Replies

Indeed, though, you are correct on another count: Madison notes in Federalist 42 that the point of the commerce clause was to create a free trade zone.

There is more to originalism than the majority (and better documented) Federalist opinion, as I am sure you know. One must go to the understanding of all those who ratified the Constitution, including those who held opposing understandings upon specific elements, or held reservations until the BOR was under construction. As you saw in the article above, such monority opinions can develop predominance after long periods of time.

Sure, but as far as the commerce clause goes, I don't think you'd find a lot of support for such a notion anywhere. It cripples one of the two main purposes of the federal government: ensuring, to the most reasonable extent possible, economic prosperity.

As far as the 14th Amendment goes, Berger, as mentioned above, as pretty much occupied the field. The article above (and its "citations," if one can call them that) make no reference to any real scholarship in the field whatsoever. It doesn't even make reference to the Congressional Globe, which the author can't even properly identify, referring to the Congressional Record, which didn't even begin publication until 1873! And I'm supposed to take him seriously?

The article attempts to portray Bingham as a crafty lawyer with a grand plan, but the debates show that Bingham was, at best, extremely sloppy and inconsistent, and at worst, an idiot.

Berger notes that in the debates surrounding both the Civil Rights Act and the amendments, members of Congress, including Bingham, were sloppy in referring to citizens or persons. The amendment itself appears to make a distinction (due process to persons, P&I to citizens) but the conduct of Bingham and others during the debates seems to imply that there was no distinction intended. Moreover, even the text of the Civil Rights Act itself is somewhat puzzling, using the term "inhabitants" at one point while on its face applicable only to citizens.

These fellows, such as the author of this article, just don't have the level of scholarship necessary to engage in a serious debate. There isn't any reference to the debate surrounding the Civil Rights Act or the 13th Amendment, which are absolutely key to understanding the 14th Amendment. It's a joke. It's not serious.

I'm going to bed. Maybe I'll talk more on the subject later. I don't know.