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

[marsgov.livejournal.com]

This is fascinating... but I can't find it in the decision. For that matter, I don't understand how it could end up in the decision and still have the decision go the proper way (that is, the way it went).

[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 :(

[faerieburst.livejournal.com]

It's not the ideal way we'd want it, no. But given the Court's notorious reluctance to even remember the 2nd Amendment exists, let alone make rulings in its favour? I'll take it for now.

~Aramada

[chorus.livejournal.com]

Did you read Bloom County? If so, do you remember Oliver's reaction to learning about apartheid and the temporary blackifier (for want of a better word) he made because of it? I need someone to invent that for reals and travel to Washington with it. Oh, and Arizona, too, but they'll need a second setting for that one.

[ivy]

Thanks for the post. I've read a lot of commentary on this one, plus a bunch of "YEEEEEEEEEAH!" from LiveJournal. I always enjoy your thoughtful perspective on these matters. (I know I'm not anywhere near enough of a subject matter expert to offer commentary, so I'll settle for brain fodder. [grin])