January 17th is an important date in history. On this date in 1926, George Burns married Gracie Allen. In 1946, the United Nations Security Council held its first meeting. In 1966, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., launched his campaign for open housing in Chicago. Today we begin a weekend of celebration around his life and work. Dr. King wrote a book entitled, "Where Do We Go From Here, Chaos or Community?" I'm borrowing from him when I say: WHERE DO DEMOCRATS GO FROM HERE? NEW LEADERSHIP, NEW FACES, OR A NEW DIRECTION?

On Tuesday, November 5, 2002, Democrats lost and Republicans won. Both deserved what they got!

President Bush risked his political capital by campaigning strongly in swing races, and it paid high dividends. Democrats were divided on central issues, and were ineffective in offering an alternative and coherent vision to the Bush and Republican agenda.

Now there is a debate within the Democratic Party over what to do. How do we reconcile the conservative/moderate wing and the liberal wing of the Democratic Party? What should our message be? Should we have more strongly supported the President on taxes or more strongly opposed him? Should we have more aggressively voted for the Iraq resolution or more aggressively been against it?

Maybe the Democratic Party needs new leaders. That was Dick Gephardt's view. He said it was time for a change in leadership and stepped aside. After some wrangling over direction, and what face would lead Democrats, Nancy Pelosi of California emerged as the new Democratic Leader in the House.

However, I suggest the issue for Democrats --- and America --- is not new leadership or old leadership, and not a new face or an old face. The issue is whether we are going to continue to go in an old direction or a new direction.

In 2000, 50 million Americans voted for George W. Bush and 50.5 million voted for Al Gore. As a result --- using math I could only learn from the US Supreme Court --- George Bush won.

Most analysts said Democrats either didn't have or didn't project a coherent message. Thus, the 2002 mid-term election gave a rationale and a justification to both sides. Conservative Democrats said, "We're seen as the 'tax and spend' party." Liberal Democrats said, "We're perceived as being too much like the Republicans." As a result, each wing wants to go more and stronger in the direction they're already headed.

The strategic challenge is not, "How do we redivide the 100 million who voted?" The strategic challenge is, "How do we appeal to the 100 million who didn't vote, without completely alienating the 100 million who did?"

Personality is important. We do have to feel secure and comfortable with the people we vote for and elect. However, the present Democratic strategy is too narrow. The present strategy is to hook our wagon to a personality --- Howard Dean, John Kerry, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, Al Sharpton, or others who may emerge. But "personality" does not represent an idea or a vision big enough to cover all of the Democratic Party's constituents and interests.

"Who" is a secondary consideration. Over time, personalities will come and go. The deeper concern is to have the capacity to: (a) change the current political climate; (b) organize the broadest possible Democratic base; (c) unify the two wings of the party; and (d) do it for a very long time?

The answer is not a personality. It's not a conservative or a liberal policy. It's not a new legislative program. No, none of those things can or will accomplish the four goals. ONLY a new material RIGHT that will positively affect peoples' daily lives has the power to both maintain and expand the Democratic Party's base --- and sustain it for a very long time!

Those of you who saw the movie "Groundhog Day" will understand this illustration. "Groundhog Day" was a 1993 comedy starring Bill Murray. For 30 straight days Murray lived each day, but woke up the next morning in exactly the same place and time as the day before. In other words, he was living life on a treadmill. The Democratic Party is suffering from the "Groundhog Effect."

No matter what both wings of the Democratic Party try, they keep waking up in the same place. Liberals want Democrats to be more liberal. Conservatives want Democrats to be more conservative. But on the morning of November 6th, 2002, Democrats woke up with not enough of either.

There's a preoccupation with PARTY --- Democrats are right and Republicans are wrong. There's a preoccupation with IDEOLOGY --- liberalism versus conservatism. There's a preoccupation with POLICY and PROGRAM --- a prescription drug benefit, a patients' bill of rights, raising the minimum wage, more money for the "Leave No Child Behind" program --- all of which I support. But none of them truly represent a new direction. None of them represent the ability to bring both wings of the party together. And none of them represent an idea big enough or a vision strong enough to broaden our base and sustain it over time.

I recommend a strategy that has the broadest possible appeal for both wings of the Democratic Party; a strategy that has the best chance of energizing the 100 million non-voters; a strategy that can potentially bring young and old, middle-class and working-class, white and non-white, the educated and the less educated, the better-off and the poorest among us to the polls. It's not a message contained in a personality, a party, an ideology, a policy or a legislative program. It's a message contained in fighting for RIGHTS!

Democrats --- conservatives, moderates, liberals, progressives and populists --- believe in all the right things, they just don't believe enough. They don't believe in them enough to fight for them as RIGHTS!

At the 1948 Democratic Convention --- even though today it's mostly the Republican Party who's committed to the states' rights philosophy that dominates the House, Senate, White House and Supreme Court --- Hubert Humphrey gave Democrats the right advice. He said: "It is time for the Democratic Party to step out of the shadow of states' rights into the sunlight of human rights."

The UNION of the United States was built, rooted, and is held together by the Constitution. When Attorney General John Ashcroft tries to weaken the rights of the American people, our most fundamental appeal is not to a politician, but to our Constitution.

More positively, almost all of the major "progressive movements" in our country have been about the Constitution, either directly or indirectly --- the African American movement, the progressive tax movement, the democracy movement, the women's movement.

The abolitionist movement concluded with the 13th Amendment --- ending slavery; the 14th Amendment --- guaranteeing equal protection under the law and due process, and the 15th Amendment --- outlawing discrimination in voting on the basis of race.

The progressive taxation movement's logical conclusion was the 16th Amendment. One dimension of the on-going democracy movement culminated in the 17th Amendment --- the direct election of US Senators.

The womens' movement's goal was the 19th Amendment --- outlawing discrimination in voting on the basis of sex.

The combination of democracy, voting, youth, and Vietnam resulted in the 26th Amendment --- which outlawed discrimination in voting on the basis of age.

So virtually all of the major progressive movements in our country looked to and targeted the Constitution as an aid or a solution --- and the Constitution impacts all Americans, not just the 100 million who voted. Thus, by definition, a new right in the Constitution is not a SPECIAL INTEREST.

Let me go a little deeper into the Post-Civil War Amendments. The word slavery never appeared in the Constitution --- though the document addressed the institution in five different places. But the 10th Amendment says that any right not in the Constitution is reserved for the states. Slavery was not in the Constitution, so it was a state right. Thus, the Constitution didn't DIRECTLY protect "slavery," it protected the SLAVE SYSTEM INDIRECTLY through "STATES' RIGHTS."

Likewise, the idea of two senators from each state in the Constitution --- joined by small state interests --- was to protect the institution of slavery.

The Electoral College had the same purpose.

The Civil War was a dispute over slavery in the form of a constitutional argument over whether a state had the (constitutional) right to secede from the Union.

After the Civil War, it was not the January 1, 1863, Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves, but the December 18, 1865 ratification of the 13th Amendment.

The 13th Amendment officially and legally ended slavery, but it left two other questions unanswered:

(1) How do we bring the new freedmen into the economic mainstream? Their answer at the time? The 14th Amendment (equal protection of the law and due process); and

(2) How do we politically enfranchise the freedmen? Their answer? The 15th Amendment (legally outlawing voter discrimination).

1896 Plessy v. Ferguson was a constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave us Jim Crow --- "separate but equal" --- a conservative, narrow, and strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution.

1954 Brown was a different constitutional interpretation of the 14th Amendment that gave us "equal protection under the law" --- a broad, liberal, or "living" interpretation of the Constitution.

Out of Brown sprang the modern Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s, 1960s, until today, trying to pass and implement legislation under the new liberal interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

There was:

• A 1964 Civil Rights Act (desegregating public accommodations)

• The 1965 Voting Rights Act (implementing non-discrimination in voting)

• A 1968 Open Housing Act

• Affirmative action (potentially threatened this session by the Supreme Court)

• Majority-Minority districts

• Economic set-asides for minorities and women

• And now the reparations movement

The Democratic Party and the Civil Rights Movement must work to protect these successes, but now is also the time to make the transition from "civil rights" to "human and constitutional rights."

The Democratic Party and the Civil Rights Movement must make the transition from fighting for what appears to many --- it's not true, but many see it as civil rights for SOME (minorities and women) --- to fighting for constitutional rights for ALL.

The Democratic Party and the Civil Rights Movement must transition from merely fighting for legislation to fighting for constitutional amendments.

The Democratic Party and the Civil Rights Movement must transition from a political base and a political program perceived as just for minorities, women, and progressives, to a broader political base and an agenda that is --- and is perceived to be --- for everybody. That's what constitutional amendments are!

How do we give the Democratic Party and the civil rights community a new message and a new direction? Fight for education, health care, and voting as human rights!

How do we bring the two wings of the Democratic Party together? Both wings of the Democratic Party share the goal of a high quality education and health care for all Americans. Even President Bush and the Republicans say they want "to leave no child behind." If that's the agreed upon goal, then fight for education and health care as human rights, and fight to put those rights in the Constitution as new amendments. Policy, programs, and budgets may or may not rescue every child --- either now or in the future. But an individual constitutional right is the ONLY actual and concrete way of making sure that no child is EVER left behind! Constitutional amendments leave no one out!

Again, with respect to rights. Most of you will be surprised to learn that you don't have an affirmative "right to vote" in the Constitution. Voting is a "state right."

What are the advantages of fighting for human rights and constitutional amendments? Human rights and constitutional amendments are non-partisan (they're not Democratic or Republican), they're non-ideological (they're not liberal, moderate, or conservative), and they're non-programmatic (they don't require a particular approach or program to realize them).

If we pass a new Voting Rights Amendment, the next civil rights movement will emerge fighting for legislation to implement the Voting Rights Amendment.

If we pass new Education and Health Care Amendments, the next civil rights movements will emerge fighting for legislation to implement the Education Rights Amendment and the Health Care Rights Amendment.

Democrats must not merely fight for progressive programs --- all of which I support --- but fight for RIGHTS.

Not just fight for electoral reform legislation, but for the RIGHT to vote.

Not just fight for prescription drugs, but for the RIGHT to health care

Not just fight for "Leave No Child Behind" funding, but for the RIGHT to a public education of equal high quality.

Not just fight for a strong Clean Air Act, but for the RIGHT to a clean, safe, and sustainable environment.

Democrats must fight to put those RIGHTS in the Constitution as new amendments --- one at a time.

If you fight for RIGHTS, your legislative program will logically flow from your premise of RIGHTS.

Republicans fight for a RIGHT to Life Amendment --- and their "partial birth abortion" legislation flows naturally from their RIGHT.

Virtually every right-wing questionnaire I get before an election begins with a RIGHT that they believe should be in the Constitution as an amendment --- then proceeds to policies and programs.

The NRA begins with the 2nd Amendment, and everything they support or oppose flows from their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

If you ask any member of Congress if their education, health care, or housing plan's GOAL is for ALL Americans, they will say "Yes." So if members support a GOAL for ALL AMERICANS --- health care for all, good education for all, affordable housing for all --- why shouldn't the GOAL be a RIGHT? Democrats should advocate for certain basic material rights --- rights that we can afford and achieve as a society --- the RIGHT to vote, the RIGHT to a public education of equal high quality, and the RIGHT to health care. Early in the 108th Congress I will introduce such legislation.

And if Republicans and Democrats don't want to make these things a RIGHT FOR ALL --- make them explain WHO GETS THEM, WHO DOESN'T, and WHY!

Should only those who can afford health care get it? No, I believe health care is a human right for all Americans!

Just like the Republicans vote on the Flag Amendment, the Right to Life Amendment, and the Tax Limitation Amendment; Democrats must insist that Congress vote on a Voting Rights Amendment, an Education Amendment, and a Health Care Amendment.

And progressives must make these amendments an issue in every US House, Senate, and presidential campaign in 2004 --- and beyond!

That's how we give Democrats and the civil rights community a new message, a new image, and a new direction. We can be the party that fights for human rights; the party that fights to put the RIGHT to vote, the RIGHT to health care, and the RIGHT to a high quality public education in the Constitution as new amendments FOR ALL AMERICANS.

That's how we transform the Democrats and the traditional Civil Rights Movement. Continue to fight, yes, but not just for civil rights, fight for human rights; fight to transform the old Democratic Party and the traditional Civil Rights Movement into a new Democratic Party and a new Constitutional Rights Movement; fight, not just to pass legislation, but to add new amendments to the Constitution.

No progressive organization has to stop fighting for what they're currently fighting for. They just need to add the goal of a constitutional amendment as the logical conclusion of what they're already doing and fighting for --- and politicize it in 2004, 2006, 2008 and beyond.

Some will argue that constitutional amendments take too long. One did take 202 years, but another took just 10 months, and another merely 100 days. It all depends on the political consciousness and will of the American people at any given time.

But people fight harder for what they believe are their rights than they do for mere programs.

And in a democratic society, rights are what the people say they are.

If Democrats and the civil rights community fight to make voting a federal right in the Constitution, the politically disenfranchised will come running.

If Democrats and the civil rights community fight to make an education of equal high quality a right in the Constitution, those families needing a better educational opportunity will come running.

If Democrats and the civil rights community fight to put health care of equal high quality in the Constitution as a right, those in need of health care will come running.

Democrats, civil rights organizations and leaders! Fight for human rights. Fight for constitutional amendments --- and the people will come running. They will follow us, and they will vote for us in record numbers!

Thank you, and God bless you.

(This column is the text of a speech that Representative Jackson gave at a celebration of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday)