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
I want to flag a new book that may be of interest. Samuel Kidder's Of One Blood All Nations discusses John Bingham's long tenure (from 1873-1885) as the United States Ambassador to Japan. In my book on Bingham, I did not do full justice to this phase of his career. Kidder is in a much better position to do so as a former diplomat with considerable experience in Japan.
An important fact that I learned from the book is that Bingham was strongly opposed to the Chinese Exclusion Acts of 1882. His criticism rested partly on the harm that the Act would inflict on America's standing in Asia, but also partly on the fact that the exclusion was racist. The latter points, of course, tie in nicely with Bingham's authorship of the Equal Protection Clause.
Interestingly, the early post-Fourteenth Amendment SCOTUS understood that it covered anti-Asian discrimination. Yick Wo is a very interesting case.
Chinese Exclusion got upheld, under what we now call the plenary power doctrine.
The Chinese Exclusion Act, of course, was offensive. The problem courts face on immigration is that distinctions among nationalities are basically universal in immigration law. For instance, look at how we treated Cubans for over 50 years. It was a very dumb policy. But it also represented a foreign policy judgment of Congress and Presidents- they wanted to punish Castro. So if you apply the normal 14th Amendment analysis to it, you end up very quickly in a situation where the Supreme Court is taking tools out of our foreign policy toolkit. (Obviously a preference to Cubans over similarly situated immigrants of other ethnicities would fail conventional equal protection tests.)
I am not sure whether Bingham thought Chinese Exclusion was just dumb and racist (it was) or unconstitutional. But that's why our doctrine evolved the way it did.
There used to be a running gag over at the Volokh site because this guy would show up and bring up Bingham (and some crazy originalist theory) every time the Fourteenth Amendment was mentioned.
Bingham's involvement in the 14A happened in 1868.
Looking at the "look in" sample available at Amazon, the author of this post is quoted right away in the book. Here is a discussion of the author of the book talking about the issue covered in the book: https://amview.japan.usembassy.gov/en/john-bingham/
The discussion in part notes that Bingham worked to revise "unequal treaties" [apparently the author's phrasing] that the author of the piece says were "were generally humiliating, unfair, and disadvantageous to Japan."
The discussion was written a few years ago by Kisaki Sagara, U.S. Embassy intern. But, one would have to look at the book, I would say, to determine how the whole matter is covered, including Bingham's complete views.
"Following 200 years of seclusion from the outside world, Japan opened its doors to regular trade and discourse with other countries about 15 years prior to Bingham’s arrival."
Your source is only making it worse. I'm even less interested in a book by an American embassy official.
If you don't want a book by an embassy official, which is a label that involves thousands of people with a range of views, it's up to you.
The summary cites the injustices of "opening," and the portion quoted in the last comment is a summary of someone else. The summary also notes that Bingham worked to revise "unequal treaties" [apparently the author's phrasing] that the author of the piece says were "were generally humiliating, unfair, and disadvantageous to Japan."
One will have to get the book, if one wishes, to see what exactly it says though I think it would cover the Perry business etc. since it is so relevant.