Does Bush Support Slavery?
Published October 11, 2004
I am Furious George!
Bush Supports Strict Constructionists
I'm a bit late to comment on Friday's presidential debate, but I want to address one thing that President Bush stated in his angry replies.
When asked about what kind of judges he would appoint, Bush answered:
Uh, let me give you a couple of examples I guess of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words 'under God'' in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process, as opposed to strict interpretation of the Constitution. Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges years ago said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. That's personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all - you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. And so I would pick people that would be strict constructionists.
First of all, it's ridiculous that his example of activist judges are the authors of the Dred Scott decision. Boy, it must take real courage to come out against pro-slavery judges.
Second of all, Bush and the neo-cons don't care about Chief Justice Taney in 1857. When they deride activist judges, they want to replace current living judges who struck down Bush-authored or Bush-supported legislation in violation of the Constitution. Their idea of activist judges are those that uphold the separation of church and state, the due process rights of the accused, the privacy rights of citizens, the right to an abortion, and the equal protection rights of gays and lesbians.
But, even though his mention of slavery is a red herring issue, I feel compelled to note that Bush is just wrong on his constitutional history.
Prior to the 13th Amendment, a strict constructionist would have preserved slavery.
While the Constitution and the Bill of Rights don't use the word "slave" (the 13th Amendment is the only time that the word slavery is mentioned), the Constitution directly sanctioned slavery in five provisions:
- Art. I, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Counted three-fifths of all slaves for purposes of Congressional representation
- Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 1: Prevented Congress from ending the African slave trade before 1808, but did not require Congress to ban the trade after that date
- Art. I, Sec. 9, Cl. 4: Ensured that if a capitation or head tax were ever levied, slaves would be taxed at three-fifths the rate of whites
- Art. IV, Sec. 2, Cl. 3: Fugitive slave clause prohibited the states from emancipating fugitive slaves and required that runaways be returned to their owners on demand
- Art. V: Prohibited any amendment of the slave importation or capitation clauses before 1808
In addition, many other provisions of the Constitution indirectly guard slavery, such as the prohibition on taxing exports, which was intended to help slaveholders.
Perhaps most important, the structure of the Constitution was designed so Congress lacked the power to interfere in state activities such as the institution of slavery.
Thus, in 1857 (before the 13th Amendment passed), a strict constructionist judge would have upheld slavery.
Indeed, there is an argument that Brown v. Board of Education is an activist decision. A strict constructionist — and a strict believer of stare decisis - would have upheld "separate but equal." Neither the framers of the Constitution nor the architects of the 14th Amendment believed that segregation was illegal.
- Does Bush Support Slavery?
- Published: October 11, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Politics
- Filed Under: Politics: Law and Rights
- Writer: Junichi Semitsu
- Junichi Semitsu's BC Writer page
- Junichi Semitsu's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"... And he said also that his two favorite justices are Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas. So you get a pretty
good sense of where he's heading if he were to appoint somebody."
Junior Senator John Forbes Kerry (D-MA), who was one of 11 Democrats to approve the nomination of Antonin Scalia in 1986.
Bush believes in slavery, because why would these tax cuts continue as our expenses go up, unless bankrupting social programs is the goal? Trickle down Reganomics has been proven not to work, yet our current conditions resemble those good ol' days of deficit spending. If the government doesn't have the money for welfare, medicare, social security, or whathaveya, these creeps can own the growing poor & elderly. They just need to steal the election to complete their slavery agenda. Four more years of guilt-free, unregulated Bush(Rove-Cheney) Admin. will set in place the ideal Confederate States reality they always lived in. Imagine what they will do to ensure 2008 goes their way with the slick tricks they have now.
i was so emotionally moved with the promise by W not to apoint judges that believe in slavery. that, my friends, is compassion. i know, because i read about it on the internets.
jack e. jett
ROFL at Jack!
Welcome, Junichi. Considering we have quite a few people around here who wish the South had won the Civil War, you will be bringing some balance to the Blogcritics.
Good con law arguments. I totally agree that a strict constructionist would have ruled as SCOTUS did in Dred Scott. A little time travel and Roger Taney would be on Bush's Supreme Court. (But Clarence Thomas would still be picking cotton.)
I think Bush stepped in it in regard to property rights, too. Property rights aren't gone, they are just mainly vested in corporations now.
I don't know who prepared that answer for Bush, but I will guess it was someone used to arguing against civil rights trying to appear to be a compassionate conservative.
True, Michael. Advocates in the anti-abortion movement regularly compare fetuses to black people. I guess they look alike or something-:).
Though nominally a Bush supporter I too felt very queasy when Bush yanked the Dred Scott case out of his ass - it didn't make any sense at all to me, nor did I understand how preserving the legality of slavery was a particularly "activist" action - great post!
I agree, Eric. The Dred Scott thing went nowhere for Bush. Nevertheless, was it as 'handicapped' as his non-answer about what his administration did to protect the environment? "...Too many trees bunched...not being harvested. Causing a tinderbox." Something along those lines. I live in the Pacific Northwest, & I know I felt tremors stronger than Mt.StHelens when he stumbled on that one. The question was what have you done & he hinted at some 'plans' of someone's, did 'The Clean Air Act Shuffle', & that tinderbox crap. What is this guy going to do with no politics to play for 4 years? The wood joke, in hindsight, now sounds like nervous laughter.
I am not Bush's biggest supporter. However I think this is a dead issue. Look, Bush is from Texas and here in the Lone Star State he is idolized, regardless of what he says or does.
But, does it really matter if Bush supports slavery or not? He has no say in the matter, and it's not like he can or will do anything about it anyway.
I don't like Bush, and I don't like the war. But, no matter how much I dislike/disagree with the president, I think this issue is a lame attempt to turn people against Bush. Slavery is a buzz word. Trust me, it pulled me into this blog, and I find it ridiculous to even discuss Bush's intentions in this debate. Come on guys, with all the great mishaps of this administration, surely you can come up with something better to argue about.
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/20861)
Rumors I've seen suggest that Dred Scott is a coded message that W wants to appoint judges that will not strip an entire class of people of their rights in the name of other so-called rights.
In this case, the class is "fetuses" and the other right is "choice".
Dunno if that's what he meant, but apparently there are plenty of comparisons in the anti-abortion literature between Roe v. Wade and Scott v. Sanford.
I'm not sure. If it got played in the afterspin as 'Bush will appoint anti-Roe judges", then it might not be coy enough for Rove. Not that anyone should think that Bush won't appoint anti-Roe judges, but it plays badly if you're trying to reassure voters in the undecided camp.