I used to read George Will's columns all the time. That was when I subscribed to Newsweek, and Will's column was one of the many items that magazine picked up from its parent newspaper, The Washington Post. I'm not such a fan anymore, partly because George turned out to be a hypocrite on family values, like so many "conservatives," and partly because I now prefer The Economist to any of the American newsmagazines.
This column, from April 28th, is pretty good, however. I might note that one of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee actually asked Elena Kagin one of Will's suggested questions. (It was the one about Thurgood Marshall's statement that "You do what you think is right and let the law catch up." She dodged the question by pointing out that, if confirmed, she would be Justice Kagin, not Justice Marshall. That's trivially obvious; the point is: Would she make decisions on the basis of Justice Marshall's dictum?
Will supports Justice Scalia's notion that the Constitution doesn't change, and that, in fact, the purpose of constitutions is to prevent change. That's fair enough, but this whole original intent idea founders, it seems to me, on one fact. From the text of the Constitution, as ratified, it is clear that the intent of the framers and ratifiers was to count slaves as 3/5ths of free people. It is also clear that no one, no one, at the Constitutional Convention actually liked this provision. The Southerners wanted to count their slaves as full people, not out of regard for human rights, but because that would have given them a lock on the House of Representatives, as well as the Senate. Many Northerners didn't want to count the slaves at all, because the slaves were not allowed to vote and lacked the other rights of people included in the citizenry. In other words, the original intent was to make a compromise between incompatible positions, so that the Constitution could be completed. I don't see where a modern judge gets a lot of guidance from that, except for Abraham Lincoln's point: It's all about the Union.
Glenn A Knight
Saturday, July 3, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Glenn:
I'm not sure I understand how the idea of original intent "founders" on the example of the 3/5 compromise. The intent of the compromise was clearly to, well, compromise on the number of Congressional representatives a state could have based on that's state slave population.
Are you saying that the justice must take into account the obvious intent of the northerners to limit the number of southern Congressmen, or the equally obvious intent of the Southerners to maximize their Congressional representation? That isn't necessary to apply the law. All the judge has to do is perform simple math because the intent is so obvious. If I'm missing something please let me know.
Sorry for the serial commenting. When I first tried to leave a comment I got an error message and didn't think it posted. I never went back and checked when I came back today to try again.
Cheers.
Post a Comment