Originalist Sin 0
Elie Mystal notes the malodorous flaw in the arguments of Constitutional “originalists”–you know, the folks who believe that it’s still 1789 or at least can be again. He argues that “originalism” is ipso facto acceptance of segregation as being legal.
A snippet. Follow the link for the complete article:
But Brown (Brown v. Board of Education, the case that resulted in the Supreme Court’s overturning segregation–ed.) trips them up because the institution of segregation post-dates the adoption of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Clearly, the original authors of those Amendments thought segregation was okay. Congress had many, many opportunities to outlaw segregation, yet did not act. And, of course, Plessy v. Ferguson upheld segregation laws as perfectly constitutional. At every time, up to and including the time that Brown was decided, large pluralities of American legislators and legal scholars believed racial segregation was compatible with the Constitution.
(Link fixed.)
