I am by no means a Constitutional scholar; I think back to my courses, teachings, and readings and often ponder the political dimensions of those who are self-serving. As I watch the confirmation hearings and listen to Sean Spicer (not a credible person) articulate the notion of a White House seeking original intent protection, my thoughts jog back to the 18th century justification for the protection of white male supremacy, under the notion of wealth, capitalism, and white supremacy. Yet I recall those same white men stating the Constitution “is” a living-breathing document with mechanism for change. Who sets those changes? Who benefits from them? Moreover, if the right believes in original intent – what does this mean for the biological reproductive measures of women who have historically been suppressed, silenced, and exploited by white male hegemony? American Indians? Asians? How about Black folks who were deemed property (1857)? “They had no rights which the white man was bound to respect.” How about blacks as second-class citizens via Jim Crow laws by the Court? LGBTQ folk?
The argument of original intent is one manifested by straight, white, male, Christian hegemony since the dawn of the modern culture war. It is a white male ruling-class argument to manifest their interest. Yes I have read the Constitution. I have read it and the Declaration of Independence. I have challenged my students through various periodization studies to be suspicious and guarded against the American lie of American democracy and Constitutionalism. But I would love to hear from others.