Originalism Is Conservative BS

[Kenny]

Brown v Board of Education is the famous case deciding segregation Originalists supporting it had to ignore the 14th Amendment to support segregation of the schools.

.The Bill of Rights, including its protections for free speech, freedom of religion, and criminal procedure would be inapplicable to the states since the First Amendment only limits the power of Congress not the states

So, an originalist would say, "14th Amendment invalidates segregation of schools" IMO.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topekawas a landmark 1954 Supreme Court case in which the justices ruled unanimously that racial segregation of children in public schools was unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education was one of the cornerstones of the civil rights movement, and helped establish the precedent that “separate-but-equal” education and other services were not, in fact, equal at all.

All because of the 14th Amendment. IMV

Brown v. Board of Education

Bill of Rights does not limit the power of Congress... it empowers the rights of individuals.

 

[joe1776]

So, an originalist would say, "14th Amendment invalidates segregation of schools" IMO.

No, the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War allowed "separate but equal.".

Bill of Rights does not limit the power of Congress... it empowers the rights of individuals.

The great Chief Justice John Marshall didn't think so. He held that none of the Bill of Rights limited state power

 

[tytlyf]

I prefer Justices who actually know what's in the Constitution

 

[joe1776]

Do we really want our rights to be determined by the understandings of centuries ago?--- Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley.

In fact, under the original public meaning of the Constitution, it would be unconstitutional to elect a woman as president or vice president until the Constitution is amended. Article II refers to them with the pronoun “he,” and there is no doubt that original understanding was that only men could hold these offices.


www.nytimes.com /2020/10/21/opinion/supreme-court-amy-coney-barrett.html

 

[Kenny]

No, the 14th Amendment, written after the Civil War allowed "separate but equal.".

The great Chief Justice John Marshall didn't think so. He held that none of the Bill of Rights limited state power

I really don't follow your logic... I think we can lay this to rest under "I agree to disagree"

Thanks for the lively dialogue.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really don't follow your logic... I think we can lay this to rest under "I agree to disagree"

Thanks for the lively dialogue.

Some differences are irreconcilable, eh.

 

[joe1776]

"One week out from the 2020 election, four Supreme Court justices have launched a scorched-earth mission against voting rights. They teed up a Bush v. Gore reprise that could hand Donald Trump an unearned victory if the election is close."

The Supreme Court’s Conservatives Sure Are Pushing Some Crazy Legal Theories Lately

 

[ecco]

Then you don't understand the true meaning of an originalist.

"Originalism is a theory of the interpretation of legal texts, including the text of the Constitution. Originalists believe that the constitutional text ought to be given the original public meaning that it would have had at the time that it became law."

Your quoted comment is precisely the way I understand it.

However, there is no reason to believe that that is what the Founding Fathers wanted.

In Section 4 Article 5 they enumerate the procedures for making amendments to the Constitution. It is obvious that they realized that over time some amendments would be necessary and that these could lead to laws that did not follow the "original public meaning" of something written in the Constitution. The very fact that they provided a means of amending the Constitution, shows they would have found originalism to be nonsensical. Or, as the OP succinctly stated: BS.

 

[Kenny]

Your quoted comment is precisely the way I understand it.

However, there is no reason to believe that that is what the Founding Fathers wanted.

In Section 4 Article 5 they enumerate the procedures for making amendments to the Constitution. It is obvious that they realized that over time some amendments would be necessary and that these could lead to laws that did not follow the "original public meaning" of something written in the Constitution. The very fact that they provided a means of amending the Constitution, shows they would have found originalism to be nonsensical. Or, as the OP succinctly stated: BS.

You are basically correct, in my estimation, a difficult procedure. I believe our new Supreme Court Justice said they had to study history of that time too.

Perhaps by looking at precedent in previous cases intent can be found out?