6 votes

Justice Scalia: 14th Amendment for All, Not ‘Only the Blacks’

The Supreme Court appeared eager during oral arguments Tuesday to uphold a Michigan ban on affirmative action, with the justices even considering whether they would need to overrule previous precedents to make sure the state’s color-blind school admissions requirement can remain in place.

“The whole point of equal protection is to take race off the table when everyone is being treated the same,” said John J. Bursch, Michigan’s solicitor general, who defended the state’s constitutional amendment.

JUSTICE SCALIA: “My goodness, I thought we’ve held that the 14th Amendment protects all races,” he said. “I mean, that was the argument in the early years, that it protected only the blacks. But I thought we rejected that.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/15/supreme-cour...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

http://www.originalintent.org

http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

How can one ignore the intent of the law? One cannot, without another amendment. The law can mean nothing more than what the writers intended at that time.

That was the equal protection clause.

I'd like to hear what they have to say about the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause and the meaning of "United States."

fireant's picture

"Equal Protection of the Law" applies to all law, mattering not

if it involves race, voting, health care, traffic, etc. "Equal protection" is blind to any purpose of the law; it only cares that it apply throughout the jurisdiction of origin. It is self protection of the law, not any person or group. Important! There is no race or class of people being protected. It is the law which is being protected. Just because it was grafted into the Constitution in order to correct the mistakes of slavery does not mean that is it's ONLY application. Far from it. "Equal protection" is at the core of rule by law, not rule by men. Read "Commentaries of the Laws of England", esp "Of The Nature of Laws In General", by Sir William Blackstone.

Undo what Wilson did

True dat

True dat

Michael Nystrom's picture

Not to mention fictional persons

known as 'corporations'

Equal protection if not a NWO agenda item

After you realize that the 9th circuit secretly revised it's rules, gutting pro se civil rights, and that the supremes, WROTE the rules to be unconstitutionally abrogated; you'll ask why; then realize it was NWO secrecy that was at stake.

http://algoxy.com

Check the link at the bottom where a local paper has reporters and editors getting fired and resigning it the midst of gag orders.

Can we stop doing all the things we are doing that we do not want to do while still doing what we need to do?

Except that Scalia has always

Except that Scalia has always had the view that the 14th amendment only applies/applied to former slaves, namely, Blacks.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Interesting

Any cases you can point me to?

You can look at this for now,

You can look at this for now, for a hint of it:

http://btx3.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/scalia-14th-amendment-d...

Unfortunately, I am finding it difficult to find the other cases/quotes where Scalia specifically says that the 14th amendment was meant to protect certain rights of former slaves. The issue is that this very article is showing up in all google searches for Scalia's views and the 14th amendment.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Thanks

Ah, this argument. This is one of the reasons why I'm not an originalist, at least not in the same way Scalia is. Seems to make a lot more sense to read the Constitution as general principles that may have implications beyond the specifics of how and why it got put in the constitution in the first place, rather than try and guess the intentions of usually over 500 political players as if they were all operating under the same understanding.

Individuals who have been

Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole, but, under our Constitution, there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race. That concept is alien to the Constitution's focus upon the individual, see Amdt. 14, § 1 ("[N]or shall any State . . . deny to any person" the equal protection of the laws)

Justice Scalia in 1995

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0515...

Follow me on Twitter for breaking news from a libertarian perspective

www.twitter.com/AbolishTheFed