That does sound like an interesting historical knot to untie! One wonders if Rehnquist was just trying to save his own ass or if he remembered it that way years later (time doing funny things to our memories and all). But following the thread of how Jackson wrestled with Plessy and how that informed Rehnquist as a jurist could be a very interesting thread to follow from the 50s to the 80s.
Check with your local public library and see what they have access to, or maybe check with the nearest college and see if you can get access there (either through the library or law school). Sometimes independent scholars can get help with research access. Any idea who might have his papers? National archives would probably have his SCOTUS stuff (and those from when he was in government in other capacities) but you might have to go elsewhere for other stuff…
That says a lot about his views, then. Seems like he was a pretty straight guy with regards to wanting to uphold the constituion and all. Seems like he deserves the biography treatment!
A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency. Even during that period, a succeeding commander may revoke it all. But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes.
Do you have a (relatively active) Wikipedia account? There’s a Wikipedia Library via which you can request access (tho perhaps not to everything you seek).
Congress passes a law, SCOTUS upholds it, two Presidents from different parties say “meh…no.” This could actually be the start of a Constitutional crisis.
Personally, I think the law is stupid and I think SCOTUS is wrong, but the executive branch ignoring the other two branches is not a good sign for the future of our democracy.
Ah, the Andrew Jackson philosophy on executive power. (After a SCOTUS decision that he didn’t agree with he was widely reported, perhaps apocryphally, as saying “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”)
I know. I saw that. So what. It doesn’t do anything. It’s so stupid. When some state stops issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, then I will get worried. This is just right wing virtue signaling.
Please note: I am not saying Obergefell isn’t in danger. It is. I am just saying that this resolution doesn’t threaten Obergefell at all. And if the Idaho legislature were serious about overturning Obergefell, there are things they could do to trigger that lawsuit. They could pass a new law banning same sex marriages, including a provision prohibiting county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples, regardless of Obergefell. This is the model Mississippi followed to trigger the lawsuit that overturned Roe v. Wade. Idaho could do that. That they didn’t is very telling. They’re more interested in waving a Conservative Christian flag, as it were, than in actually doing anything to overturn Obergefell.
