Originalism and precedent

[Scarberry, Mark]

One might also ask whether the decisions creating the precedents that
relaxed conditions (2) and (3) would have been possible -- and whether they
would have become entrenched -- if it was thought that condition (1) would
be sacrificed. If I recall correctly, in the early 1960s affirmative action
(even private affirmative action) was anathema to those who courageously
were fighting for equal rights for African Americans. Didn't Hubert Humphrey
say, in debates over the 1964 Civil Rights Act, that he would eat his hat if
the Act were interpreted to allow employment discrimination in favor of
African Americans? If such a principled commitment to condition (1) was the
sine qua non of the relaxation of conditions (2) and (3), it makes some
sense to maintain a commitment to it. At least we should grant that Justice
Thomas and others can take that position -- whether correct or not -- with
integrity.
 
Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University School of Law
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Volokh, Eugene [mailto:VOLOKH at law.ucla.edu] 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 9:23 AM
To: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Originalism and precedent

	Here's what strikes me as the tough originalist question related
to affirmative action programs.  Say the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments
was originally understood to (1) secure color-blind protection for all
races but (2) only as to rights and not privileges and (3) only against
state governments.  Now there are precedents that relax condition 2 and
3, and they are so well-settled that they're highly unlikely to be
changed; discrimination against blacks and other nonwhite racial groups
is thus unconstitutional even as to privileges, and even as to the
federal government.  Should an originalist say "Well, it's too bad [as a
matter of constitutional law, though not as a matter of justice or good
policy] that we've gone beyond the original meaning as to discrimination
against nonwhites, but at least we should stick with the original and
quite limited meaning as to discrimination against whites," thus
preserving as much as possible of 2 and 3 but sacrificing 1?  Or should
he say "Well, it's too bad that we've gone beyond the original meaning
as to 2 and 3, but at least we should stick with the original meaning as
to 1, and make sure that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment continue to
secure color-blind protection in that zone in which they now apply"?

	Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu 
> [mailto:conlawprof-bounces at lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of Earl Maltz
> Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2005 8:49 AM
> To: DavidEBernstein at aol.com
> Cc: conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> Subject: Re: John Roberts's Refusal to Defend Federal 
> Statutes in MetroBroadcasting
> 
> 
>  From an originalist perspective, the original understanding of the 
> Fourteenth Amendment is that it was passed in an era where the 
> right/privilege distinction was firmly entrenched, and that 
> it dealt only 
> with rights (which, confusingly enough, included those rights 
> that were 
> protected by the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV), not 
> privileges such as government benefits..  By contrast, all of the 
> affirmative action cases of which I am aware deal with the 
> latter, and thus 
> should be constitutional for that reason.
> 
> At 11:04 AM 9/8/2005 -0400, you wrote:
> >Federal affirmative action, the subject of Marty's post, has 
> nothing to 
> >do
> >with the 14th Amendment, but can only be unconstitutional 
> under the due 
> >process clause of the 5th Amendment.
> >
> >As for the Reconstruction Congress's "affirmative action" 
> program, were
> >these programs for "negroes" or for "freedmen?"
> >
> >In a message dated 9/8/2005 11:03:12 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> >crossf at mail.utexas.edu writes:
> >
> >I'm no elite but must confess I haven't read Scott's 
> sources.  There's 
> >so much to read. Yesterday, on NPR, Cass Sunstein took 
> Thomas to task 
> >on this issue.  He said that it was clear at the time of the 14th 
> >Amendment that affirmative action was legitimate and that the 
> >contemporary Congress adopted several affirmative action 
> programs.  He 
> >complained that Thomas had ignored this.
> >
> >Scott, can you give us a synopsis of the response to this argument?
> >
> >
> >David E. Bernstein
> >Visiting Professor
> >University of Michigan School of Law
> >Professor
> >George Mason University School of Law http://mason.gmu.edu/~dbernste
> >_______________________________________________
> >To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> >To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see 
> >http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> >
> >Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
> >private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages 
> that are 
> >posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members 
> can (rightly or 
> >wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, 
> see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
> 
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be 
> viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read 
> messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; 
> and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the 
> messages to others.
> 
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof

Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as
private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are
posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or
wrongly) forward the messages to others.