Balkinization   |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List                                                                E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts Where Are The Fourteenth Amendment Commemorations?
|
Wednesday, February 21, 2018
Where Are The Fourteenth Amendment Commemorations?
Gerard N. Magliocca
A centerpiece of my new book is the first Bill of Rights Day, which marked the 150th anniversary of the ratification of the first ten amendments. It was a major national festival, including parades, public readings, a special prime-time radio show, and an address by the President.
Comments:
I assume your post is rhetorical. It's pretty clear that the current regime has little to no interest in the 14th A.
It isn't technically for the 14A, but one thing that in effect honors it is the second season of the "Landmark Cases" series that begun with an introductory episode on Monday.
http://landmarkcases.c-span.org/default.aspx Most of the cases are 14A disputes.
I expect there's no public celebration of the anniversary of it's ratification, because of the whole "infant mortality" thing; Being effectively spiked by the Supreme court so soon, and many decades later only partially revived in a warped (Substantive due process, instead of P&I.) form. It lacks the "Bang!" all at once vibe that usually results in an event being celebrated.
This might also be why MLK doesn't make a big deal of it. The truth is, the 14th amendment really wasn't doing much of the heavy lifting in the Civil Rights movement.
Brett with his:
"The truth is, the 14th amendment really wasn't doing much of the heavy lifting in the Civil Rights movement." obviously is following the Charlottesville talking points. Perhaps Brown v. Board of Education (Unanimous, 1954) involved a tad of the 14th A? Brown was a start, a spark, of the Civil Rights movement. Perhaps an assessment of 14th A winners/losers should be tabulated. Consider the 14th A role of McDonald v. Chicago that revved up all the 2nd A absolutists just a few short years ago. Was Brett a winner with that? Didn't McDonald provide a "Bang"? And let's not forget the other provisions of the bill of rights that were incorporated via the 14th A over time. Of course, often when one wins someone else loses. The Southern history revisionists were out in full force with the 100th Anniversary of the Civil War As but were quickly exposed for their lies.
"It's pretty clear that the current regime has little to no interest in the 14th A."
It's more complicated than that I think. While many conservatives still are rhetorically unenthusiastic about the 14th Amendment (at one time many conservatives saw it-quite rightly-as the biggest blow against their beloved [purely rhetorical] trope of 'states rights' in our history), they are quite quick to use it when states and localities do things *they* don't like (affirmative action, gun control, etc.). "The truth is, the 14th amendment really wasn't doing much of the heavy lifting in the Civil Rights movement." As Shag notes Brown was an 14th Amendment case, as was Loving.
I have to admit I'm unfamiliar with these "Charlottesville talking points" you're referring to. Maybe you could summarize them?
My point in regards to the 14th amendment's lack of "bang" is simply that the impact of the 14th amendment didn't really date back to it's ratification, because the Supreme court almost immediately rendered it moot with a series of bad faith rulings. Then when the Court got around to undoing the damage, they only restored the amendment piecemeal, over a considerable period of time, and in a distorted form. It STILL hasn't entirely been restored by the judiciary, some parts of the Bill of Rights still aren't incorporated, and for no good reason. So the date of ratification doesn't really signify anything spectacular. Brown makes a better date to celebrate, because something actually happened. And, of course, the heavy lifting in the Civil rights movement was done by the marchers and their allies, NOT the courts.
Things have changed dramatically since the 150th anniversary of the Constitution.
Why would today's progressive political establishment and media care to celebrate the Constitution? This mandarin class generally views the Constitution as an impediment, something to ignore, rewrite or erase, unless it becomes politically useful to overrule laws which they oppose but cannot democratically change. Does the vast majority of the population even know what the Constitution requires? Do the K-12 government schools even teach the Constitution, nevertheless the Civil War amendments, any longer? If they do, I doubt the class gets much past a general and increasingly incorrect gloss on the roles of the three branches of government and maybe the original bill of rights (less the politically incorrect rights).
Is SPAM referring to the Mandarin Orange class of the Forgotten Trump voters/enablers, acting wittingly or unwittingly?
Query: Did Brett ignore the "nuance" of my earlier reference to McDonald's 14th A incorporation?
"The truth is, the 14th amendment really wasn't doing much of the heavy lifting in the Civil Rights movement."
School segregation was fought for decades bit by bit by usage of the Equal Protection Clause. Then, the Equal Protection Clause was used for segregation in general. The Due Process Clause also was repeatedly used by Marshall et. al. to address injustices in the criminal justice system. When civil rights leaders were targeted when they put an ad in the paper, it was the Fourteenth Amendment that applied since a state, not the federal government was involved. Part of the problem here might be that people don't think about the Fourteenth Amendment a lot of times. They speak of the "First Amendment," e.g., when in fact it is the Fourteenth Amendment involved. As to marches, etc., they were marching for basic principles, such as those found in the Fourteenth Amendment. And, they repeatedly were protected by it in the lawsuits that arose. It is also not some parts of the Bill of Rights are not incorporated. The only parts not incorporated are the grand jury provision and to the extent it can be the Seventh Amendment. And, to the extent it is "part" of the BOR, the federal and state government don't have completely equal requirements as to juries such an unanimous juries (a couple outliers). It was seen as a proper balance of federalism to allow the states to continue their practices in this respect. The Third Amendment was never formally incorporated by the Supreme Court for lack of a good case though it was implicitly so in Griswold v. Ct.
You seem almost militantly resistant to my point, which is just that nobody celebrates the anniversary of the 14th amendment, because it was nearly a century after that before it had any significant consequences. And it still isn't fully implemented.
"It was seen as a proper balance of federalism to allow the states to continue their practices in this respect."
The proper balance of federalism for the courts to implement is the balance actually written into the Constitution and its amendments. The courts really have no good excuse for treating the Bill of Rights like a Chinese menu, and ordering ala carte. They just like some rights better than others, and treat them accordingly.
The importance of court action v. popular movements is a long debate but both matter. And, to "bang," various cases continue to have that including Brown v. Bd. As to piecemeal, that is how a lot of things were protected ... over time. Maybe, the problem is 150 is just not that special of a birthday.
Still. Debating over usage of a certain clause of the 14A (and substantive due process was always an aspect of things & you can find articles with an originalist cast to provide details) amounts to a sideshow here. The basic concern was civil rights, the three prong mechanism working as a unit. If the 14A is discussed maybe that can be covered some too. Mr. W. is correct that selectively the 14A is honored but do think as a whole many in power now are not big fans. They (selectively; cf. local limits on guns) refer to "democracy" when people appeal to the national rights not determined merely by elections and have a restrictive view of citizenship and rights of "persons." The honoring of debt provision is ignored and the second section regarding voting rights is protected in breach. Equal protection (except when affirmative action is involved) also is protected somewhat in breach.
Brett: You seem almost militantly resistant to my point, which is just that nobody celebrates the anniversary of the 14th amendment, because it was nearly a century after that before it had any significant consequences. And it still isn't fully implemented.
I don't think this is the reason the nation is not celebrating the 14A's 150th birthday. I doubt you could find much more than 2-3% of the population who could recount without the prompting of a multiple guess polling question what the 14A says, nevertheless its litigation history. In contrast, when the Constitution had its 150th birthday, people knew and celebrated the freedom of speech, even though the Courts at that time had only recently enforced the right to any extent.
You seem almost militantly resistant to my point, which is just that nobody celebrates the anniversary of the 14th amendment, because it was nearly a century after that before it had any significant consequences. And it still isn't fully implemented.
This exaggerates how little the amendment did before c. 1968. To cite but one thing of many, Chinese people born on U.S. soil were protected by it in the late 19th Century even if their parents were born abroad. Maybe, if we periodically honored its anniversary (like we do other things whose tenets are not fully honored), more people would be aware of its full rich history and not provided simplifications. The proper balance of federalism for the courts to implement is the balance actually written into the Constitution and its amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't explicitly say that the Bill of Rights should be incorporated so "written" won't take you as far as you want to go. Over time, by the institutions the Constitution sets in place to interpret the document, it was determined that the proper balance didn't involve incorporating the Grand Jury Clause and so forth. Maybe, the job should be completed, though the job is nearly so. It is not a reason not to celebrate the 150th Anniversary because states can use other means to indict people.
The 14th A, together with the 13th A and 15th A, have been considered by some as in effect a Second Constitutional Convention because of their major changes to the 1787 Constitution and the bill of rights ratified in 1791. These Reconstruction As were/are a big deal, with the 14th continuing most prominently in the interpretation/construction of the Constitution as amended whether via originalism or non-originalism.
Check out this link:
Post a Comment
http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/Community-Outreach/Open-Doors/Second-Founding.pdf for a brief article titled: “Second Founding,” celebrating the 150th anniversary of the Reconstruction Amendments to the Constitution. So there may be something in the works for all three As.
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |