“I am not a believer in originalism and do not want to operate on terrain constructed by the conservative justices. Originalism is intellectually indefensible.
That’s part of the historical effort to understand the time period. But to think that there’s one original meaning is just foolish, in my opinion.
I’m a believer in what they call the living Constitution; you apply these principles at the present, not by going back to figuring out what in 1866 Senator Jacob Howard or Charles Sumner, or for that matter, Jefferson Davis thought about what the Fourteenth Amendment meant.
actually, for public policies far more far-reaching than this court would ever agree to. And of course, every one of those three amendments ends with a section saying Congress shall have the power to enforce this amendment. Not the Supreme Court, not the secretary of state or somebody — Congress. But over time, the Supreme Court has asserted its right to overrule what Congress decides, even though the Constitution textually, specifically gives it to Congress.
They didn’t trust the Supreme Court. How could you trust a body which had produced the <em>Dred Scott</em> decision not that long before?
This is an excellent point - the 13th 14th and 15th all give power to Congress, not the Supreme Court
How these originalists can accept <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> has always been very mysterious for me. You know, it’s not an originalist decision. In fact, the Supreme Court explicitly said—[Chief Justice Earl] Warren explicitly said, “We don’t know what the people intended in 1866. We’re interested in what we should do now.” That’s how I would interpret it.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, where she says that Reconstruction was a time when <a href="https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eighty_Years_and_More_1815_1897/xooEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover" onclick="javascript:window.open('https://www.google.com/books/edition/Eighty_Years_and_More_1815_1897/xooEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA241&printsec=frontcover'); return false;">the fundamentals of government were debated</a> all up and down the society, in churches, at every fireside—people were debating these things in their homes. And yet you never get a sense of that—that they were trying to work out what these principles meant. And there’s no single original meaning that one can devise out of this.
abstraction of colorblindness.
Colorblindness is not the only original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It was the original meaning in the eyes of some people, but not a lot of others.
But yes, to say that all citizens must enjoy the same rights as white persons was a complete repudiation of the history of the United States up to that point. Up to that point, white people enjoyed far more rights than any other group of people had. For the law now to say, “No, no, you can’t do that”—whiteness now becomes not a form of exclusion, but a standard that must apply to everybody. You want to know what basic rights in terms going to court, or testifying, or whatever, that non-whites should enjoy—look at what white people have. And then that’s the same thing that non-whites ought to have.