina, 30-year-old Scott Terry, asked whether Republicans could endorse races remaining separate but equal. After the presenter, K. Carl Smith of Frederick Douglass Republicans, answered by referencing a letter by Frederick Douglass forgiving his former master, the audience member said “For what? For feeding him and housing him?” Several people in the audience cheered and applauded Terry’s outburst.

After the exchange, Terry muttered under his breath, “why can’t we just have segregation?” noting the Constitution’s protections for freedom of association. Watch it:

ThinkProgress spoke with Terry, who sported a Rick Santorum sticker and attended CPAC with a friend who wore a Confederate Flag-emblazoned t-shirt, about his views after the panel. Terry maintained that white people have been “systematically disenfranchised” by federal legislation.

When asked by ThinkProgress if he’d accept a society where African-Americans were permanently subservient to whites, he said “I’d be fine with that.” He also claimed that African-Americans “should be allowed to vote in Africa,” and that “all the Tea Parties” were concerned with the same racial problems that he was.

At one point, a woman challenged him on the Republican Party’s roots, to which Terry responded, “I didn’t know the legacy of the Republican Party included women correcting men in public.”

He claimed to be a direct descendent of Confederate President Jefferson Davis.

The panel continued to be racked in controversy, as an African-American audience member repeatedly challenged the racism on display at this event. CPAC is the marquee conservative conference of the year, with speakers ranging from former Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney to Senator Marco Rubio.

Earlier today, the Maryland House voted 82-56 to repeal the death penalty in that state. As the bill passed the state senate earlier this month, it is now virtually certain to become law. Repealing the death penalty is a top priority for Gov. Martin O’Malley (D).

Maryland is the sixth state in as many years to eliminate death sentences. As ThinkProgress recently explained, this trend away from the death penalty has constitutional implications. The Eighth Amendment forbids “cruel and unusual punishments,” so the death penalty stands on weaker footing nationwide as it becomes increasingly more and more “unusual.”

NATIONAL HARBOR, Maryland — Nearly three years ago, future Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) gave a series of interviews where he explained his opposition to federal bans on private race and gender discrimination. In short, Paul believes that “private ownership” should trump civil rights, and thus business owners should be free to discriminate.

Paul now appears to have company in his opposition to civil rights. In an exclusive interview at the Conservative Political Action Conference, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA), a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Broun told ThinkProgress’ Scott Keyes that a federal law protecting LGBT Americans from employment discrimination is unconstitutional. And he strongly suggested that all federal employment laws violate the Constitution:

KEYES: One of the issues that the Senate’s now looking at is the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, whether or not it should be illegal for a company to be able to fire someone for being gay. Do you have a sense on where you stand on an issue like that?

BROUN: I believe that the federal government should be doing what the Constitution says it should be doing. Following what our founding fathers meant for us to do. These issues should be dealt with on the state basis. When we inject the federal government with things it should not be doing, we create this huge federal government that is spending money it should not be spending. [...]

KEYES: Do you think the federal government should even have a role in anti-discrimination laws at all, at least as it pertains to employment?

BROUN: I think the federal government should be doing only what the Constitution says it should be. We don’t have authority under the federal Constitution to have a big federal criminal justice system. I want to see us to shrink the federal criminal justice system, let the states prosecute these types of laws. We’re spending money we shouldn’t be.

At this point, Keyes asked Broun to clarify whether his statement that anti-discrimination issues “should be dealt with on the state basis” also applies to race and gender discrimination, but a staffer accompanying Broun insistently cut off the interview.

Listen:

There are a number of factual errors in Broun’s answer. Typically civil rights suits are civil, not criminal, matters, for example, so declaring federal civil rights laws unconstitutional would do very little to “shrink the federal criminal justice system.”

Most importantly, his reading of the Constitution flat wrong. The Constitution gives Congress broad authority to regulate the national economy — in the Constitution’s words, the power to “regulate commerce . . . among the several states” and to “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution” its power over the nation’s commerce. While segregationists did indeed claim that this power does not extend to discrimination by local businesses in the 1960s, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected these arguments.
Read more

On November 30, 2012, what began as a routine police drug patrol in Cleveland, Ohio ended in an unauthorized 59-car police chase in which 137 shots were fired and two unarmed individuals were left dead. The department-wide malfunction has prompted an investigation by the Department of Justice into the city police department’s use of excessive force and the “the adequacy of CPD’s training, supervision, and accountability mechanisms.”

In spite of a police policy that no more than 2 vehicles be involved in a chase, more than 59 vehicles joined the pursuit “without the sector supervisor’s knowledge or permission,” according to a state investigation of the incident. The chase began after a car pulled over for a turn signal violation drove away, and was later identified by several other officers driving at a high speed. Due to faltering communication, and the misimpression that the individuals were armed and fired a shot, the incident escalated until one-third of the police department had joined the chase.

During the pursuit, many of the officers had not followed instructions about switching their radios to the main communications channel and therefore did not hear orders to discontinue the chase. In a state report investigating the incident, officers described a scenario in which bullets were flying all around them, several officers had not put on their bullet-proof vests and one described it as the “scariest thing that I’ve seen in my whole life.”

They had also requested other means to stop the suspect, including spike strips to halt the car, and aviation support. However, neither of these resources were available to the officers. The state report describes the incident:

What you have just heard is a tragedy — a tragedy for Timothy Russell, a tragedy for Malissa Williams, and a tragedy for their families. This has also been very tough for each of the law enforcement officers involved. [...]

The large number of vehicles involved contributed to a crossfire situation at the pursuit’s termination that risked the lives of many officers. It is, quite frankly, a miracle that no law enforcement officer was killed.

Clearly, officers misinterpreted facts.

They failed to follow established rules.

However, by failing to provide the adequate and necessary structure and support, the system, itself, failed the officers.

Police officers have a very difficult job. They must make life and death decisions in a split second based on whatever information they have in that moment. In a situation like this, they are under tremendous stress. But, when you have an emergency, like what happened that night, the system has to be strong enough to override subjective decisions made by individuals who are under that extreme stress.

Policy, training, communications, and command have to be so strong and so ingrained to prevent subjective judgment from spiraling out of control. The system has to take over and put on the brakes.

On November 29, 2012, the system failed everyone.

In announcing the investigation, DOJ Civil Rights Division head Thomas Perez made clear that the investigation is civil, not criminal, looking at system-wide reform of a department that has facilitated violent and uncoordinated practices. Poor practices like these can lead to over-policing of drug and other crimes and end in more violence than that they are trying to prevent. Just this week, New York Police Department officers shot dead 16-year-old Kimani Gray in a controversial incident in which witnesses have said he was unarmed.

MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough tore into Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) for claiming on Thursday, during a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee, that a ban on assault weapons is unconstitutional, calling the argument ignorant and asking if the Harvard-educated lawmaker is illiterate.

Cruz made the comments moments before the Senate committee advanced Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-CA) proposed ban on military-style weapons to the full Senate and rudely lectured Feinstein on Second Amendment jurisprudence, likening restrictions on guns to censoring books under the First Amendment.

On Friday, the Morning Joe host explained that Cruz’s argument misinterpreted “what the Second Amendment says and what Scalia, Thomas, and the conservative court said in 2008 about what the Second Amendment is and what it is not”:

SCARBOROUGH: Did they teach Ted Cruz to read what the Supreme Court said? Especially in the landmark, the landmark decision regarding Second Amendment rights over 200 years was written in 2008? I’m just wondering why would he use his seat on the Judiciary Committee if he went to Harvard to — to — to put forward a willfully ignorant statement about this bill violating the Second Amendment, because it does not. And Ted Cruz knows it does not. So who is he playing for? Is he playing for — for — for people who can’t read, for illiterates? I don’t understand…. When you’re condescending and you don’t even have the facts right. When you’re misstating what the Second Amendment says as interpreted by the conservative court, by Scalia. I have a problem with that.

Watch it:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Indeed, to quote Justice Scalia’s decision in the landmark 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” The ruling also allows limitations on ownership of “dangerous and unusual” weapons that are not in “common use” — like, for example, assault weapons.

Both houses of the Colorado legislature have passed a package of gun violence prevention measures, including a measure to limit ammunition magazines. While a universal background checks measure is still pending in a conference committee, passage of the four bills would mark a significant step forward for a state whose gun reform movements have stalled even though the state has been the site of several of the deadliest and most high-profile mass shootings. Reuters reports:

The most controversial of the bills that are now headed to the desk of Democratic Governor John Hickenlooper is a ban on ammunition magazines with more than 15 rounds, which the governor said he will sign into law. […]

Other bills included in the package of gun-control laws approved by Colorado lawmakers included a measure to make firearm buyers pay for their own background checks and a ban on online certification for concealed-carry permits, both of which Hickenlooper has said he supports.

Another measure would bar gun purchases by people convicted of domestic violence crimes. Hickenlooper had previously said he was undecided about that until he could see the final version.

One remaining gun-control measure to require background checks for all firearms transfers was sent to a conference committee on Wednesday, so that both chambers could hash out differences between the Senate and House versions.

The proposals that won final approval on Wednesday had received little Republican support.

The measure limiting ammunition sales is already prompting backlash from conservative legislators, who said a day after its passage that they will move for a 2014 ballot initiative to repeal the law.

In January, New York became the first state to enact comprehensive legislation in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. But in spite of public opinion that is shifting toward support for universal background checks and other sensible gun violence prevention measures, several states including Wyoming, South Dakota, Kansas, Tennessee, Texas, and Arizona have actually moved to relax firearms laws since the Newtown tragedy, while others are pushing unconstitutional nullification measures claiming to thwart federal attempts to take away guns.

At age 4, Emily Ruiz was detained for more than 20 hours and deported to Guatemala for months, although she is a U.S. citizen. Now at 6 years old, her family filed a lawsuit that claims Emily has suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder.

Her case is part of 10 lawsuits filed by immigration groups against Customs and Border Protection. Reports of Border Patrol abuse are widespread, but in cases where lethal force is used, criminal charges against agents are extremely rare.

The complaints allege unlawful mistreatment and discrimination at the hands of agents:

1. 4-Year-Old Emily Ruiz, A Citizen, Deported And Mistreated While Detained

The lawsuit describes the difficult conditions Emily was subjected to for the 20 hours of her detention: She was put in a cold room with her grandfather, without bed, blanket or pillow so that her only option was to nap on the floor. Emily received nothing but a cookie and a soda for the duration, and was deprived of contact with her parents for over 14 hours. Throughout the day, she “had bouts of hysterical and prolonged crying.” When the agent spoke to her parents, who are undocumented, the lawsuit alleges an agent told them he could not send Emily home to “illegals” and threatened to send her an adoption center. Upon her return, Emily was diagnosed with PTSD.

2. 63 Year Old Suffered Stroke

63-year-old Elizabeth Takem-aishetu suffered a stroke while detained. She was traveling home by bus to New York when an agent boarded the bus and picked her out for questioning. She claims she was held for hours without food and water and was denied use of a bathroom. Forced to sit in her urine-soaked jeans, she had a stroke that continues to affect her.

3. Naturalized Citizen Subjected To ‘Citizenship Checkup’

Lucy Rogers, a naturalized U.S. citizen who works as a medical interpreter for immigrant farmworkers, says she was pulled over for a “citizenship checkup.” An agent arrested her and the two farmworkers she traveled with, suspecting she was trafficking undocumented immigrants. She was held for hours and her car GPS was seized.

4. Woman Forcibly Thrown To Ground

An American citizen alleges she was “forcibly thrown” to the ground, after she crossed to the Mexican side of the border for 15 minutes to pick up keys. The agent allegedly grabbed her, threw her to the ground, and handcuffed her “so tightly that the fire department later had to be summoned to cut the handcuffs.”

5. Four People Thrown In Freezing Holding Cells

Four immigrants crossing the border were detained and claim they were put in freezing holding cells. Their lips and fingertips turned blue, and one woman’s face hurt and peeled. They were given no access to a shower or blanket, and had a single thermos they could share.