In this episode, the hosts discuss how the Loving v. Virginia decision barred States from prohibiting marriages because of the race of the participants, and the historical problem of “letting the States decide” the reach of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Highlighting the sectional differences and views on issues such as race and gender, they point out that the results are predictable and that it is reasonable to infer intent to thwart consensus. Beginning with the Founding Fathers, and the racial compromises in the Constitution, the podcast outlines the continuing role of race in compromises leading up to the Civil War and beyond. There are those who have suggested that the issues in Roe v. Wade should have been left to the States and sending it back to the States would be a good idea. Given the hyper-partisanship in politics today, the hosts question the reasonableness of this belief. Compromise is only effective when both sides literally have a compromise position.
A FEW KEY TAKEAWAYS FROM THIS EPISODE
The conflict between the concept of originalism and equal protection. (7:49)
We need to consider the real world as it exists now, when we compare the concept of originalism with the concept of a living constitution. (30:01)
If you aspire to greatness, you have to look forward and not be mired in the past. Loving vs Viriginia teaches us that we can have a brighter future if we allow everyone to be treated equally, and not be dragged down by this notion that there are lesser groups in the body politic. (37:20)