ConstitutionNEXT
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact
Search

Justice  Clarence  Thomas  Stands  Alone  and  Undaunted

12/11/2019

 
Understand Clarence Thomas’ jurisprudence and you will understand a lot about the original intent of the Constitution.

In Thomas’ view, the Constitution is as current today as it was when it was drafted in 1787.  It is the blueprint for our self-governing Republic where the People are sovereign, not subjects to be ruled.

If the Founders had wanted a ‘living, breathing Constitution’, they could simply have copied the British who don’t have a written constitution, Thomas has said.  But the Founders chose to have a written Constitution and it was understood at the time that its meaning would not change, except through amendment.

Thus, the Founders’ design was ‘perfictible’, as Thomas has put it.  This was illustrated by the Civil War amendments that secured the blessings of liberty for former slaves and their progeny. 

Thomas believes the modern Supreme Court and the other branches of government have deformed the Constitution.  He has taken it as his mission to remedy the situation.  Thus, he views stare decisis - the doctrine that judges should follow precedent - as being applicable to the lower courts.  But Supreme Court Justices must be faithful to the Constitution, not prior cases which should be overturned if they have deviated from our founding documents. 

This makes Thomas often a minority of one on the Court, but his model is Justice Harlan’s solitary dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the worst decisions the Supreme Court has ever handed down.   The Plessy Court ruled that ‘separate but equal’ satisfied the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection clause, but Harlan’s dissent eviscerated this view and he eventually prevailed.  Like Harlan, Thomas is leaving a road map for future Justices - in Thomas’ case, to return to the Founders’ original design.   

To give one example, the Supreme Court struck down Chicago’s ban on owning handguns in the 2010 McDonald case on the grounds it violated the Second Amendment as applied to the states through the judicially-created ‘substantive due process’ doctrine under the 14th Amendment.  Thomas agreed the ban should have been struck down but would have done so on the grounds that the Second Amendment is one of the liberties secured to U.S. citizens against the states by the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment.  Thomas views ‘substantive due process’ as made up from whole cloth and as having the unfortunate consequence of letting the Supreme Court create new rights willy-nilly out of thin air.  The Court has done on more than one occasion, such as the fundamental federal right to abortion created in Roe v. Wade.  The Privileges or Immunities of U.S. citizenship, on the other hand, are relatively more circumscribed and much less subject to judicial mischief.  Thomas would like to see previous erroneous Supreme Court rulings overturned, substantive due process scrapped, and the Supreme Court getting back to the original text of the Constitution. 

Likewise, Thomas views the Supreme Court’s yielding to the New Deal and the consequent expansion of the Commerce Clause and the rise of the administrative state as additional judicial wrong turns that need to be corrected.  Those wrong turns have given rise to any number of absurdities like the Montana rancher who dug two ponds on his own land and was imprisoned for supposedly polluting the navigable waterways of the United States. 

Previous Constitution Minutes have pointed out instances where we are worse off by straying from the Founders’ design - for example, the ill-advised War Powers Act and the turning of the First Amendment proscription against the establishment of an official religion into a quagmire of hard-to-understand distinctions about what constitutes an endorsement of religion and what does not.  All originalists owe a debt of gratitude to Justice Thomas for standing for First Principles even when it means standing alone.


Comments are closed.

    The Web Team

    Our web team is dedicated to bringing you Constitutional news you can use.

    Archives

    January 2025
    November 2024
    October 2024
    September 2024
    August 2024
    July 2024
    June 2024
    November 2023
    June 2023
    February 2023
    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    October 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    March 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018

    Categories

    All
    Constitution Minute
    Contributed Articles
    News Round Up
    News Round-Up

    RSS Feed

Home

Blog

Resources

Contact

Dedicated to protecting freedom for all Americans, present and future.
Photo from Fibonacci Blue
  • Welcome
  • Videos
    • Archives
  • Blog
  • Your Rights
  • Resources
    • Resources By Age-Group
    • Teacher Resources
    • Competitions
    • Opportunities for Young Americans
  • Bill of Rights
  • Contact