The Conscience of a Conservative · Chapter
IV: And Civil Rights explained
The chapter argues that the Supreme Court's school integration decision in Brown v.
What happens
The chapter argues that the Supreme Court's school integration decision in Brown v. Board of Education was unconstitutional because the Fourteenth Amendment was not intended to affect education, which is reserved to the states under the Tenth Amendment. It distinguishes between civil rights (rights protected by valid law) and natural or human rights, asserting that no conflict exists between states' rights and properly defined civil rights. The author supports the goal of integration but opposes federal enforcement, advocating for persuasion and education at the state and local level.
Themes in this chapter
States' Rights and Federal Overreach
The chapter defends states' exclusive jurisdiction over education against federal intervention, citing the Tenth Amendment.
Limited Constitutional Government
Argues that the Constitution must be interpreted according to the original intent of its authors, not the Supreme Court's views.
Education and Cultural Transmission
Education is presented as a state and local matter, with the author advocating for persuasion and education over federal force.
Characters to notice
- Narrator
Argues against federal intervention in education and critiques the Supreme Court's interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- The States
States are asserted to have exclusive jurisdiction over education under the Tenth Amendment.
- The True Conservative
Implied as the author's perspective, advocating for constitutional originalism and states' rights.
- Congress
Congress is urged to propose a constitutional amendment reaffirming states' exclusive jurisdiction over education.
- The Liberals
Implicitly criticized for misusing the term 'civil rights' and expanding federal power.
- Most Americans
Referenced as the people directly concerned with social and cultural problems, who should handle them locally.
Key passages
“I am therefore not impressed by the claim that the Supreme Court's decision on school integration is the law of the land. The Constitution, and the laws 'made in pursuance thereof,' are the 'supreme law of the land.' The Constitution is what its authors intended it to be and said it was—not what the Supreme Court says it is.”
The Supreme Court's ruling on school integration does not automatically become the supreme law; only the Constitution and laws made under it hold that status, and the Constitution's meaning is fixed by its authors' intent, not by the Court's interpretation.
Highlights the author's originalist view of constitutional interpretation.
“If we condone the practice of substituting our own intentions for those of the Constitution's framers, we reject, in effect, the principle of Constitutional Government: we endorse a rule of men, not of laws.”
Allowing judges to replace the framers' intentions with their own undermines constitutional government and replaces the rule of law with the rule of individuals.
Emphasizes the danger of judicial activism.
“I believe that the problem of race relations, like all social and cultural problems, is best handled by the people directly concerned. Social and cultural change, however desirable, should not be effected by the engines of national power.”
Race relations and similar issues should be resolved locally by those affected, not imposed by the federal government, even if the change is desirable.
Summarizes the author's preference for localism over federal coercion.
