Immediately after the end of the Civil War, Congress drafted and pushed to ratify the 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution, which were intended to guarantee African-Americans full equality under the law. But despite these amendments, Jim Crow laws quickly took hold of much of the nation, stripping African-Americans of such basic rights as serving on juries and voting without the penalty of a poll tax. What went wrong?
Legal historian Lawrence Goldstone has a theory. As he sees it, the very individuals believed to have been looking out for the Civil Rights of all — the sitting justices of the Supreme Court – were instrumental in stripping African Americans of equal rights.
Lawrence is the author of a new book called “Inherently Unequal: The Betrayal of Equal Rights by the Supreme Court, 1865-1903.” He joins us from Connecticut.
Kambiz Hosseini: Iran's Jon Stewart on the Presidential Election
P is for Prison: Sesame Street and Overpopulation in America's Jails
Overpopulation of Prisons, The History of Privacy & Democracy, Will Snowden Be Extradited?
Arming the Syrian Rebels, Voices Against the War on Drugs, The Eiffel Tower as a Musical Instrument
Daniel Ellsberg Discusses Snowden N.S.A. Leak
The show is a co-production of WNYC Radio and Public Radio International, in collaboration with New York Times Radio and WGBH Boston.
Major funding provided by:
Comments [3]
"There is no one way to be "committed" to the Constitution".
"I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Oath for Supreme Court Justices
The US Constitution is a document and, as such, is open for interpretation, even on its most literal/strict constructionist readings, let alone the equally long-lived understanding of all legal and governmental documents as "living" (which has existed and will continue to do so for time immemorial)
That means that a "commitment" to the Constitution from all sides is and will always be contested and based on
"political and cultural bias [which] serve "their" view of what kind of country we are supposed to have."
At bottom, government and its legal supports originate from the wrangling that takes place over people values (broadest sense) in order to "serve 'their' view of what kind of country we are supposed to have." There is no one way to be "committed" to the Constitution.
The 19th Century "Radical Republicans" argued for expanding government to protect the basic rights of citizens which is the fundamental role of government. Today expanded government means spreading unsustainable entitlements resulting in massive debt.
The takeaway from the author at the end suggests that it is appropriate for justices to depart from the Constitution to serve their own political and cultural bias and serve "their" view of what kind of country we are supposed to have. Isn't that exactly what happened in the late 19th Century which led to infamous rulings from the Supreme Court? Had the court stayed committed to the US Constitution perhaps injustices could have been avoided.
Leave a Comment
Register for your own account so you can vote on comments, save your favorites, and more. Learn more.
Please stay on topic, be civil, and be brief.
Email addresses are never displayed, but they are required to confirm your comments. Names are displayed with all comments. We reserve the right to edit any comments posted on this site. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting. By leaving a comment, you agree to New York Public Radio's Privacy Policy and Terms Of Use.