WEBVTT

NOTE 04. The Fourteenth Amendment (video)

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:05.000
Okay, here we are for number four of these, and this one is on the 14th Amendment.

2
00:00:05.000 --> 00:00:09.000
I think this is the most difficult one of all ten of them this week,

3
00:00:09.000 --> 00:00:17.000
because this is a difficult issue for people of our persuasion to deal with.

4
00:00:17.000 --> 00:00:24.000
I am going to take a position on this issue, but it's not one that I think is reached easily,

5
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:28.000
but I'm going to argue for it, and I don't think that if you disagree with me

6
00:00:28.000 --> 00:00:35.000
I agree with me that you're just morally perverse and should be banned from society. I just want you to be clear on that, okay?

7
00:00:35.000 --> 00:00:42.000
All right, well, we're going to talk today, this afternoon, about the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

8
00:00:42.000 --> 00:00:47.000
It has been endlessly debated ever since it was drafted, endlessly.

9
00:00:47.000 --> 00:00:53.000
And when you read books on the 14th Amendment arguing what it was originally intended to do,

10
00:00:53.000 --> 00:00:58.400
You can't believe the complexity of the argument, how many sources are consulted, and you begin

11
00:00:58.400 --> 00:01:03.560
to wonder how, as a layman, you can possibly hope to form an opinion on this when informed

12
00:01:03.560 --> 00:01:09.720
scholars on both sides of this debate seem, on the surface of it, to make such persuasive

13
00:01:09.720 --> 00:01:13.160
claims.

14
00:01:13.160 --> 00:01:22.880
Let me begin by reading the Fourteenth Amendment, section one, because that's the section where

15
00:01:22.880 --> 00:01:25.880
for most of the controversy has arisen.

16
00:01:25.880 --> 00:01:30.880
Actually, I think for that reason I might instead just get the rest of the amendment out of the way

17
00:01:30.880 --> 00:01:33.880
and then we'll spend the rest of the time focusing on Section 1.

18
00:01:33.880 --> 00:01:39.880
So Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, most of these sections, Sections 2, 3 and 4,

19
00:01:39.880 --> 00:01:49.880
are not of ongoing significance to us because Section 2 involves penalizing the states

20
00:01:49.880 --> 00:01:58.880
for withholding suffrage from the freed slaves, and it's going to proportionately decrease their representation to the extent that they do this.

21
00:01:58.880 --> 00:02:03.880
Well, that provision is superseded by the 15th Amendment two years later.

22
00:02:03.880 --> 00:02:08.880
The 14th Amendment is declared ratified in 1868, 15th and 1870.

23
00:02:08.880 --> 00:02:10.880
So that one's no longer pertinent.

24
00:02:10.880 --> 00:02:13.880
Section 3 says,

25
00:02:13.880 --> 00:02:43.880
says, No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress, or elector of president and vice president, or hold any office, civil or military under the United States or under any state, who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each house, remove such disability.

26
00:02:43.880 --> 00:02:55.880
Well, again, that's not relevant to us today, because nobody who took part in the Southern Confederacy is alive anymore, so none of them are going to be trying to run for president at this point.

27
00:02:55.880 --> 00:03:03.880
As I say, they're deceased, although for all that they might nevertheless make a better president than some of the ones that we've had.

28
00:03:03.880 --> 00:03:12.880
Section 4 simply upholds the validity of the public debt of the United States and repudiates the Confederate debt.

29
00:03:12.880 --> 00:03:37.880
Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

30
00:03:37.880 --> 00:03:40.720
We'll take that sentence first.

31
00:03:40.720 --> 00:03:47.720
This sentence is taken as overriding the Dred Scott decision, at least part of the Dred

32
00:03:47.720 --> 00:03:56.340
Scott decision of 1857, in which Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger Taney had in effect dismissed

33
00:03:56.340 --> 00:04:00.680
Dred Scott's claim to freedom because he argued that Dred Scott, by virtue of being

34
00:04:00.680 --> 00:04:06.120
of African descent, was not an American citizen and therefore had no standing to bring a suit

35
00:04:06.120 --> 00:04:12.200
in the Supreme Court, but according to Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, all persons born

36
00:04:12.200 --> 00:04:15.480
or nationalized in the United States are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein

37
00:04:15.480 --> 00:04:17.480
they reside.

38
00:04:17.480 --> 00:04:21.080
But then here is the second sentence of Section 1, this is the one that has been the occasion

39
00:04:21.080 --> 00:04:27.420
of all the controversy, and it reads, No state shall make or enforce any law which shall

40
00:04:27.420 --> 00:04:31.680
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.

41
00:04:31.680 --> 00:04:35.920
Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process

42
00:04:35.920 --> 00:04:43.120
of Law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

43
00:04:43.120 --> 00:04:50.920
On the face of it, that's about as unobjectionable a statement as you could ask for.

44
00:04:50.920 --> 00:05:00.720
However, what has arisen ever since the drafting of the amendment, but really in the 20th century,

45
00:05:00.720 --> 00:05:07.320
is a debate over what exactly that very legalistic-sounding sentence was intended to do.

46
00:05:07.320 --> 00:05:13.080
And there are scholars on both sides, or actually more than two sides of this issue.

47
00:05:13.080 --> 00:05:19.220
On one side you have people like the recently deceased Raoul Berger, who was a professor

48
00:05:19.220 --> 00:05:25.720
at Harvard Law School, who wrote a book called Government by Judiciary, which is a long book

49
00:05:25.720 --> 00:05:27.520
but is worth the read.

50
00:05:27.520 --> 00:05:39.520
If you don't have time to read Government by Judiciary, you should at least read his shorter book, much shorter book, called The Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights, because that contains a lot of relevant argumentation.

51
00:05:39.520 --> 00:05:48.520
And I think that Berger, there's nothing more fashionable, or there's only a few things in legal circles more fashionable than to dismiss Berger's scholarship.

52
00:05:48.520 --> 00:06:03.520
But it's actually quite good, if you go into it without any particular axe to grind, it's quite good, and he makes a very persuasive argument that the 14th Amendment, in fact, was intended to be very modest in scope.

53
00:06:03.520 --> 00:06:11.520
It was not intended to bring about any kind of revolutionary change of the constitutional order, but rather had a very modest intent.

54
00:06:11.520 --> 00:06:15.520
In a moment we'll get into more detail about that modest intent, but just for right now,

55
00:06:15.520 --> 00:06:21.520
it was intended to protect at least the most basic and fundamental rights of the freedmen

56
00:06:21.520 --> 00:06:23.520
in the wake of the abolition of slavery.

57
00:06:23.520 --> 00:06:30.520
In addition to Berger, there's Charles Fairman, whom Berger cites at great length in his scholarship.

58
00:06:30.520 --> 00:06:37.520
On the other hand we have people like Michael Curtis, who since the 1980s has argued to the contrary

59
00:06:37.520 --> 00:07:07.520
In fact, the Fourteenth Amendment had a much broader and more sweeping intent and Curtis puts forth the suggestion that the Fourteenth Amendment was not merely this limited, modest, finite proposal that Berger suggests, but rather that it was intended to incorporate the Bill of Rights in such a way that they would apply to the states

60
00:07:07.520 --> 00:07:13.520
Originally, the Bill of Rights were understood to apply not to the states but to the federal government.

61
00:07:13.520 --> 00:07:16.520
And we can see that in the wording of the Bill of Rights.

62
00:07:16.520 --> 00:07:20.520
For example, most obviously in the First Amendment.

63
00:07:20.520 --> 00:07:25.520
The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution does not say, Massachusetts shall make no law.

64
00:07:25.520 --> 00:07:30.520
That would interfere with freedom of speech or press or religion.

65
00:07:30.520 --> 00:07:33.520
It says, Congress shall make no law.

66
00:07:33.520 --> 00:07:39.520
The States, given that at the time the First Amendment was drafted, you had all different kinds of states.

67
00:07:39.520 --> 00:07:44.520
You had some states that had full religious liberty, like Virginia or Pennsylvania,

68
00:07:44.520 --> 00:07:51.520
but you also had states like Massachusetts that had tax-funded church establishments.

69
00:07:51.520 --> 00:07:56.520
How are you going to have a common religious policy with such disparate states?

70
00:07:56.520 --> 00:08:00.520
Well, the answer is, you just simply leave the federal government out of the matter.

71
00:08:00.520 --> 00:08:04.520
Federal government adopts a completely non-interventionist policy.

72
00:08:04.520 --> 00:08:07.520
That's what the First Amendment was intended to do.

73
00:08:07.520 --> 00:08:11.520
And that was the mainstream opinion throughout the 19th century.

74
00:08:11.520 --> 00:08:15.520
It was that the First Amendment and the first eight amendments to the Constitution

75
00:08:15.520 --> 00:08:19.520
were restrictions on the federal government that did not apply to the states.

76
00:08:19.520 --> 00:08:23.520
Now, of course, the states themselves have their own state constitutions

77
00:08:23.520 --> 00:08:26.520
which typically would provide these very protections.

78
00:08:26.520 --> 00:08:33.960
The idea was that the Federal Bill of Rights protects us against only the Federal Government.

79
00:08:33.960 --> 00:08:39.880
This position that the Bill of Rights originally was intended to apply only to the Federal

80
00:08:39.880 --> 00:08:46.320
Government receives sanction not only in the text of those amendments and not only in the

81
00:08:46.320 --> 00:08:51.960
fact that Madison himself favored applying them to the states but was overruled, we have

82
00:08:51.960 --> 00:08:52.960
that.

83
00:08:52.960 --> 00:09:00.960
So in the case of Barron v. Baltimore in 1833, John Marshall made clear that that was the consensus. He said,

84
00:09:00.960 --> 00:09:07.960
Had Congress engaged in the extraordinary occupation of improving the constitutions of the several states

85
00:09:07.960 --> 00:09:12.960
by affording the people additional protection for the exercise of power by their own governments

86
00:09:12.960 --> 00:09:18.960
in matters which concern themselves alone, they would have declared this purpose in plain and intelligible language.

87
00:09:18.960 --> 00:09:27.960
So in that case, Marshall is making clear that the text of the Bill of Rights in no way indicates that they would apply to the states

88
00:09:27.960 --> 00:09:31.240
of the States, and that if they had been intended to, they would have been written in such a

89
00:09:31.240 --> 00:09:32.840
way that that would be obvious.

90
00:09:32.840 --> 00:09:36.220
Well according to Michael Curtis and his work on the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fourteenth

91
00:09:36.220 --> 00:09:41.960
Amendment changes this constitutional order, takes those amendments in the Bill of Rights

92
00:09:41.960 --> 00:09:46.860
and applies them to the states so that from the time of the Fourteenth Amendment onward,

93
00:09:46.860 --> 00:09:55.400
now the states also are bound by the First Amendment and like amendments, there's some

94
00:09:55.400 --> 00:10:25.400
The second controversy is to how many of these amendments were intended to be applied to the states with the second amendment apply for example but the point is that some of the particularly the first amendment was being applied to the states now and that the federal government therefore could enforce these rights against an offending state government. Now even that does not sound particularly objectionable because you know why should the state governments have the power to interfere in these types of people's

95
00:10:25.400 --> 00:10:28.400
and Human Rights and Shouldn't There Be Some Kind of Oversight?

96
00:10:28.400 --> 00:10:30.400
Well, those questions we can save for later.

97
00:10:30.400 --> 00:10:33.400
But for now, the scope of the argument is this.

98
00:10:33.400 --> 00:10:36.400
If this is true, if what Curtis is saying is true,

99
00:10:36.400 --> 00:10:40.400
that the Fourteenth Amendment, in fact, was intended to apply the Bill of Rights to the states,

100
00:10:40.400 --> 00:10:44.400
then it does amount to a very radical change to the constitutional order

101
00:10:44.400 --> 00:10:47.400
because it dramatically increases the police powers of the federal government.

102
00:10:47.400 --> 00:10:54.400
It gives it a pretext, a multiplicity of pretext for intervening in the life of the states,

103
00:10:54.400 --> 00:11:00.400
in the name of upholding individual rights of the Bill of Rights.

104
00:11:00.400 --> 00:11:07.400
Now these folks have gone back and forth arguing with each other, particularly Berger and Curtis for years until Berger's death.

105
00:11:07.400 --> 00:11:14.400
For years they've argued with each other over the sources, over what the drafters of the amendment said and intended,

106
00:11:14.400 --> 00:11:18.400
over what the people in Congress who voted on it said and intended,

107
00:11:18.400 --> 00:11:24.480
the different ratifying conventions around the people who voted to ratify the amendment

108
00:11:24.480 --> 00:11:30.440
around the country, what they said and meant, and as I say, if you just do a Google search

109
00:11:30.440 --> 00:11:36.580
for Raoul Berger or Michael Curtis and 14th Amendment, you'll find some law review articles

110
00:11:36.580 --> 00:11:41.160
online and just look at them and say, how can I possibly figure out which side is correct?

111
00:11:41.160 --> 00:11:47.240
Well, my own instinct is that Berger is correct, but I don't by any means put that forth to

112
00:11:47.240 --> 00:11:52.340
to you as an infallible statement. I could be mistaken on this, but I have no particular

113
00:11:52.340 --> 00:11:58.560
stake in this one way or the other. I think Berger is right. But the major argument that's

114
00:11:58.560 --> 00:12:03.900
made by the Curtis side is that if you look, for example, at the major drafters of the

115
00:12:03.900 --> 00:12:13.840
amendment, particularly Congressman John Bingham of Ohio, and you look at what he said, according

116
00:12:13.840 --> 00:12:20.840
It's quite clear that Bingham did intend the Fourteenth Amendment to apply Bill of Rights protections to the states

117
00:12:20.840 --> 00:12:24.840
and to give the federal government the power to enforce them against the states.

118
00:12:24.840 --> 00:12:31.840
The counter to this is that if you actually read Bingham's collected statements on the matter,

119
00:12:31.840 --> 00:12:35.840
he's an extremely confused and contradictory fellow.

120
00:12:35.840 --> 00:12:42.840
For example, Charles Fairman describes Bingham as a man of peculiar conceptions

121
00:12:42.840 --> 00:12:49.400
Injections, an ardent rhetorician, not a man of exact knowledge or accurate language. Alexander

122
00:12:49.400 --> 00:12:56.880
Bickel says, Bingham was not normally distinguished for precision of thought or statement. Another

123
00:12:56.880 --> 00:13:01.480
scholar, Wallace Mendelson says, Bingham is one who used ringing rhetoric as a substitute

124
00:13:01.480 --> 00:13:07.280
for analysis. Leonard Levy says, Bingham was extremely confused and contradictory in his

125
00:13:07.280 --> 00:13:09.240
presentation.

126
00:13:09.240 --> 00:13:15.000
So the typical reply to the claim that, well, you know, Bingham says when he wrote the amendment

127
00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:21.400
he intended it to have this sweeping effect, that often times the response to that is that

128
00:13:21.400 --> 00:13:26.320
given that Bingham is such a confusing and difficult to follow thinker, if you're going

129
00:13:26.320 --> 00:13:30.740
to engage in a dramatic revolution in the structure of the federal government, you can't

130
00:13:30.740 --> 00:13:35.600
do it on the basis of somebody whose own thought is so internally inconsistent and difficult

131
00:13:35.600 --> 00:13:36.600
to follow.

132
00:13:36.600 --> 00:14:01.600
There does appear to have been, though, and this is one of Berger's arguments, a widespread understanding that the Fourteenth Amendment was simply codifying the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

133
00:14:01.600 --> 00:14:07.600
Civil Rights Act of 1866 had been passed because of concerns that now that the slaves were freed,

134
00:14:07.600 --> 00:14:12.600
they might not have all of their rights as freemen fully respected.

135
00:14:12.600 --> 00:14:16.600
And so the federal government wanted to protect them even against the state governments.

136
00:14:16.600 --> 00:14:21.600
And in particular, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was looking to protect the freedmen

137
00:14:21.600 --> 00:14:26.600
when it came to such matters as being able to enter into contracts,

138
00:14:26.600 --> 00:14:56.600
The Civil Rights Act of 1866

139
00:14:56.600 --> 00:15:01.460
So, certainly one possible reason is that what if the Civil Rights Act of 1866 were

140
00:15:01.460 --> 00:15:07.280
found unconstitutional? Well, now you'd have the 14th Amendment there that would give constitutional

141
00:15:07.280 --> 00:15:14.560
backing to these kinds of protections. So, that's basically to protect the Civil Rights

142
00:15:14.560 --> 00:15:20.720
Act from constitutional challenges by actually enshrining it in the Constitution.

143
00:15:20.720 --> 00:15:26.920
So this is basically the Berger position, that what we see here is not a dramatic attempt

144
00:15:26.920 --> 00:15:30.560
to overturn the relationship between the federal government and the states, giving the federal

145
00:15:30.560 --> 00:15:34.680
government dramatic oversight power over the states, it really was intended to give the

146
00:15:34.680 --> 00:15:38.480
federal government a relatively minor oversight power over the states, just when it comes

147
00:15:38.480 --> 00:15:43.020
to the most basic rights of the freedmen.

148
00:15:43.020 --> 00:15:48.400
And we see that in some of the contemporary testimonies.

149
00:15:48.400 --> 00:15:54.920
We see quotations from one congressman after another saying that this is in fact what we're

150
00:15:54.920 --> 00:15:58.800
doing, that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment are for all intents and

151
00:15:58.800 --> 00:16:03.640
purposes identical.

152
00:16:03.640 --> 00:16:13.560
Now with the passage of time, this Article 1 by 1925 is being interpreted in the Broadway.

153
00:16:13.560 --> 00:16:20.840
In the first 50 or 60 years of its existence, the 14th Amendment was interpreted more or

154
00:16:20.840 --> 00:16:23.320
less as Berger claims that it should have been interpreted.

155
00:16:23.320 --> 00:16:29.680
It was interpreted very narrowly, not as granting major oversight of the states, but relatively

156
00:16:29.680 --> 00:16:32.080
minor.

157
00:16:32.080 --> 00:16:36.800
So you had a relatively conservative Supreme Court that interpreted the 14th Amendment

158
00:16:36.800 --> 00:16:43.440
relatively conservatively, although they did sometimes intervene, like in the Lochner case.

159
00:16:43.440 --> 00:17:02.440
The Blaine Amendment was proposed. The Blaine Amendment said the restrictions of the Bill of the First Amendment should be applied to the states.

160
00:17:02.440 --> 00:17:10.440
Now, an argument that Berger might make would be, if the Fourteenth Amendment had been intended to apply the First Amendment to the states,

161
00:17:10.440 --> 00:17:15.080
of the States, why would anyone have bothered to propose the Blaine Amendment, which does

162
00:17:15.080 --> 00:17:16.720
that very thing?

163
00:17:16.720 --> 00:17:22.720
Why would it affect the same Congress, in large part, that drafted the Fourteenth Amendment?

164
00:17:22.720 --> 00:17:27.080
Why would they also draft the Blaine Amendment, if they had intended the Fourteenth Amendment

165
00:17:27.080 --> 00:17:30.440
to fulfill that function?

166
00:17:30.440 --> 00:17:34.000
So this would be evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment had originally been intended not

167
00:17:34.000 --> 00:17:39.800
to do any such thing, or otherwise it would have been absurd to propose the Blaine Amendment.

168
00:17:39.800 --> 00:17:48.800
But by the time you get to 1925, you begin to get, coming from the court, a doctrine that becomes known as the Incorporation Doctrine,

169
00:17:48.800 --> 00:17:55.800
which argues that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights protections against the states.

170
00:17:55.800 --> 00:18:03.800
And that first arises in a case in 1925, Gitlow versus New York, which is a case involving a fellow who was a communist,

171
00:18:03.800 --> 00:18:14.800
And he had gotten in trouble with the law in the state of New York, which had in effect a law that prohibited somebody from advocating the violent overthrow of the government.

172
00:18:14.800 --> 00:18:20.800
And this fellow did advocate the violent overthrow of the government, so they prosecuted him on the basis of this law.

173
00:18:20.800 --> 00:18:26.800
And he appealed to the Supreme Court and said, hey, they're violating my free speech rights.

174
00:18:26.800 --> 00:18:36.760
Well, the Supreme Court agreed that, in fact, the right of free speech was a right that

175
00:18:36.760 --> 00:18:42.640
the Fourteenth Amendment intended to apply against the states, and that the federal government

176
00:18:42.640 --> 00:18:47.600
could in effect enforce it on the state governments when they went astray and did something like

177
00:18:47.600 --> 00:18:48.600
this.

178
00:18:48.600 --> 00:18:55.000
So that's where it starts to appear, and then the doctrine really begins to get legs,

179
00:18:55.000 --> 00:19:02.000
in succeeding decades, where you get a full-blown theory of incorporation.

180
00:19:02.000 --> 00:19:14.000
There's no absolute consensus, even into the 50s and 60s, about incorporation.

181
00:19:14.000 --> 00:19:19.000
You do get some legal scholars who say that this doctrine seems to come out of nowhere.

182
00:19:19.000 --> 00:19:27.000
This doctrine seems to be being employed by Supreme Court justices who simply want to impose their views on the states.

183
00:19:27.000 --> 00:19:36.000
But the fact is that today, to question the incorporation doctrine would be considered incredibly idiosyncratic.

184
00:19:36.000 --> 00:19:43.000
It just wouldn't be done. It would be like saying that the federal government doesn't have the power to build highways

185
00:19:43.000 --> 00:19:47.000
because it's not listed in the Constitution. That's what Jefferson believed.

186
00:19:47.000 --> 00:20:17.000
The reason I say that this is a difficult issue for libertarians is that of course part of a libertarian wants to do this, wants to use the federal government when possible for the sake of preserving liberty and for going out into the world and for going out into the world and for going out into the world

187
00:20:17.000 --> 00:20:44.240
Let's first look at the issue of the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and then see,

188
00:20:44.240 --> 00:20:50.000
In practice, where has the 14th Amendment gone? If the 14th Amendment could be enforced

189
00:20:50.000 --> 00:20:57.000
by angels, then I might support it. If it could be enforced by angels, or at the very

190
00:20:57.000 --> 00:21:02.800
least people whose view of rights is the same as our view of rights, then I would almost

191
00:21:02.800 --> 00:21:07.520
not have a problem with it, or I'd have much less of a problem with it. The difficulty

192
00:21:07.520 --> 00:21:12.560
is that people who are on the Supreme Court or on these federal courts could say the

193
00:21:12.560 --> 00:21:16.280
and at least don't necessarily have our same view of rights.

194
00:21:16.280 --> 00:21:21.120
So when they say, oh, we're just intervening to uphold the Bill of Rights in the states,

195
00:21:21.120 --> 00:21:26.480
well, their interpretation of the Bill of Rights is not always yours.

196
00:21:26.480 --> 00:21:32.600
As we'll see, there was a time in the 1970s where the Supreme Court almost found that

197
00:21:32.600 --> 00:21:39.380
the Constitution contains a guaranteed minimum income for all Americans as a right.

198
00:21:39.380 --> 00:21:42.860
So if you're going to say, well, you know, we need somebody to keep the states in line,

199
00:21:42.860 --> 00:21:46.460
so let's go with the Supreme Court, again, be careful.

200
00:21:46.460 --> 00:21:49.500
As I say, in strict theory, if the Supreme Court had angels on it, that might be a good

201
00:21:49.500 --> 00:21:50.500
idea.

202
00:21:50.500 --> 00:21:54.380
But in the long run, it might actually be better to have to live with some rotten state

203
00:21:54.380 --> 00:21:55.380
decision.

204
00:21:55.380 --> 00:21:58.660
At least you can move out of that state and you have some recourse.

205
00:21:58.660 --> 00:22:01.660
Let's first take a look at the ratification of the amendment, because this is a matter

206
00:22:01.660 --> 00:22:07.860
of controversy that got me into a lot of trouble for raising it in the Reconstruction chapter

207
00:22:07.860 --> 00:22:13.860
I'm only repeating a totally mainstream interpretation.

208
00:22:13.860 --> 00:22:16.860
I found it hilarious. People had never even heard of this before.

209
00:22:16.860 --> 00:22:20.860
The argument that the Fourteenth Amendment was not constitutionally ratified.

210
00:22:20.860 --> 00:22:23.860
The old National Review used to just take this for granted.

211
00:22:23.860 --> 00:22:27.860
Old conservative publications, libertarians, all understood this.

212
00:22:27.860 --> 00:22:31.860
In the 1950s, U.S. News and World Report published an editorial saying,

213
00:22:31.860 --> 00:22:35.860
of course we all know the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't legitimately ratified.

214
00:22:35.860 --> 00:22:53.180
There are a few factors to take note of when we look at the ratification of the 14th Amendment.

215
00:22:53.180 --> 00:22:59.700
First we have the fact that the amendment was proposed in Congress and two-thirds of

216
00:22:59.700 --> 00:23:08.340
the people present voted to approve the amendment, and then it gets sent out to the states and

217
00:23:08.340 --> 00:23:14.780
then three quarters of the states have to ratify the amendment for it to take effect.

218
00:23:14.780 --> 00:23:19.000
Well one thing we can note about the passage of the fourteenth amendment is that it was

219
00:23:19.000 --> 00:23:25.420
not, shall we say, entirely without blemish. At the time that the amendment was set to

220
00:23:25.420 --> 00:23:36.420
John P. Stockton was a newly elected senator from New Jersey. He was known to be an opponent of the Fourteenth Amendment.

221
00:23:36.420 --> 00:23:43.420
He duly took his seat in the U.S. Senate at the beginning of the 39th Congress.

222
00:23:43.420 --> 00:23:54.420
Well, informal canvassing of senators made quite clear that there was no two-thirds majority in favor of the amendment at that time.

223
00:23:54.420 --> 00:24:01.920
In fact, it turned out that the amendment would have been one vote short of passage.

224
00:24:01.920 --> 00:24:10.980
So a motion was introduced not to seat John Stockton, but he's already been seated.

225
00:24:10.980 --> 00:24:11.980
This is the problem.

226
00:24:11.980 --> 00:24:14.020
He's already been seated.

227
00:24:14.020 --> 00:24:17.520
So you can't really vote not to seat somebody who has been seated.

228
00:24:17.520 --> 00:24:20.600
If he's been seated and you want to get rid of him for one reason or another, you have

229
00:24:20.600 --> 00:24:23.020
to vote to expel him.

230
00:24:23.020 --> 00:24:29.660
But expulsion requires a two-thirds vote. They didn't have a two-thirds vote to expel them.

231
00:24:29.660 --> 00:24:35.020
So they voted not to seat somebody who had already been seated. It's sort of like, how

232
00:24:35.020 --> 00:24:40.800
can something be both A and not A at the same time and in the same manner? So they voted

233
00:24:40.800 --> 00:24:46.020
not to seat this man who had already been seated, and then they went ahead and voted

234
00:24:46.020 --> 00:24:52.780
to approve the Fourteenth Amendment. Now that's really not legal, it's not a proper procedure,

235
00:24:52.780 --> 00:24:55.780
That's actually the least of the problems associated with the amendment.

236
00:24:55.780 --> 00:24:57.780
Then it goes out to the states.

237
00:24:57.780 --> 00:25:00.780
Now, Tennessee ratifies the amendment.

238
00:25:00.780 --> 00:25:03.780
But here's how Tennessee ratified the amendment.

239
00:25:03.780 --> 00:25:05.780
The problem that was occurring in Tennessee

240
00:25:05.780 --> 00:25:09.780
was that opponents of the amendment were refusing to show up at the statehouse

241
00:25:09.780 --> 00:25:12.780
and thereby preventing a quorum.

242
00:25:12.780 --> 00:25:16.780
You have to have a certain minimum number of people present in order to conduct business.

243
00:25:16.780 --> 00:25:19.780
Well, opponents of the amendment thought one way to prevent its ratification

244
00:25:19.780 --> 00:25:32.180
In order to get a quorum, two of the anti-amendment Tennessee legislators were actually kidnapped

245
00:25:32.180 --> 00:25:37.660
and forcibly brought to the State House and declared to be present so that the vote could

246
00:25:37.660 --> 00:25:40.060
take place.

247
00:25:40.060 --> 00:25:46.660
There are some sticklers who think that kidnapping is immoral, who would throw some doubt on

248
00:25:46.660 --> 00:25:48.860
this, the legality of this.

249
00:25:48.860 --> 00:25:55.500
The thing is that when the House Speaker called the roll, well these two representatives refused

250
00:25:55.500 --> 00:25:56.500
to answer.

251
00:25:56.500 --> 00:26:00.620
They refused to say they were present because in their mind they weren't, spiritually they

252
00:26:00.620 --> 00:26:01.620
weren't present.

253
00:26:01.620 --> 00:26:05.380
They were only there under duress, I mean really by force.

254
00:26:05.380 --> 00:26:10.420
So they refused to answer the roll but nevertheless they were declared present so that the amendment

255
00:26:10.420 --> 00:26:11.940
could be ratified.

256
00:26:11.940 --> 00:26:16.860
In Oregon there was a situation that was at least as irregular as that one.

257
00:26:16.860 --> 00:26:22.640
In Oregon, you had a case where the legislature of Oregon voted on the amendment and they

258
00:26:22.640 --> 00:26:24.560
voted to approve the amendment.

259
00:26:24.560 --> 00:26:29.540
But then it was discovered that two of the Republicans who had been elected in Oregon

260
00:26:29.540 --> 00:26:31.540
had actually not been legally elected.

261
00:26:31.540 --> 00:26:35.780
When they actually looked again at the votes, it turned out that Democrats had been elected

262
00:26:35.780 --> 00:26:37.580
in those two seats.

263
00:26:37.580 --> 00:26:41.720
So two Republicans were removed and replaced by two duly elected Democrats.

264
00:26:41.720 --> 00:26:46.400
So some people thought, well, we should re-vote on the amendment now that we have the legitimately

265
00:26:46.400 --> 00:27:15.400
New Jersey and Ohio is not quite so clear cut, but arguably there is at least some kind of irregularity here.

266
00:27:15.400 --> 00:27:19.400
because both of these states rescinded their ratifications

267
00:27:19.400 --> 00:27:23.400
and they rescinded them though before the amendment went into effect

268
00:27:23.400 --> 00:27:25.400
it was still being voted on by other states

269
00:27:25.400 --> 00:27:28.400
I mean you could argue that if the amendment has already gone into effect

270
00:27:28.400 --> 00:27:30.400
and then you vote to rescind your ratification

271
00:27:30.400 --> 00:27:31.400
it is probably too late

272
00:27:31.400 --> 00:27:35.400
but arguably they may at least have had some right to withdraw

273
00:27:35.400 --> 00:27:39.400
but they were told once again, sorry we take your first answer

274
00:27:39.400 --> 00:27:41.400
and New Jersey in particular

275
00:27:41.400 --> 00:27:44.400
at the time that they attempted to withdraw their ratification

276
00:28:14.400 --> 00:28:21.200
1867 rolls along, the radical Republicans in Congress who are the wing of the Republican

277
00:28:21.200 --> 00:28:28.040
Party who favor a very harsh settlement with the South. Now that they're in power, in

278
00:28:28.040 --> 00:28:32.880
1867 they declare the, other than Tennessee, they like Tennessee because Tennessee ratified

279
00:28:32.880 --> 00:28:36.660
the 14th Amendment, but other than Tennessee, the other former states of the Confederacy,

280
00:28:36.660 --> 00:28:42.760
the other 10 states were declared in 1867 to be illegal, without legal governments,

281
00:28:42.760 --> 00:28:47.280
And they're going to be militarily occupied, they're going to be divided into five military

282
00:28:47.280 --> 00:28:50.340
districts, they're going to be deprived of self-government, they're going to have, in

283
00:28:50.340 --> 00:28:54.680
effect, military courts open.

284
00:28:54.680 --> 00:28:56.680
So that was all declared in 1867.

285
00:28:56.680 --> 00:28:59.400
That was said about the southern states.

286
00:28:59.400 --> 00:29:03.920
But at the same time, these same states were told you have to ratify an amendment to the

287
00:29:03.920 --> 00:29:05.360
Constitution.

288
00:29:05.360 --> 00:29:09.160
Now they're trying to have their cake and eat it too, because either they're legal

289
00:29:09.160 --> 00:29:11.460
states or they're not.

290
00:29:11.460 --> 00:29:16.460
If they are legal states, then you shouldn't be occupying them with the military.

291
00:29:16.460 --> 00:29:20.460
If they're not legal states, then you can't ask them to ratify an amendment to the Constitution,

292
00:29:20.460 --> 00:29:22.620
because they're not legal states.

293
00:29:22.620 --> 00:29:25.300
You may as well ask France to ratify an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

294
00:29:25.300 --> 00:29:26.620
It would be perfectly irrelevant.

295
00:29:26.620 --> 00:29:31.380
In other words, you're depriving them of all the privileges of statehood, but nevertheless

296
00:29:31.380 --> 00:29:34.380
you're going to impose on them one of the burdens of statehood.

297
00:29:34.380 --> 00:29:37.880
You're going to actually demand that they ratify an amendment to the Constitution when

298
00:29:37.880 --> 00:29:40.460
you yourself have just said they're not even legal.

299
00:29:40.460 --> 00:29:45.260
The States as constituted in the South are not legal, so it's been argued that therefore

300
00:29:45.260 --> 00:29:47.400
their votes could not have counted.

301
00:29:47.400 --> 00:29:54.720
In no way could an illegal state, by definition, that vote for the amendment be counted as

302
00:29:54.720 --> 00:29:58.020
a vote in favor of the amendment.

303
00:29:58.020 --> 00:30:01.460
That's not to mention the coercion involved here.

304
00:30:01.460 --> 00:30:07.380
There was one congressman who said that when the 14th amendment was sent out to the states,

305
00:30:07.380 --> 00:30:12.380
The Tennessee approved it, but the other ten southern Confederate states rejected it.

306
00:30:12.380 --> 00:30:16.380
The northern congressmen who said, well, the southern states have rejected the 14th Amendment,

307
00:30:16.380 --> 00:30:21.380
so we're going to march upon them at bayonet point until they do ratify it.

308
00:30:21.380 --> 00:30:29.380
Well, most legal principles would have it that a decision that you're forced to make under duress is not legally binding.

309
00:30:29.380 --> 00:30:31.380
So we have that difficulty as well.

310
00:30:31.380 --> 00:30:35.380
And for these reasons and even several others,

311
00:30:35.380 --> 00:30:43.380
Very recently, like early 1990s, Forrest MacDonald concluded that the 14th Amendment was never constitutionally ratified.

312
00:30:43.380 --> 00:30:50.380
Now, Forrest MacDonald is not some wacko lunatic. I mean, he's received countless honors.

313
00:30:50.380 --> 00:30:53.380
He's a Jefferson lecturer of the National Endowment for the Humanities.

314
00:30:53.380 --> 00:30:56.380
He's like the highest honor you could get. He's not a nutcase.

315
00:30:56.380 --> 00:30:59.380
He's repeating what was kind of a standard view for a good long time.

316
00:30:59.380 --> 00:31:09.380
In a long time, he repeated this position and lays out the evidence for it in an article that appeared in the Georgia Journal of Southern Legal History. It's well worth reading.

317
00:31:09.380 --> 00:31:23.380
I give you the exact citation on it. So we have this, I think, pretty strong case that the amendment is not constitutionally ratified.

318
00:31:23.380 --> 00:31:26.380
We'll return to what the implications of that are.

319
00:31:26.380 --> 00:31:37.380
What I'd like to do at this point is look at where in recent years the Fourteenth Amendment has gone.

320
00:31:40.380 --> 00:31:50.380
And in at least some cases, I'm grateful to the work of Gene Healy, who is with the Cato Institute,

321
00:31:50.380 --> 00:31:53.880
Mises Institute, and most of them are very, very pro 14th Amendment.

322
00:31:53.880 --> 00:31:58.380
Healy has been a source of skepticism about it, and if you want to get a good overview

323
00:31:58.380 --> 00:32:02.620
of Healy's thinking on this matter, there's a, on the Mises Institute website, there is

324
00:32:02.620 --> 00:32:09.180
a, there's a link to, what is it, unpublished papers, working papers, and if you do, if

325
00:32:09.180 --> 00:32:12.380
you go through the working papers, you do a little search for Healy, it'll bring you

326
00:32:12.380 --> 00:32:17.220
right to, right to that paper, it's excellent, I mean, he needs to publish this and do more

327
00:32:17.220 --> 00:32:23.020
and more with it. But Healy raises some serious objections by, for one thing, pointing out

328
00:32:23.020 --> 00:32:27.540
what the amendment has actually been used for. I mean, let alone, forget about all the

329
00:32:27.540 --> 00:32:31.140
sugary saccharine language about we're going to protect people's rights and this and that.

330
00:32:31.140 --> 00:32:38.340
What has it actually been used for in practice? Well, for example, and I cite this in my Reconstruction

331
00:32:38.340 --> 00:32:59.340
In the case of U.S. versus Yonkers, you had a federal judge who demanded that the city government of Yonkers had to build basically scatter-site public housing throughout Yonkers so as to bring about racial integration in the schools.

332
00:32:59.340 --> 00:33:12.340
Now that, you know, I know there are people in Washington D.C. who don't think there's anything wrong with that, but this is sort of disruptive to normal community life to have this sort of thing be done and to require that people pay for this.

333
00:33:12.340 --> 00:33:17.340
But this was done so as to bring about equality in the schools supposedly.

334
00:33:17.340 --> 00:33:27.340
And if Yonkers did not comply with this, the court imposed a fine, a non-compliance fine that would have bankrupted them within three weeks.

335
00:33:57.340 --> 00:34:09.340
The State Constitution and allowing for busing or whatever other purpose, even if such a tax increase was actually barred by the state constitution, a federal judge could override that.

336
00:34:09.340 --> 00:34:18.340
And that's all in the name of the Fourteenth Amendment, so as to grant people the equal protection of the laws and so on and so forth, whatever phrase they're going to refer to there.

337
00:34:18.340 --> 00:34:26.340
Now Healy anticipates an objection here. He says, and I understand libertarians will come back with, well, serves you right for having public schools in the first place.

338
00:34:26.340 --> 00:34:54.660
The Court in 1964 ordered the county to raise the taxes and reopen the schools in the name

339
00:34:54.660 --> 00:34:55.660
of the 14th Amendment.

340
00:34:55.660 --> 00:35:01.260
So, you know, yet again, here you have the 14th Amendment being used for a purpose that

341
00:35:01.260 --> 00:35:07.380
is obviously not compatible with a classical liberal understanding of government.

342
00:35:07.380 --> 00:35:15.500
Healy likewise points out that when the Virginia Military Institute was forced to abandon its

343
00:35:15.500 --> 00:35:24.260
male-only admissions policy, rather similar to the Citadel in South Carolina, one of the,

344
00:35:24.260 --> 00:35:29.900
You might think, well, it's a public institution, they should be forced to admit anybody they

345
00:35:29.900 --> 00:35:30.900
want.

346
00:35:30.900 --> 00:35:34.600
Well, one possibility was that the Virginia Military Institute could have just become

347
00:35:34.600 --> 00:35:40.020
private and then maybe the 14th Amendment wouldn't have applied to them, but they bore

348
00:35:40.020 --> 00:35:47.660
in mind this precedent whereby in the 1960s when Virginia closed down its schools and

349
00:35:47.660 --> 00:35:52.380
just in effect had a private school system at that point, they were ordered to reopen

350
00:35:52.380 --> 00:36:14.380
We have here cases that are at the very least disturbing from a libertarian point of view.

351
00:36:14.380 --> 00:36:19.780
We then have the fact that David Bernstein writes that during the Warren Court era, liberal

352
00:36:19.780 --> 00:36:23.500
Several legal scholars hoped that the Supreme Court would even find a right to a minimum

353
00:36:23.500 --> 00:36:25.740
income in the Fourteenth Amendment.

354
00:36:25.740 --> 00:36:29.580
Had it not been for the Nixon administration's appointment of several new, more conservative

355
00:36:29.580 --> 00:36:34.320
justices, the Supreme Court might very well have entrenched the American welfare state

356
00:36:34.320 --> 00:36:38.340
in the morass of modern constitutional law.

357
00:36:38.340 --> 00:36:43.180
Now of course the irony here is that the Nixon administration favored a minimum income as

358
00:36:43.180 --> 00:36:45.180
part of their domestic policy.

359
00:36:45.180 --> 00:36:48.620
Nixon was notoriously bored to death by domestic policy.

360
00:36:48.620 --> 00:36:53.620
He used to say that the American economy is so strong it would take a genius to wreck it.

361
00:36:53.620 --> 00:36:58.620
So it could basically run itself, and the president really should be dealing with foreign policy.

362
00:36:58.620 --> 00:37:04.620
Probably sound, given that every time Nixon did deal with domestic policy, it was terrible, like wage and price controls.

363
00:37:04.620 --> 00:37:09.620
I mean, my gosh, take your own advice. Let Nixon be Nixon. Let him deal with the other stuff.

364
00:37:09.620 --> 00:37:12.620
But actually, don't even let him deal with that, actually, as a matter of fact.

365
00:37:12.620 --> 00:37:14.620
It's not good to either one of them come to think of it.

366
00:37:14.620 --> 00:37:19.420
But, yeah, Nixon's Family Assistance Program had actually seriously proposed a guaranteed

367
00:37:19.420 --> 00:37:22.580
minimum income for all Americans, for heaven's sake.

368
00:37:22.580 --> 00:37:25.460
So that came very close to happening.

369
00:37:25.460 --> 00:37:30.420
So the reason that there has been some libertarian concern about the 14th Amendment is that,

370
00:37:30.420 --> 00:37:35.100
of course, on the surface it sounds wonderful, but in practice there were human beings with

371
00:37:35.100 --> 00:37:40.220
agendas who were employing the 14th Amendment and they're taking some of these phrases

372
00:37:40.220 --> 00:37:55.220
and using them as loopholes to drive trucks through to apply all kinds of undreamed of measures to the states, by no means all of which are compatible in any way with liberty.

373
00:37:55.220 --> 00:38:01.220
Now, California has been the subject of all kinds of 14th Amendment difficulties in recent years.

374
00:38:01.220 --> 00:38:06.720
In 1996, California was, first of all, California, as you all know, has been having budget problems forever.

375
00:38:06.720 --> 00:38:12.220
I mean, what other explanation can there be for the fact they voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger to be their governor?

376
00:38:12.220 --> 00:38:18.720
Maybe they think that he can use some of his movie hero kind of tactics to cut the budget or something.

377
00:38:18.720 --> 00:38:22.720
No one knows what to do in California anymore. They've all gone crazy out there.

378
00:38:22.720 --> 00:38:27.720
Is anybody here from California? Yes, I knew it. I knew I was going to regret saying that.

379
00:38:27.720 --> 00:38:31.120
But I'm sure you agree with me. There's definitely something not quite right out there.

380
00:38:31.120 --> 00:38:35.780
Well, these poor folks, they're trying various things and the Supreme Court keeps, or some

381
00:38:35.780 --> 00:38:39.560
federal court keeps intervening largely on 14th Amendment grounds.

382
00:38:39.560 --> 00:38:46.060
For example, in 1996, the California government wanted to respond to the fact that because

383
00:38:46.060 --> 00:38:51.260
they have relatively high welfare payments, a lot of people from around the country were

384
00:38:51.260 --> 00:38:56.460
moving out to California for the express purpose of going on welfare there.

385
00:38:56.460 --> 00:39:01.720
And the California law was passed in 1996 that said that, all right, if you come to

386
00:39:01.720 --> 00:39:08.340
California and you go on welfare, the first year you're on welfare, you are restricted

387
00:39:08.340 --> 00:39:12.360
to whatever amount you would have received in your state of origin.

388
00:39:12.360 --> 00:39:16.060
But then in subsequent years, you get all the full benefits of California welfare.

389
00:39:16.060 --> 00:39:21.540
Well, this obviously, I mean, this is just like the Nazis, right?

390
00:39:21.540 --> 00:39:24.640
It's incredible that anyone would even think of doing something like this.

391
00:39:24.640 --> 00:39:31.440
And sure enough, the court declared that this was to be struck down.

392
00:39:31.440 --> 00:39:33.900
This California law was to be struck down.

393
00:39:33.900 --> 00:39:38.200
So in effect what the court is saying is, in effect you're going to have to raise taxes

394
00:39:38.200 --> 00:39:40.920
to pay now the higher welfare benefits.

395
00:39:40.920 --> 00:39:43.520
So you've got courts in effect imposing taxes.

396
00:39:43.520 --> 00:39:47.440
They're striking it down on 14th Amendment grounds because they say that it violates

397
00:39:47.440 --> 00:39:50.780
the right to travel.

398
00:39:50.780 --> 00:39:55.100
If I can't get the full California welfare benefits, then my right to travel is being

399
00:39:55.100 --> 00:39:56.660
impaired.

400
00:39:56.660 --> 00:39:57.660
This is where it goes.

401
00:39:57.660 --> 00:39:59.500
Again, you think, oh, well, this is wonderful.

402
00:39:59.500 --> 00:40:02.600
We'll just force the states to be nice to people.

403
00:40:02.600 --> 00:40:06.220
The problem is you have stark raving lunatics enforcing this thing.

404
00:40:06.220 --> 00:40:07.220
That's the problem.

405
00:40:07.220 --> 00:40:10.180
If you had angels, it might be another matter.

406
00:40:10.180 --> 00:40:13.380
Then there was the notorious, two years earlier than that, in 1994, there was the notorious

407
00:40:13.380 --> 00:40:17.860
Proposition 187, California dealing with the immigration problem.

408
00:40:17.860 --> 00:40:23.460
I read about a month ago that Arnold Schwarzenegger had said at one time, he said very recently,

409
00:40:23.460 --> 00:40:27.620
we need to build a fence and stop the illegal immigration thing.

410
00:40:27.620 --> 00:40:31.140
And then in like three seconds, there was such a huge outcry that he said, oh, no, no,

411
00:40:31.140 --> 00:40:32.140
my English was very bad.

412
00:40:32.140 --> 00:40:36.540
I didn't mean build a fence, I meant welcome people with cakes.

413
00:40:36.540 --> 00:40:37.540
That's what I meant.

414
00:40:37.540 --> 00:40:38.540
Sorry, you took it as a fence.

415
00:40:38.540 --> 00:40:39.540
I'm sorry.

416
00:40:39.540 --> 00:40:43.900
Well, anyway, the problem in California was that they have so many illegal immigrants

417
00:40:43.900 --> 00:41:06.900
Proposition 187 would have said that if you are an illegal immigrant, then you can't get free taxpayer-funded services in the state.

418
00:41:06.900 --> 00:41:14.900
Well, I'm sure some of you remember that at the time this was proposed, every fashionable person in the country, on the left and the right, denounced it.

419
00:41:14.900 --> 00:41:20.900
Jack Kemp, Bill Bennett went out there and told these people, don't you do this, and all the leftists were against it, and whatever.

420
00:41:20.900 --> 00:41:26.900
Even some libertarians were against it. And I thought, well, here's something that actually cuts the budget. Why would you be against it?

421
00:41:26.900 --> 00:41:34.900
Like, it cuts the budget, right? Well, it passed by two to one. Californians totally ignored this, like, huge campaign to get them not to pass.

422
00:41:34.900 --> 00:41:44.900
They passed it by two to one and then they were told by a federal judge, sorry, you can't actually enforce this because it violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

423
00:41:44.900 --> 00:41:51.900
Somebody who is illegally in the country is equally entitled to free stuff as anyone else. That's the argument that's made.

424
00:41:51.900 --> 00:42:02.900
Now, I don't think I even need to ask, do you think people who drafted the 14th Amendment were thinking that we're going to give absolutely free services to people?

425
00:42:02.900 --> 00:42:13.900
The question answers itself.

426
00:42:13.900 --> 00:42:22.900
Well, one of my favorites was California passed a measure, in effect, abolishing affirmative action in state university admissions.

427
00:42:22.900 --> 00:42:25.900
Well, that's, you know, it's not really directly a libertarian issue.

428
00:42:25.900 --> 00:42:29.900
It means there are state universities and, you know, that sort of complicates the question.

429
00:42:29.900 --> 00:42:39.900
But what's significant is that immediately the Clinton Administration Justice Department intervened on 14th Amendment grounds to try to get that overturned.

430
00:42:39.900 --> 00:42:43.900
Now let's pause and understand what is happening there.

431
00:42:43.900 --> 00:42:53.900
What's being done in that measure is we're saying that we're not going to give special privileges to members of different racial groups or give them special consideration in admissions.

432
00:42:53.900 --> 00:42:58.900
We're going to view people on the basis of merit alone and treat all the races equally.

433
00:42:58.900 --> 00:43:03.900
Well, isn't that what the 14th Amendment calls for? Equal protection of the laws?

434
00:43:03.900 --> 00:43:08.900
But yet in the name of the 14th Amendment, the Clinton Administration Justice Department intervenes and says,

435
00:43:08.900 --> 00:43:14.900
We need equal protection of the laws, so you need to reestablish a racial quota system.

436
00:43:14.900 --> 00:43:20.900
So in other words, the Clinton Administration is calling for more or less the exact opposite of the equal protection of the laws.

437
00:43:20.900 --> 00:43:26.900
They're calling for a racial caste system and racial preferences, as if that's what the 14th Amendment calls for.

438
00:43:26.900 --> 00:43:34.900
Well, you may well say, well, these are all very regrettable, but nevertheless, it's still better to have the 14th Amendment than not to have it.

439
00:43:34.900 --> 00:43:39.900
Well, that's a legitimate position, but we should at least be aware of where the thing can lead.

440
00:43:39.900 --> 00:43:48.900
Well, I'd like to return to Healy again, because I think he raises some interesting points that can guide us in our own thoughts on this matter.

441
00:43:48.900 --> 00:43:56.900
Let's return to Healy again, because I think he raises some interesting points that can guide us in our own thoughts on this matter.

442
00:44:00.900 --> 00:44:09.900
And he begins his argument by recalling the life-sender Spooner position that's come up a couple of times over the past couple of days.

443
00:44:09.900 --> 00:44:18.900
Spooner was a 19th century thinker who believed that in the absence of consent, authority is not binding on an individual.

444
00:44:18.900 --> 00:44:29.900
So in politics, for example, that means that unless I have myself expressly consented to a political order,

445
00:44:29.900 --> 00:44:31.900
then it cannot be said to be binding on me.

446
00:44:31.900 --> 00:44:35.900
I never signed the Constitution, I never gave any expressed consent to it,

447
00:44:35.900 --> 00:44:45.900
And you cannot conclude simply on the basis of my living here and enjoying the advantages of this place that I'm giving some kind of formal consent.

448
00:44:45.900 --> 00:44:50.900
I'm not. Consent is consent. We know what consent means from every other aspect of human life.

449
00:44:50.900 --> 00:44:56.900
And so Spooner comes to the radical conclusion that the Constitution is not binding on people

450
00:44:56.900 --> 00:45:00.900
because none of us were involved in drafting it or signing it or whatever.

451
00:45:00.900 --> 00:45:07.900
And in the absence of a unanimous consent, you cannot apply the Constitution to every single person.

452
00:45:07.900 --> 00:45:12.900
Well, what Healy says is that in reality, of course, as Spooner himself acknowledged,

453
00:45:12.900 --> 00:45:23.900
this kind of consensus, a unanimous consensus, is not going to occur. It's basically impossible.

454
00:45:23.900 --> 00:45:28.900
And Spooner acknowledges this, and this is why he argues the way he does,

455
00:45:28.900 --> 00:45:35.900
Healy says that since you can't get this type of consent, then typically, you know, government is not legitimate.

456
00:45:35.900 --> 00:45:42.900
Well, obviously other political thinkers have not been willing to take such a radical step, but Spooner does.

457
00:45:42.900 --> 00:45:49.900
Well, Healy says that we realize that we're not going to get absolute universal consent to a government.

458
00:45:49.900 --> 00:45:56.900
He said, but the next best thing, in the absence of that, if we are going to live under a government to which we haven't given our individual consent,

459
00:45:56.900 --> 00:46:03.700
Then the next best thing we can live under would be what Healy calls constitutional consent.

460
00:46:03.700 --> 00:46:09.540
And so that is that, he says that the theory of the Constitution is that the people of

461
00:46:09.540 --> 00:46:15.580
the states hold the power, and they delegate some of this power through their state to

462
00:46:15.580 --> 00:46:20.580
the federal government, and they can amend the Constitution through two-thirds of the

463
00:46:20.580 --> 00:46:25.020
Congress and three-quarters of the states, and this is at least some way that at least

464
00:46:25.020 --> 00:46:52.020
So, he says, therefore, that this helps us to understand what we should think about the

465
00:46:52.020 --> 00:47:04.020
The 14th Amendment, because he says that given that the 14th Amendment was not constitutionally ratified and therefore does not enjoy any kind of constitutional consent,

466
00:47:04.020 --> 00:47:13.020
it is not the fruit of freely given consent on the part of the people, that has to influence the way we interpret the amendment,

467
00:47:13.020 --> 00:47:18.020
because he says that we should interpret the 14th Amendment as narrowly as possible,

468
00:47:18.020 --> 00:47:23.020
Regardless of how all these debates between Raoul Berger and Michael Curtis come out,

469
00:47:23.020 --> 00:47:26.020
whether the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to be this broad or this broad,

470
00:47:26.020 --> 00:47:31.020
it doesn't matter in effect, says Healy, because given that it wasn't legitimately ratified,

471
00:47:31.020 --> 00:47:36.020
but given that we do want to live under a regime in which we give consent to how we're governed,

472
00:47:36.020 --> 00:47:39.020
we never gave consent, legitimate consent to this amendment,

473
00:47:39.020 --> 00:47:45.020
then therefore justice demands that it be interpreted as narrowly as possible.

474
00:47:45.020 --> 00:47:50.020
Okay, I think that's an interesting way of thinking about it.

475
00:47:50.020 --> 00:48:02.020
Now, the other way of thinking about the 14th Amendment would be the kind of approach that you get from Bruce Ackerman of Yale University.

476
00:48:02.020 --> 00:48:07.020
Ackerman would say that you don't always have to have amendments to the Constitution,

477
00:48:07.020 --> 00:48:14.020
or legitimately ratified amendments to the Constitution, in order for the constitutional order to legitimately change.

478
00:48:14.020 --> 00:48:20.020
He says that in history there are moments, there are constitutional moments that occur,

479
00:48:20.020 --> 00:48:25.020
where there is such an outpouring of popular support for expanded federal powers,

480
00:48:25.020 --> 00:48:28.020
that it renders the formal amendment process unnecessary.

481
00:48:28.020 --> 00:48:32.020
You can just say, you know what, I'm having a constitutional moment.

482
00:48:32.020 --> 00:48:37.020
We're all sort of mystically giving the federal government new powers.

483
00:48:37.020 --> 00:48:39.020
It's a constitutional moment.

484
00:48:39.020 --> 00:48:45.020
He says, for example, the New Deal in the 1930s, Franklin Roosevelt supposedly trying to get us out of the depression,

485
00:48:45.020 --> 00:48:50.020
he's doing things that are obviously not authorized by the Constitution, but that's okay, says Ackerman,

486
00:48:50.020 --> 00:48:54.020
because, guess what, that was a constitutional moment.

487
00:48:54.020 --> 00:49:01.020
Now, where this goes, I think it's obvious enough, how would you control a government like that, that could always just claim,

488
00:49:01.020 --> 00:49:05.020
well, maybe you don't like what we're doing, but guess what, my friends, you know what time it is?

489
00:49:05.020 --> 00:49:19.020
Constitutional moment, baby, okay. Same thing would apply to the 14th Amendment. Forget about the ins and outs of how it was ratified or whatever. It's a constitutional moment. Jump on board. Get with it.

490
00:49:19.020 --> 00:49:32.020
And Healy is arguing that this is not a legitimate perspective because given that, again, we can't live under the spoonerite view where everybody gives his consent, at least in the short run that's not going to happen,

491
00:49:32.020 --> 00:49:38.720
1, he believes the next best is constitutional consent and given that in no way can it be

492
00:49:38.720 --> 00:49:43.940
said that that was granted through the procedures of the Constitution, then we cannot proceed

493
00:49:43.940 --> 00:49:49.340
as if the 14th Amendment is a broad radical reconstruction of the constitutional order.

494
00:49:49.340 --> 00:49:54.220
That type of thing can be done only through at least some institutional form of popular

495
00:49:54.220 --> 00:49:58.260
consent and that's lacking in this instance.

496
00:49:58.260 --> 00:50:20.260
There's an interesting statement by, of all people, Richard Posner, a sort of Chicago-affiliated guy, who says apply the Bill of Rights to the states through the due process clause and you weaken the states tremendously by handing over control of large areas of public policy to federal judges.

497
00:50:20.260 --> 00:50:28.260
It is hard to believe that this was intended by all the state legislators whose votes were necessary to ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

498
00:50:28.260 --> 00:50:30.260
and in fact about