Supreme Court holds 8-1 that 14th Amendment had nothing to do with protecting freed slaves

[doc_strange]

Today, the US Supreme Court held, in an 8-1 decision, that the construction, wording, and passage of the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with protecting freed slaves from legal and extra-legal oppression by reactionary whites in the post bellum South. In particular, the eight majority Justices shrugged off any notion that the phrase, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" has, or was intended to have, any referent contained in the Bill of Rights.

The only Justice supporting the argument that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States" was intended as a bullwark against states curtailing rights that even the federal government could not abridge, is the sole member of the Court descended from the very freed African-American slaves such a principle would have been intended to protect.

Comments

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

Oh for fuck's sake.

I should really read this and tear into it, but I'm already behind on reading and tearing into the anti-anonymity shit that the White House and DHS are pimping, and I really need to finish that first :(

[docstrange.livejournal.com]

Indeed. The decision is a very nicely researched and written one... which continues the long-standing, perverse idea that only the guarantee of due process protects the other, more explicit rights in the Constitution. I really do think that, given "due process" as it stands today, that we'll only see a continued erosion of all rights as a result.

[maradydd.livejournal.com]

And of course due process can be suspended whenever the hell the executive feels like it, if the courts don't want to object. Thanks for nothing, Lincoln.

[jordan179.livejournal.com]

... except that, if Lincoln hadn't done that, there might not be a United States of America today. Consider his context.