John Roberts's Refusal to Defend Federal Statutes in
isomin at gmu.edu
Thu Sep 8 16:22:53 PDT 2005
OK, I stand corrected. But what were the radicals' motives for taking
this step? Was it to promote AA-type measures, or some other reason?
Earl Maltz wrote:
> This characterization is flatly wrong as a matter of historical fact.
> On April 28, 1866, the Joint Committee on Reconstruction voted 10-3
> to adopt the current language as a replacement for language
> specifically referring to race. Among those supporting the change
> were George Boutwell of Massachusetts, who was without question the
> most radical member of the Joint Committee, and Thaddeus Stevens, the
> leader of the Radicals in the House of Representatives. Opposing the
> change were three Republicans: Jacob Howard, who is generally
> classified as a Radical, James Grimes, who is generally classified as
> a Moderate, and Justin Morrill, who was somewhere in between.
> The politics of this are quite complicated. Anyone interested in
> seeing everything I have to say on the subject should read Civil
> Rights, The Constitution and Congress, 1863-1869, published by the
> University Press of Kansas. Anyone interested in reading the best
> treatment of the subject (IMHO) should read MIchael Les Benedict, A
> Compromise of Principle.
> At 06:41 PM 9/8/2005 -0400, Ilya Somin wrote:
>> That is certainly true. But as Kull also shows, the efforts to insert
>> "colorblindness" were defeated not by the Radical Republican
>> advocates of black rights (who tended to favor the color blind
>> language), but by Democrats and Republican centrists who wanted to
>> limit the range of issues to which the amendment would apply in order
>> to reduce its ability to protect blacks. Certainly, those political
>> actors were unlikely to have favored an interpretation of the
>> language that bannedÂ state and/or federal discrimination against
>> blacks but permitted it against whites.
>> Thus, there is a strong argument that, at least as an originalist
>> matter, the rejection of the colorblindness language relates to the
>> amendment's scope, rather than its symmetry as between racial groups.
>> Sanford Levinson wrote:
>>> Andrew Kull has convincingly demonstrated that the Congress rejected
>>> every opportunity to adopt "colorblind" language as part of the 14th
>>> Amendment.Â No serious historian could believe that it was part of
>>> the original understanding as to how it would be interpreted.Â One
>>> can, of course, offer Dworkinian takes of the deep "concept"
>>> underlying various conceptions, but it is not my perception that
>>> conservative originalists are much taken with Dworkin's approach.
>>> - Sanford Levinson
>>> (Sent from a Blackberry)
>> Ilya Somin
>> Assistant Professor of Law
>> George Mason University School of Law
>> 3301 N. Fairfax Dr.
>> Arlington, VA 22201
>> ph: 703-993-8069
>> fax: 703-993-8202
>> e-mail: <mailto:isomin at gmu.edu>isomin at gmu.edu
>> To post, send message to Conlawprof at lists.ucla.edu
>> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
>> 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.
Assistant Professor of Law
George Mason University School of Law
3301 N. Fairfax Dr.
Arlington, VA 22201
e-mail: isomin at gmu.edu
More information about the Conlawprof