At Law & Liberty, a symposium on The Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment by Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick (Belknap Press 2021). From the introduction:
The Fourteenth Amendment has proven to be one of the most difficult parts of the Constitution to interpret. For over a century, controversy has swirled over how exactly the Due Process, Privileges or Immunities, and Equal Protection clauses limit the policies of states. That uncertainty hasn’t stopped the Supreme Court from viewing it as one of the most sweeping and transformative amendments. Randy Barnett and Evan Bernick have recently written an important new book on the Amendment, arguing that while the Court has mostly gotten the original meaning of the Amendment wrong, it has nevertheless stumbled into many correct outcomes. We asked four Law & Liberty contributors to weigh in on their interpretation.
And here are the contributions:
“Law,” “Citizens,” and 1868, by Christopher R. Green (Mississippi)
A Radical Original Meaning, by Julia D. Mahoney (Virginia)
Another Original Meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, by Jesse R. Merriam (Patrick Henry)
From Comity to Equality, by Ilan Wurman (Arizona State)
ANDREW HYMAN adds:
Judge Raymond Kethledge recently reviewed the new book by Professors Barnett and Bernick, in the Wall Street Journal: The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment’ Review: The Letter and the Spirit; Does the wording of the 14th Amendment lend itself to claims that judges must ‘find rights that are not specified in the Constitution’?
Then Roger Pilon wrote a letter to the editor of the Journal: Judicial Deference, Liberty and the Common Law; The answer to poor judging is better judging, not deference to the political branches.
Posted at 6:24 AM