Thread: Original Intent, the Constitution, and Desegregation

Quote: Originally Posted by Fredke Well, from the originalist position, the Constitution wasn't written in stone, but the right way to change it is for Congress and the states to amend it, not for the Supreme Court to rewrite it with no checks and balances. The consistent thing for Scalia to say would be that the right way to deal with Dred Scott would be for Congress to pass a law or amend the Constitution to emancipate slaves and that...

Good points. George Carlin can refute them for me. Starting at 4:20

Quote: Originally Posted by Reynolds531 II think that the existence of the rights of individuals is dependant completely on the stability and security of the social, political, and economic power structures. I completely agree. Fareed Zakaria's The Future of Freedom is very articulate and insightful on this point. Part of my thinking on interpretation of the Constitution is that the more closely the people can hold government accountable...

Quote: Originally Posted by xxl I have no problem with judicial review. Well, that's nice. "Rewriting"? Bah. The SC justices interpret the Constitution as they are required to do. So interpreting the Constitution exposes a moral conundrum? *laugh* So what? Pick a side.

Quote: Originally Posted by OES And this is where we Commies diverge with you liberals. If we were having a dialectical argument right now, I would denounce you as a 'mere reformist.' Multiple communist revolutions after WW2 are all gone, every one, except maybe Cuba if you must have one lone survivor. By opening trade with Cuba, that could easily be eliminated. In retrospect, one might argue Mao performed necessary surgery on China...

Quote: Originally Posted by Reynolds531 Wasn't the original intent of the second amendment to assure Southern states that they could maintain armed militias to control their slaves, who outnumberd whites in many areas? Original intent arguments are nonsense to me, and the concept that SC interprets the constitution is a sham, but a necessay sham. There was only one state in the south that had a black majority. South Carolina.

I liked it when Scalia argued with great erudition that the 'original intent' was OBVIOUSLY that only three-fifths of Negroes would attend desegregated schools, and Thomas broke his Sphinxlike silence to nod solemnly.

Nope, I think Bork had it right for once. The original intent (as well as the clear text of the law) was to provide equal protection. That the original framers of the amendment thought that equal protection could be provided with a segregated system does not matter if reality proved that it could not; that shows that original intent is not sufficient, not that it isn't useful. The doctrine is one of the original understanding of the text,...

I think I see the problem here: "A theory of constitutional interpretation that cannot account for Brown is suspect if not discredited." I think this ignores the reality of how the Supremes decide their cases... to wit, theories of law are only part of the equation.

Quote: Originally Posted by Reynolds531 Good points. George Carlin can refute them for me. Starting at 4:20 That's the origin of the George Carlin quote in my signature line.