{"id":592,"date":"2015-10-01T04:39:35","date_gmt":"2015-10-01T04:39:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/?p=592"},"modified":"2022-06-11T20:14:47","modified_gmt":"2022-06-11T20:14:47","slug":"exorcise-the-confederacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/2015\/10\/01\/exorcise-the-confederacy\/","title":{"rendered":"Exorcise the Confederacy!"},"content":{"rendered":"

It’s time to wrap up and conclude this blog series on\u00a0“Beyond the Confederate Narrative<\/a>.” For context, recall the\u00a0article’s argument as described in\u00a0prior\u00a0posts. The Confederate narrative\u00a0started out as a state-power justification for slavery and then\u00a0transformed into a Reconstruction-defeating jurisprudence (Part 1<\/a>\u00a0;\u00a0Part 2<\/a>), This narrative was influential yet always contested.Justice Harlan’s Civil Rights Cases<\/em>\u00a0dissent articulated a\u00a0contrary “People’s narrative” (Part 3<\/a>) and this doctrinal tradition helped shape the debate in key 1950s-60s era civil rights cases (Part 4<\/a>). Today, this final Part\u00a0will proceed by identifying\u00a0the ghosts of the Confederate narrative that remain in Court’s civil rights and federalism doctrine. We conclude with a call for a doctrinal exorcism.<\/p>\n

\"Fig06_Lost_Opportunities\"<\/a>

The Confederate Narrative 1997-2015<\/p><\/div>\n

The map above sketches out our basic argument regarding modern doctrine. (As usual, click the map for full-sized image with links to underlying cases). Four contemporary Court majority decisions — City of\u00a0Boerne<\/em> (1997), Morrison<\/em> (2000), NFIB<\/em> (2012), and Shelby County<\/em> (2013) — directly descend from cases like \u00a0Harris<\/em> (1883) and the Civil Rights Cases<\/em> (1883). In addition,\u00a0Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent in Obergefell<\/em> (2015) also falls within this tradition. All these opinions embrace a Confederate narrative by\u00a0articulating a contestable\u00a0understanding of the Constitution. These opinions all embrace the proposition that the States’ sovereign power severely limits the federal power to protect civil rights under the Reconstruction Amendments.<\/p>\n

This map presents a deliberately limited sketch rather than\u00a0an exhaustive survey. It shows\u00a0a loose network of conceptually related cases all advancing\u00a0a consistent perspective on federalism, civil rights, and the meaning of of Reconstruction. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in City of Boerne<\/em>\u00a0typifies this perspective. His opinion undertook a highly questionable reading<\/a> of the 14th Amendment’s ratification history to justify the conclusion that the Enforcement Clause is remedial rather than substantive.<\/p>\n

In Morrison<\/em>, Chief Justice Rehnquist elaborates on this perspective. His majority opinion explicitly cites\u00a0Harris<\/em> and the Civil Rights Cases <\/em>as justification for limiting Congressional power to prevent violence against women. Rehnquist considered this interpretation necessary\u00a0\u201cto prevent the Fourteenth Amendment from\u00a0obliterating the Framers’ carefully crafted balance of power between the\u00a0States and the National Government.”<\/p>\n

Finally, Chief Justice Roberts’ opinions in NFIB v. Sebelius<\/em>, \u00a0Shelby County<\/em>, and Obergefell<\/em>\u00a0incarnate the latest expression\u00a0of this narrative. Collectively, Roberts’\u00a0opinions advocate\u00a0an ideal of “equal sovereignty” for States. This ideal\u00a0effectively deprives the federal government of power under the Reconstruction Amendments. The power deprived is the to enforce human rights like\u00a0the rights to vote, marry or receive\u00a0health care.<\/p>\n

Of course,\u00a0we recognize that not all on the Court agreed with the opinions we criticize in City of Boerne<\/em>, Morrison<\/em>, NFIB<\/em>, Shelby County<\/em>, and Obergefell<\/em>.\u00a0Yet we lament the contrary opinions in those cases as lost opportunities. This is because these opinions tragically\u00a0failed to invoke\u00a0the People’s narrative. Though on the\u00a0right side of history (in our view), these competing opinions missed the opportunity to explain how and why\u00a0the Reconstruction Amendments actually expanded\u00a0the federal government’s constitutional power to enforce human rights. They failed to invoke Justice Harlan’s Civil Rights Cases<\/em> dissent or Senator Pool’s defense of\u00a0the 1870 Force Act, for example.<\/p>\n

Yet Harlan’s dissent and Pool’s defense should be invoked.Those treasure troves of analysis should not sit idle in the pages of the US Reports; they beg for re-reading and exposition.\u00a0Ultimately then, the bottom line of our argument is that a true understanding of human rights and dignity require us to rediscover lost treasures such as these and\u00a0reclaim the People’s perspective on\u00a0Reconstruction and its Amendments.<\/p>\n

Readers interested in the fine details of this argument can\u00a0read our entire article<\/a>. Meanwhile, our genealogical project is ongoing and we would love to engage with scholars and activists keen on such\u00a0conversation. Together perhaps we can reawaken the People’s narrative from its doctrinal slumber and move beyond the Confederate narrative.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

It’s time to wrap up and conclude this blog series on\u00a0“Beyond the Confederate Narrative.” For context, recall the\u00a0article’s argument as described in\u00a0prior\u00a0posts. The Confederate narrative\u00a0started out as a state-power justification for slavery and then\u00a0transformed into a Reconstruction-defeating jurisprudence (Part 1\u00a0;\u00a0Part … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":400,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/592"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/400"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=592"}],"version-history":[{"count":16,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/592\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":859,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/592\/revisions\/859"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=592"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=592"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ubalt.edu\/cstarger\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=592"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}