Re Jfans' comment, you may be right about the scope of the 14th Amendment standing alone, but it seems to me the Fifteenth Amendment, which sets forth clearly the voting rights protected by the Constitution, provides the sole basis for determining voting rights based on race, since, as a latter amendment, it trumps anything to the contrary in the 14th Amendment. In any event, it's clear that both the 14th and 15th Amendments protect all persons and races equally, including white persons and the white race. Jim Dueholm
In claiming the 14th Amendment was enacted for the protection of minority groups or for Blacks freed by the 13th Amendment, or that the 14th Amendment conferred a right to vote, Justice Jackson ignores the words of the 14th Amendment and a large body of Supreme Court cases.
The 14th Amendment by its terms extends its protection to all persons, without limitation. It has been construed by a number of cases to protect corporations, as the Supreme Court did in invoking the 14th Amendment to protect the New York Times from libel claims. The Supreme Court has said that the Amendment extends almost all of the Bill of Rights to all persons without limitation of race or color. There is no favor shown by these cases to any race or group of persons.
It gets worse. Justice Jackson made her extended comments in a voting rights case, and the Supreme Court held in Minor v. Happersett that the 14th Amendment does not confer a right to vote. As the Court in that case noted, there would have been no need for the 15th Amendment, which does confer a right to vote, if that had been done by the 14th Amendment. Similarly, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, if that had been done by the 14th Amendment. It's true the 14th Amendment gives Congress power to enforce the Amendment, and Congress in the Voting Rights Act purports to exercise congressional power under the 14th Amendment, but power to enforce is not power to construe.
So the only real basis for voting protection is the 15th Amendment, which says the right to vote can't be denied on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." If this Amendment was designed solely for the protection of the Blacks freed by the 13th Amendment, as Justice Jackson suggests, the protection for race and color were unnecessary. If it was designed solely for the protection of minority groups, the protection of race would be unnecessary, for color and previous condition of servitude would cover the waterfront. Ergo, the protection of race covers the white race.
Justice Jackson's maiden voyage hit a lot of shoals.
It may also be worth noting (as I have tried to do in my humble way, https://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2022/10/an-old-segregationist-canard-finds-a-supreme-court-exponent.html) that Justice Jackson's faux-originalist argument is strikingly like the one used long ago by critics of Brown v. Board of Education, who argued that, after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, states (and the federal government, too) had continued to act in a "race-conscious way" by maintaining segregated school systems. Therefore, concluded the critics, the Amendment didn't really mean what it seemed to say.
Re Jfans' comment, you may be right about the scope of the 14th Amendment standing alone, but it seems to me the Fifteenth Amendment, which sets forth clearly the voting rights protected by the Constitution, provides the sole basis for determining voting rights based on race, since, as a latter amendment, it trumps anything to the contrary in the 14th Amendment. In any event, it's clear that both the 14th and 15th Amendments protect all persons and races equally, including white persons and the white race. Jim Dueholm
In claiming the 14th Amendment was enacted for the protection of minority groups or for Blacks freed by the 13th Amendment, or that the 14th Amendment conferred a right to vote, Justice Jackson ignores the words of the 14th Amendment and a large body of Supreme Court cases.
The 14th Amendment by its terms extends its protection to all persons, without limitation. It has been construed by a number of cases to protect corporations, as the Supreme Court did in invoking the 14th Amendment to protect the New York Times from libel claims. The Supreme Court has said that the Amendment extends almost all of the Bill of Rights to all persons without limitation of race or color. There is no favor shown by these cases to any race or group of persons.
It gets worse. Justice Jackson made her extended comments in a voting rights case, and the Supreme Court held in Minor v. Happersett that the 14th Amendment does not confer a right to vote. As the Court in that case noted, there would have been no need for the 15th Amendment, which does confer a right to vote, if that had been done by the 14th Amendment. Similarly, there would have been no need for the 19th Amendment, giving women the right to vote, if that had been done by the 14th Amendment. It's true the 14th Amendment gives Congress power to enforce the Amendment, and Congress in the Voting Rights Act purports to exercise congressional power under the 14th Amendment, but power to enforce is not power to construe.
So the only real basis for voting protection is the 15th Amendment, which says the right to vote can't be denied on the basis of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." If this Amendment was designed solely for the protection of the Blacks freed by the 13th Amendment, as Justice Jackson suggests, the protection for race and color were unnecessary. If it was designed solely for the protection of minority groups, the protection of race would be unnecessary, for color and previous condition of servitude would cover the waterfront. Ergo, the protection of race covers the white race.
Justice Jackson's maiden voyage hit a lot of shoals.
Jim Dueholm
It may also be worth noting (as I have tried to do in my humble way, https://stromata.typepad.com/stromata_blog/2022/10/an-old-segregationist-canard-finds-a-supreme-court-exponent.html) that Justice Jackson's faux-originalist argument is strikingly like the one used long ago by critics of Brown v. Board of Education, who argued that, after the adoption of the 14th Amendment, states (and the federal government, too) had continued to act in a "race-conscious way" by maintaining segregated school systems. Therefore, concluded the critics, the Amendment didn't really mean what it seemed to say.