> Sure, the due process clause and takings clause protect property rights on their face. That does not show that they were written to promote corporate over individual rights. Black people were regularly denied property rights in the immediate postwar period.
They did not deny that the law was supposed to protect Black people.
> Btw a 1940 book is not exactly current research. the standard work--also older, but still excelennent--is tenBroek's Equal under Law.
I don't think that research always progresses -- at least in economics it does not. More and more crap is published today.
> 1882--almost two decades later. And anyone who would believe Roscoe Conkling about anything deserves what he gets. But even here, he says at most that protection of blacks was not the sole purpose of the 14A,a lthough it was clearly the main purpose.
Which is all that I said in the first place. Nobody spoke of the sole purpose.
> This kind of "evidence' is the sort of thing that makes me sympathetic to Justice Scalia's view that all legislative history should be consigned to the trask bin--much less post-hoc "legislative history." Btw the Beard's work is almost wholly discredited among historians.
And Marx is "discredited" among most modern economsits. --
Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael at ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901