At age 29, he seems a bit old to be in law school, doesn’t he?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that he used this argument to put forward the point that the Constitution is outdated and racist and needs to be redone. And THAT’S why he won an award.
Have you read his paper?
A factually incorrect statement. Here is the Heritage Foundation paper on this topic:
https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery
This would usually repulse me but seeing how the left and media in this nation exalted the 1619 project, i’ll say what comes around goes around...
The Times Wins!
If he wants to go down this road, at the time of the writing Slavics were not considered "white".
It may have been based on the rigor of the work and not on what the topic itself was.
If he is correct then how is it that there were free black citizens in the north from day one of this Republic?
You’re as much of an idiot as this “white nationalist.”
This is a class paper, not a book or journal article. He should have freedom to explore the materials at hand, in this case is the Constitution. Taking the Originalist thinking as his framework, and basic premises that most if not all the authors of the Constitution had only white men in their mind when they wrote it, his conclusion that ‘We the people’ only refers to white men is not far fetching.
If some students somewhere wrote that those who are not able to produce any longer, e.g, old people should be euthanized or babies inside their mother’s womb can be aborted, most of us will be angry too.
In the classroom, free market of ideas should exist. Students should be allowed to make arguments, even if they are offensive. If the ideaa are bad, other students or the professor should be able to make a stronger opposing argument.
This is regardless whether or not the student believes in their own argunent
New York Times trying to stir up more racial conflict, as usual. So some guy in some random law school may be a racist, (or maybe he is just trying to stir things up himself as ‘a Devil’s Advocate’ by intimating that the Founders were racist) gets some sort of small generic award basically equivalent to a gold star by a professor for a paper....
Let me know when such gets a “Reisman Award”, or an “ABA Medal”, and I’ll join the NYT in their outrage. (Or Not)
“We the People” does not refer to an aggregate of individuals, but to the mass of citizens of the various ‘tribes’ of the new nation, former colonies, that is, the States. So, ‘the People’ doesn’t require anyone being white or black or whatever; there were Jews and free blacks in northern and southern states that would have qualified.
They found one! The New York Times found a White supremacist.
So apparently, no one has seen this paper on this thread.
Yet several are commenting on it as if they know its contents in specific.
Lazy.
“He is also a white nationalist and antisemite. Last fall, he took a seminar taught by a federal judge on “originalism,” the legal theory favored by many conservatives that seeks to interpret the Constitution based on its meaning when it was adopted.”
The NYT implies that since he is a white nationalist and antisemite believing in originalism we must infer Conservatives who believe in originalism must also be white nationalists and antisemites.
That’s right.
At the time of the founding there is no doubt he is correct that that is how it was meant. Since then of course we have adopted express constitutional amendments that extend citizenship and the franchise so he would be wrong in arguing that that would be a correct interpretation today. That’s legally - let alone morally. I don’t think his argument is going to get any support at all for the latter.