I. Intro to Constitutional Decisionmaking
A. 14th Amendment and Race
·Topic Notes:
“we the people” is the wording under criticism here; the south thought “we” meant the people of Louisiana in Plessy, but the north construed its meaning as “the people of the United States.”
Article VI (supremacy Clause): Congress can pass statutes preempting or invalidating state law, provided such law is within Congress’ authority delegated by the Constitution. Enforced by section 5 of the 14th Amendment.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
Relevant Facts: Louisiana statute prohibits blacks from sitting in white-earmarked train cars. Homer Adolph Plessy’s ancestry is 7/8 European, 1/8 Afro-American; he was prosecuted by the state for refusing to leave the whites only car. Plessy argues he had a right to sit in the whites only car, and Louisiana’s law deprived him a property interest in his whiteness, as well as equal protection under the laws.
Issue: Under federal law, may a person who is of majority Caucasian decent refuse to leave a train car earmarked for whites in 1890’s Louisiana under the premise his property rights and equal protection under the 14th Amendment is undermined?
Holding: No. The court held they were not the social rule makers for the day, and found nothing in the strict interpretation of the constitution which mandates that the 14th Amendment be made to satisfy anything other than the equality of the two races. Separate cars are not a violation of the amendment and the charge stands.
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The court held separate cars were not a violation of the 14th Amendment, because they did not interfere with the political agenda behind the amendment. The discretion for the legislative aspect of such a law as the one in question here involves the body which passed the law (LA legislature).
This law is not unreasonable by the standard of reasonableness within the context of the community standards involved.
Rule: The constitutionality of a law will be based upon, in addition to its political policy, its accordance with usages, customs, and traditions of the people involved, to the promotion of the public peace and good order.
Important Dicta: Brown notes the separation of races is not a stamp of inferiority, and that legislation alone can quell the movement of segregation. His opinion puts this burden in the hands of society.
Dissenting: The true meaning of the Louisiana statute is obvious: segregation. Such a statute is violative of the 14th Amendment because it denies blacks a fundamental right to “travel in the same public conveyance on a public highway,” and this decision violates this personal liberty established by the amendment. If blacks may have political freedoms, how can they criminally prosecuted for exercising those same freedoms in a public place?
(at the time of the decision, there were 60 million estimated whites by Harlan, and only 8 million blacks)
Concurring: None.
Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Brown v. Board of Education (1954)
Relevant Facts: Brown was one party of many who was denied admission to a school based solely on his race. The following cause of action was brought forth to put an end to a violation of constitutional rights.
Issue: Under Constitutional law, does the denial of admission to a school of a person of color violate the 14th Amendment when the school interposes that the old rule of Plessy exists?
Holding: Yes.
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The court refused to accept the fact that the term “separate but equal” exists anymore in society. Cumming did not challenge this premise, where Plessy only addressed transportation (ineffectively). Gaines, Sweatt, Sipuel, McLaurin all moved forward in respect to no longer denying blacks the right to the same rights as whites, when all things are equal. But never had the court addressed Plessy until now.
Education is considered one of the most important responsibilities of the state and local governments, and thus the circumstances in which this decision must be based rest solely on the previous statement. If such a fact exists, it cannot be denied to another person based on race or religion or background. Such a denial would in essence create a permanent underclass of citizens who have not the knowledge or ability to attain knowledge which is so vital to competing in society equally. Dividing citizens up when the facilities, teaching situations and the overall situation are so inequitable flies in the face of such a premise.
Rule: The field of public education shall no longer contain the premise of “separate but equal.” There is therefore no more segregation.
Important Dicta: Any psychological knowledge of the decision in Plessy is now supported by modern authority.
Dissenting: N/A.
Concurring: N/A.
Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
·Case Brief:
Style (name of case): Bolling v. Sharpe (1954)
Relevant Facts: Black children were denied admission to public school where exclusively white students attended.
Issue: Under constitutional law, does the denial of black children the right to attend an all-white school violate the 5th amendment?
Holding: Yes. The 5th amendment protects life, liberty and the pursuit of all happiness, not just physical, but intellectual freedoms as well.
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: The court used the 5th amendment here to get around the fact the 14th amendment does not protect those citizens of Washington, D.C. Since the 5th amendment has a due process clause as well, the court found there to be equal reason to provide for protections under the decision of Brown for D.C. The key term used was “liberty,” which was held by the court to be more than merely bodily freedom, it also means a freedom to learn, as well as all the other freedoms granted by the constitution, as long as they do not violate government standards.
Rule: The 5th amendment protects the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in education, as well as all facets which the government controls and protects under its laws.
I
ed to desist from their attempts at stalling the desegregation process.
Court’s Rationale/Reasoning: “No state legislator of executive of judicial officer can war against the Constitution without violating his undertaking to support it.” Such a judicial decision has a binding effect on the states; the court reaffirmed its opinion regarding desegregation, reiterating legislatures are not at liberty to pick and choose which judgments of the Court to follow. Judicial officers take an oath to such a thing in article VI, clause 3, to “support this Constitution.”
Rule: None may nullify a judicial ruling based on constitutional law.
Important Dicta: Article VI of the Constitution makes it the “supreme law of the land.”
Dissenting: N/A.
Concurring: N/A.
C. Theories of Constitutional Decisonmaking
1. Originalist theory
·Topic Notes:
The belief that the Constitution should be interpreted according to the original intent of those who composed and adopted it.
Consider: (1) text of Constitution, (2) original debates and specific public representations made about the document’s application to problems, and (3) the original goals and norms that were accepted by those ratifying the Constitutional provisions in question.
(a) the dead hand of the past problem: could the small amount of people who adopted this body of law centuries ago have such a small sense of what could emerge from their document
(b) the intent about intent problem: did the framers themselves, or the founding generation, intend that their successors be bound by their social contract?
(c) the interdeterminacy problem: is it possible for judges of different political persuasions to come up with a determinate or at least probalistic answers to new interpretive issues from the text, original intent or purpose of the Constitution
2. Textualist Theory
·Topic Notes:
(a) clause-bound textualism: what is the plain meaning of the Constitutional language? How would the reasonable person in the Framers’ era have understood the language?
Words as how they mean in dictionaries, and their preferred meaning
items in a series are presumed to be the same kind
all parts of the sentence are considered as necessary as the other
provisos should be narrowly construed and ought not trump policies to which they are creating exceptions
(b) holistic interpretation: read the provision in light of the whole document
(c) structuralism: read the text in light of overall constitutional principles
