The two pages of the Congressionally-signed original of the Fourteenth Amendment in the National Archives, written with iron gall ink on parchment. It was last publicly displayed in 2013. As of 2025, it is stored in the research wing of the archives inside a boxed book of Acts of Congress from its 39th session.
Our good friends on the left, who have been so supportive of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside” must grant automatic citizenship to the “anchor babies” of people in our country illegally, they have not been nearly as thrilled with the Equal Protection Clause, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” when that clause says, essentially and throughout dozens of decisions, that Americans may not be treated differently based upon their race. Oh, the left certainly doesn’t want white Americans to be given a legal advantage, but legal “remedies” to “past discrimination” to assist black Americans meet with their approval.
After a Supreme Court ruling that was an affront to history, some states can’t wait to turn back the clock on voting rights | Editorial
After long ago overcoming racist efforts to dilute the power of voters of color, the conservative justices have unreasonably made it more difficult to challenge discriminatory legislative maps.
by The Editorial Board | Monday, May 11, 2026 | 5:01 AM EDT
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. — George Santayana
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the U.S. Supreme Court giving its seal of approval to Republican attempts to turn back the clock on voting rights in America is that, after long ago overcoming racist efforts to dilute the power of voters of color, we now see similar vipers slithering past the corroded gates of hell that were supposed to hold them in check.
The court defied reason with an opinion that, in essence, neutered the 1965 Voting Rights Act by ruling government efforts to remedy past racism, which tipped the scales in favor of white political candidates, are also racist — unless those remedies can be tied to specific acts of past discrimination that made them necessary.
The decision has opened the door for states to attempt to invalidate any congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color.
Note what appalls The Editorial Board, that they might lose “congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color.” The Board are specifically asking for districts which favor non-white candidates. This would be the same Editorial Board which wrote last January:
The president has also successfully lobbied some Republican-controlled states to remake congressional maps to favor the GOP, regardless of their potential illegality. In Texas, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed 2025 redistricting maps to be used for the upcoming election, even as a legal challenge moves forward over racial gerrymandering.
It seems that the Board approve of racial gerrymandering, an attempt to create, again in their words, “congressional district lines drawn to favor candidates of color,” but are diametrically opposed to district boundaries which favor Republicans.
There is a strong bias on the part of the Board. It would seem that black Americans, in their view, can only be represented by black representatives, but if anyone were to suggest that black representatives cannot represent white Americans, they’d be among the first to scream that’s racist. If someone stated that only a white candidate could reasonably represent a majority white district, they’d also claim such was racist.
Conservatives have long fought against the reverse racism which has been used, but electorally, the Louisiana v Callais decision might not be the win they think. Blacks are the Democrats most loyal voting Demographic, frequently giving 90% of their ballots to Democrats. Creating majority black districts had the effect of making neighboring districts safer for Republican candidates. If those majority black districts are phased out, spreading heavily black areas back into other districts, Republican candidates might fare more poorly, and close races more likely to elect the Democratic candidates. The Editorial Board might be appalled if fewer black Democrats were elected, but I’m sure that they’d trade black Democrats for white Democrats if it meant fewer Republicans of any color were in office.