An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« Presidential Silent Debate III
Televangelists: 4 out of 6 miss Senator Grassley’s Investigation Deadline for Their Records In Depth »
Law Bleg
Has anyone tried to show that the original intent or meaning of the 14th Amendment was to establish a “color-blind” constitution. I’ve heard it asserted, but I’ve never seen anyone back it up with supporting documentation (ratification debates, contemporary commentary, etc.). By contrast, I’ve seen plenty of contemporaneous evidence that the 14th Amendment was never envisioned as demanding a color-blind polity.
But if anyone does have historical evidence that this was how the 14th Amendment was meant to be interpreted, I’d be interested in seeing it.
4 Responses to “Law Bleg”
The nation was full of slaves during this time.
The Articles of Confederation were working but not very well and the fledgling nation needed something better.
Essentially the states, particularly those of the south, offered to join a nation as long as the states rights were protected which most certainly would include slavery as an institution.
This is why you have almost no evidence that the 14th amendment was meant to be colorblind. Because it was not. The GREAT founders were pragmatists also.
After reading Somebody’s comment, I went to check when the 14th was passed to make sure I wasn’t remembering incorrectly. According to wilkipedia, the 14th was proposed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, so there were no longer slaves and the Articles were 70 years gone. However, I agree with what he stated regarding the Constitution itself.
What is being sought is (non-existent) support for reverse discrimination (“affirmative action”) by demanding opponents (who have morality as well as truth on their side) prove a negative. This fails.
I’m going to ignore the groundless preface to that comment and instead take issue with the conclusion, since I am no way asking anyone to prove a negative. “Proving a negative” would be asking someone to show that there was no evidence, anywhere, by anyone, that the 14th amendment to the constitution was meant to be interpreted as “color-blind.” I’m putting forward a positive request — show me some evidence, somewhere, that the 14th amendment was originally meant to be interpreted the way proponents of the color-blind approach say it should be. In theory, that’d be a simple request — if such an intent existed. And it’s the exact opposite of proving a negative.
That you somehow saw this as an example of “proving a negative” merely shows that you’re a moron as well as a troll.