Construction Laborers

 

Construction Laborer

Standard Occupational Classification 47-2061

I happened to be driving in Ohio in a northwesterly direction on Route 250 just coming up on Norwalk when I passed the sign below for a construction company wanting to hire laborers for $34.00 and hour, an amount that translates into an annual salary of $70,720 a year assuming a forty hour week and two weeks’ vacation.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) defines an occupation, construction laborer, as one of its standard occupations in its Standard Occupational Classifications (SOC) Manual. Construction laborer, a.k.a. 47-2061, had nationwide employment of 1,096,780 in 2025, the biggest construction occupation of 61 construction and extraction occupations. The SOC defines it as a job that “perform tasks involving physical labor at the construction site. May operate hand and power tools of all types: air hammers, earth tampers, cement mixers . . . May clean and prepare sites, dig trenches, brace excavations, erect scaffolding, and clean up rubble . . .”

BLS reports an increase of 209,200 employed as construction laborers from 2015 to 2025 but a smaller increase of 162,780 from 2005 to 2025. The median national wage for construction laborers in 2025 was $22.66 an hour, up from $12.22 in 2005 and $15.34 in 2015. The annual inflation rate from 2015 to 2025 was 3.11 percent, but the annual percentage increase in the median wage was 3.97 percent, assuring an increase in buying power.

The Ohio median wage for construction laborers in 2025 was $26.96, up from $15.51 in 2005 and $17.66 in 2015. The annual percentage increase in the median wage was 4.32 percent, well above the 3.11 inflation rate. BLS reports the 90^th percentile wage for construction laborers as $37.54 an hour; 90th percentile wage in Ohio is $38.04 an hour. A $34.00 assures at least 10 percent of the 1,096,780 construction laborers, or 109,678, make more than $34.00 an hour, but nothing assures applicants will get full time work; the annual wage may not be as much as it looks.

The $34.00 an hour wage for a job doing physical labor that requires no formal educational credential of any kind, not even a high school degree, suggests a company hoping to draw applicants from other types of lower paid, part time work. For a construction job doing day long physical labor suggests a job for younger applicants, but BLS reports population growth of those 16 to 34 years old has slowed to a crawl suggesting a need to add to the wage offer to get what they need. The Trump administration shutting down immigration and deporting immigrants confirms another source of the higher wage. For the savvy teen finishing high school it’s an entry level job with a path to a skilled trade.

We the People

 

Jill Lepore, We the People: A History of the United States Constitution, (NY: Liveright Publishing Co., 2025) 581 pages

We the People begins with an introduction establishing America’s 18^th century colonists expected constitutions will be amendable. Toward the end of this 22 page introduction author Lepore explains the “book is a history of American constitutionalism as told through a collection of stories about constitutional change.” It relies on an archive of every significant proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution, assembled as part of a personal project of the author.

The book has four parts with each part subdivided into three, or once four, chapters. Parts follow in chronological order with Part I from 1774 to 1791; Part II 1803-1896; Part III 1905-1959; Part IV 1961-2016. A brief epilogue ends the book.

Part I opens with the First Continental Congress in September 1774 when the colonies sent delegates to draft a constitutional document to replace British colonial government with a system of self-government. Lepore takes readers through state conventions drafting and attempting to ratify their constitutions and then to the drafting of the 1781 Articles of Confederation.  Narrative continues with the arguments writing our U.S. Constitution at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the difficulties getting it ratified, and the ultimate drafting and adoption of the bill of rights.

Small groups drafted these many constitutions and then made them public hoping to get them ratified, but mostly they got a torrent of criticism and demands to change them. Opposition to slavery was strong and attempts to end it and define the rights of blacks brought lots of arguments, as did the constitutional status of women and Indians. When the delegates that worked through the summer of 1787 finished their work, there were renewed demands for amendments. Since their new constitution included Article V detailing an amendment process, James Madison convinced opponents they could amend after ratification. He succeeded in getting the constitution ratified as originally written by condensing the many proposals into ten amendments put at the end of the constitution as the Bill of Rights.

In 1787 it was not obvious amending the constitution would be as hard as it has turned out to be. In each of the remaining three parts Lepore has pages with lists of proposed amendments made as part of political party platforms. The lists provide topics for narrating the repeating demands for change by formal amendment, for narrating alternative constitutional interpretations and for reviewing Supreme Court rulings on constitutional disputes brought to it.

Part II has a thorough discussion of controversies over citizenship, the 1843 Seneca Falls women’s rights conference, voting rights, the nullification claims of John C. Calhoun and the claims of Chief Justice John Marshall to make the Supreme Court the final arbiter of constitutional disputes. Discussion of many Supreme Court cases and their influence on law and politics begin here with Marbury v. Madison and continues through the narrative where readers meet more justices with new views and new cases, often contesting and reinterpreting disputes.

The narrative considers the legal and constitutional chaos of the Civil War and reconstruction. Members of Congress proposed many amendments as a hope to avert war. One, the Corwin Amendment, would have prohibited amendments to abolish slavery. It would come again in March 1956 as the “Lost Amendment.” There is a thorough discussion of the 13^th, 14^th and 15^th amendments and the effort to define citizenship and guarantee civil rights to all. Lepore considers the controversies over rights to self government for those living in U. S. territories, especially Hawaii and Hawaiians, but also Chinese, Japanese and American Indians.

The Part III period 1905-1959 included the amendments 16 through 19 ratified from 1913 to 1920, where three of the four amendments – income tax, prohibition, and women’s suffrage – came after decades of protest. An amendment to abolish child labor began appearing on party platforms in this era, mostly as a response to the Supreme Court refusal to allow it; it failed. Lepore gives a thorough review of the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Supreme Court decision, the protest that followed and demands to repeal it by defiance or amendment.

In the Part IV years 1961-2016 readers meet Indiana Senator Birch Bayh who took over the Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments in 1963. He convinced the country and the Congress to ratify amendment 24, 25 and 26 and almost succeeded abolishing the electoral college via another amendment. It was an era of well funded interest groups which brought an unprecedented number of Article V applications for constitutional conventions. Lepore explores a variety of amendment proposals for the right to life, school prayer, a balanced budget, busing, campaign finance, Indian rights and the controversies over judicial appointments. There follows another lengthy discussion of women’s rights and the ERA that includes the efforts of Patsy Takemoto Mink, Phyllis Schlafly and Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, along with a review of gay rights, black rights and calls for significant changes to the constitution.

The last chapter before the epilogue features the life and career of Justice Antonin Scalia during the years he served on the Supreme Court: 1986-2016. Featuring Scalia appears to be a device to narrate the polarizing jurisprudence of a period when constitutional amendments became impossible. Since Scalia left a trail of academic writing and did not hesitate to give speeches, conduct seminars and offer his judicial views in television interviews, his claim our constitution had an original intent to guide jurisprudence free from politics and personal preference generated significant public argument in these years. Lepore narrates these arguments, emphasizing Scalia’s gun rights opinion in D.C. v. Heller, which captures the hypocrisy of it all.

In her brief epilogue Lepore reminds us our founding fathers believed in reason and progress, but mentions “outdated constitutions undermine democratic governance.” Then she questions if there is a point beyond which a constitution cannot be stretched but breaks. Our Constitution feels obsolete, to be charitable. In We the People Lepore makes it feel much worse than obsolete. By covering events from 1774 to the present Lepore establishes the same disputes occur and then recur as unresolved politics from one century to the next: women and minority rights to wit. Powerful interests have repeatedly exploited the undemocratic features of our constitution to block and stall and impose their will without regard to compromise or democracy or public welfare as the many events Lepore narrates here so clearly prove. Legislation is hard enough to pass in our bicameral Congress, but given the Supreme Court expects to nullify laws passed by an elected Congress, disputes that could and should be resolved with legislation become amendment proposals instead: abortion to wit. Since Article V makes amendment difficult to impossible, change comes to a halt while protest continues or returns in a new generation. The book fully captures the rambling, hurtling cycles of anger, frustration and chaos in a perpetually polarized country. In the 21^st century money alone governs America, where our outdated constitution undermines democratic governance.

Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn

Christopher Cox, Woodrow Wilson: The Light Withdrawn, (NY: Simon & Shuster, 2024), ISBN 978-1-6680-1078-5

This new biography of Woodrow Wilson gets its subtitle from the first line of the John Greenleaf Whittier poem “Ichabod.”

So Fallen! So lost! The light withdrawn

Which once he wore!

The Glory from his gray hairs gone

Forevermore!

Biographies of presidents typically emphasize their time in office and the political events they pursue, but this biography concentrates on racial and gender discrimination during Woodrow Wilson’s life and how he addressed them before and after he became president The book covers 495 pages with the narrative partitioned into four parts. Part I begins with a summary discussion of the early crusade against slavery and women’s suffrage movement before turning to Wilson’s 1856 birth, early life, education, a brief year practicing law, marriage and accepting faculty posts teaching at Bryn Mawr, Wesleyan University, and Princeton University; he accepted the Princeton Board’s offer to be their president in June 1902.

Other Wilson biographies write extensively of his legislative record: the Federal Reserve Act, Clayton Antitrust Act, Federal Trade Commission Act, and progressive income tax, but none of that appears in this Cox biography. Instead, the narrative through the book emphasizes the documented record of Wilson’s personal relations with family and friends and with university scholars and politicians, both his supporters and detractors. Beginning with his academic years he published books of history and politics in 1885, 1889, 1893, 1897, and 1902. Cox scoured these works and Wilson’s other writing, archival letters, relationships, and associations. The narrative returns repeatedly to the published record of his racial views and his decades long opposition to woman’s suffrage.

The chapters of Part I offer a sampling of Woodrow Wilson’s views during Reconstruction and the early Jim Crow south. He predicts the right to vote without regard to race would “make the ‘disintegration of southern society’ and the ‘irretrievable’ alienation of ‘the white men of the South,’ its ‘real leaders.’” In his History of the American People he explained “It is ‘the mere instinct of self-preservation’ that forced ‘the white men of the South’ to do everything within their power to restore white supremacy ‘by means fair or foul.’”  Wilson’s apologizes for the Ku Klux Klan admitting “the Klansmen ‘took the law into their own hands,’ but undertook ‘by intimidation what they were not allowed to attempt by the ballot.’” He concluded the Klan was “really ‘for the mere pleasure of association, for private amusement.’” Cox provides a thorough narrative of his discomfort and unlikely appointment to teach at Bryn Mawr, a women’s college. Bryn Mawr documents an early episode of a long trail of evidence documenting Wilson’s refusal to accept women as equals.

Part II offers a discussion of him as Princeton President, elected Governor of New Jersey and first term as president. His years in politics forced him to take positions and make decisions on race and woman’s suffrage rather than write or ventilate about them. Cox quotes Wilson as telling his gubernatorial campaign manager he was “definitely and irreconcilably opposed to woman suffrage” and that “woman’s place was in the home.” His writing and documented decisions find him opposed to admitting black men to Princeton, opposing unions, opposing immigrants and purging the federal government of black employees while arranging to have the racist film “Birth of a Nation” shown at the White House.

Available evidence permits Cox to give readers an idea of Wilson in his personal life. Hundreds of letters survive to and from his two wives, Ellen Axxon and Edith Galt, and a third relationship with Mary Peck Hulbert. In letters to Ellen, he wrote “Marriage alone was a woman’s ‘essential condition’ for the performance of her ‘proper duties.’” Readers learn Wilson leaves on vacations without Ellen such as one to Bermuda where he meets Mary Peck and starts an indeterminate relationship of eight years documented with 700 letters. We learn of the personal Wilson, a man of “immutable routines,” who enjoys taking afternoon drives and plays golf as part of his daily schedule, finishing 1,200 rounds of golf as president.

Part III, entitled Holding Back the Tide, covers December 1916 to December 1917, a period that energized the Women’s suffrage movement with intensified political pressure to secure national voting rights. Cox covers their campaign thoroughly. Readers meet many women, the groups they organize and the protest marches and demonstrations they conduct. During this period, Wilson reversed his pledge to keep America out of WWI. He prevailed on Congress to declare war to make the world “Safe for Democracy” while simultaneously demanding to silence opposition to American entry into WWI in a well-documented campaign of repression and censorship. During this period the war became an excuse for Wilson to repress and censor woman demonstrating for voting rights. Cox narrates Wilson’s deliberate use of arrest, intimidation and violence to end street protest that included periods of physical abuse in jails and forced feeding of hunger strikers.

Part IV has the remaining years of his second term. By this time women had the right to vote in 13 states, including New York, increasing the political risk to Democratic party opponents of voting. Then Republicans took over the House and Senate in the November 1918 election. When WWI ended November 11, Wilson insisted on going to Paris to negotiate the peace treaty and establish a League of Nations instead of staying home to confront domestic turmoil, especially passing a federal budget, inflation and violent race riots. Cox tells the remaining story of Wilson maneuvering within his administration and his posturing in the House and Senate in the political fight to secure voting rights for woman. Cox gives details of the Congressional debate and final votes in June 1919. Tennessee became the last state to ratify the Susan B. Anthony Amendment that finally became part of the U.S. Constitution August 18, 1920. The narrative ends here, or rather just stops.

Over many years I have read dozens of biographies of Presidents including Woodrow Wilson. None I know of leave out so much of their political record to focus on the man and the ethical principles that drive their decisions and their conduct as this biography. Any illusion that Woodrow Wilson was a confident, accepting and fair-minded gentleman disappears in this Cox biography. The glory from his gray hairs gone. Forevermore!

 

 

Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and his Disastrous Choice to Run Again

Jake Tapper, & Alex Thompson, Original Sin: President Biden’s Decline, Its Cover-Up, and his Disastrous Choice to Run Again, (New York: Penguin Press, 2025), ISBN 9798217060672, $32.00 

 I was given a copy of Original Sin and read it wondering what it could tell me of the Biden saga that I did not already know? We know Joe Biden was 82 for the 2024 presidential election and would be 86 at the end of a second term. How much more information did I need since I could see he had aged just looking at him on television and then he accepted a debate with Trump, which ended any doubt about another term given the blank pauses and fumbling speech. In the Author’s Note they tell readers “Our only agenda is to present the disturbing reality of what happened in the White House and the Democratic presidential campaign in 2023-2024, as told to us by approximately two hundred people, including lawmakers and White House and campaign insiders, . . .” 

 The book has 19 chapters and runs 314 pages and I can testify the authors did an impressive job organizing the material from all those interviews and writing a clearly worded narrative. The primary story they tell shows Joe Biden, his wife Jill and his loyal White House advisors unable to face the very real doubts of a second term; there was denial and a loss of objectivity but nothing Joe Biden did could be called a cover up, a term that connotes legal misconduct. Since presidents have to be visible, their family and advisors have no duty to offer any doubts they might have to the public; the public must expect to make up their own mind. 

The authors interviewed Democratic and Republican office holders, party officials, pollsters and other journalists, both necessary and appropriate, but they added related personal and family history to the primary story. I tried to connect the discussion of the Biden family troubles of sons Beau, and Hunter and daughter Ashley, but that discussion always felt tacked onto their stated purpose: “Our only agenda is to present what happened in the White House and the Democratic presidential campaign.” 

 I found it difficult to construe the loss of son Beau to cancer and Hunter’s legal missteps as part of President Biden’s Decline, or his decision to press on for a second term. The discussion of these matters feels especially callus and unnecessary given just the facts the authors provide. They explain “The Plea Deal.” Hunter would plead guilty to evading $200,000 in income taxes and illegal possession of a fire arm. Biden opponents howled their objections and the federal judge in the case, Maryellen Noreika, a Trump appointee, refused to accept the plea deal, dragging out the case further. 

As I recall President Biden promised to allow his appointed Attorney General, Merrick Garland, to go ahead and prosecute Hunters case as part of his general promise to avoid interfering with federal law enforcement, but that was before losing the 2024 election and listening to Trump make repeated threats to him and his family with claims the Biden’s were part of an “organized crime family.” Recognizing the harassment Trump would create for his family he used his pardon power to protect them at the last moments of his term. In doing so, he was defensive and suggested toxic politics had something to do with the outcome of the case and his need to give blanket pardons. For this decision, the author’s make sweeping condemnation; they quote the prosecutor characterizing the pardons as “gratuitous and wrong” and that Merrick Garland was “tremendously disappointed” and that “To many Democrats, this was another ignominious act by a president who repeatedly put the interests of his family ahead of those of this party and country.” These conclusions feel sanctimonious and hypocritical given Trump’s pardons of hundreds of the January 6 felons. To some of us Hunter Biden’s crimes feel trivial compared to assaulting the U.S. Capital and refusing to accept the 2020 election results. 

I struggle to find a purpose for writing the story of Joe Biden’s Decline. A four page conclusion chapter asks “What if a president is unable to discharge their duties but doesn’t recognize that fact?” The authors admit those close to President Biden were always ready “to attest to his ability to make sound decisions if on his own schedule.” There is a suggestion Congress could legally require the president’s physician to certify to Congress the president is fit to serve, but so far in U.S. history only death assures a president will be unfit for office; there is no mention that anyone in Congress has offered such legislation. The authors mention several other questionable presidents, but offer no solution to future presidents and evaluating their qualification for office. 

 If there was a lessen for the future in the Joe Biden case I could not find it in Original Sin. I make note that both authors have worked in corporate media and wonder if they could keep their jobs writing a similar book about Donald Trump? .

Coming Up Short

Robert B. Reich, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 2025), $30.00, ISBN 9780953803288

In his newest book, Coming Up Short, author Robert Reich offers readers a unique combination of personal memoir, U.S. history and policy discussion condensed into 350 pages. Born in 1946 he grew up as a founding member of the boomer generation. He lived through the Civil Rights and Vietnam War era while a student and then took an active role in politics, serving in judicial and administrative appointments during the Ford, Carter and Clinton administrations. While he never held political office, he made an unsuccessful run for governor of Massachusetts and served as an informal advisor to political candidates and office holders during his years as a professor in academia.

The narrative follows a rough chronology through his life divided into six parts that serve as chapters.  Since he met bullies growing up in South Salem, New York and attending Lewisboro elementary school, standing up to America’s rich corporate bullies becomes a theme guiding the narrative. Education at Dartmouth College, Oxford as a Rhodes Scholar and Yale Law School and his work as a clerk to a federal judge, Assistant Solicitor General to Robert Bork, policy director at the Federal Trade Commission, and Secretary of Labor allowed him to meet dozens of future and current politicians and write opinion informed by personal experience.

Reich expresses his support for equal rights and social justice with the stories of his encounters with dozens of politicians and celebrities he met during his career. Boomers especially get a chance to reconsider old events in a new perspective. In 1965, as Dartmouth class president, he met Hillary Rodham, then a student at Wellesley College, and then introduced her to Bill Clinton six years later while they and Clarence Thomas were all Yale law students. While still a student  he was an intern for Robert Kennedy, then volunteered for the Gene McCarthy presidential campaign, traveled to England with Bill Clinton to be Rhodes scholars and figure out how to evade the Vietnam draft. He met Robert Bork while his law school student and then worked for him when Bork was Solicitor General. A 22-page saga of Bork’s career and the origins of the term “Borked” follow. Reich suggests Bork deserved better than he got from the press and Congress.

Reich titles Part III, The Giant U-Turn, that identifies a 1971 letter of attorney and later Supreme Court justice Lewis Powell to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce recommending a shift of corporate America to “mobilize for political combat.”  Before describing some of the resulting abuses and characteristics of corporate misconduct, Reich describes his work with the Carter administration and defends President Carter as not as bad as we think. In two other sections he discusses his relationship with John Kenneth Galbraith and a professorial tenure battle of his wife while at Harvard.

Part IV has eighty pages, the longest in the book, which Reich entitles Failure. It describes his work as a Democratic party advisor to Senator Gary Hart, Governor and presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, and Bill Clinton.  After Clinton wins the presidential election he becomes Secretary of Labor, which he hoped would allow him to pursue an agenda to benefit the working class. Reich describes his failed efforts as Secretary of Labor by narrating his bureaucratic policy battles with Secretary Robert Rubin and with stories of Alan Greenspan and others.

One of his failures occurred at a Bridgestone tire plant in Oklahoma where a failure to install safety cutoff switches had killed and injured workers and remained as a risk to injure more. Reich responded to the failure by seeking an emergency order to require installation of cutoff switches and imposed a $7.5 million fine. The company denied all wrong doing and threatened to close the plant. Reich backed down: “The bullies won. I am haunted by our failure. All I had considered was the moral superiority of my position and the thrill of the spectacle. I hadn’t imagined Bridgestone would take hostage the livelihoods of more than a thousand people.” He was haunted because he made the wrong decision to give in! He left the job at the end of Clinton’s first term to spend more time with his kids; a claim we can believe but readers might conclude, as I did, that he was worn out with Bill Clinton and his Wall Street tilt.

In the gathering storm, the title for Part V, readers get subtitled commentary on episodes of misconduct and cowardice by individuals in positions of leadership. Reich quotes from a speech he made to the Democratic Leadership Council where he warned them of a two tiered society of winners and losers. After the warning come stories of people who promoted or acquiesced in the two-tier society: Roger Ailes, Rush Limbaugh, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Barak Obama, Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and others.

About midway through Part V Reich switches to the aftermath of the Bush recession to discuss the tea partiers, occupiers and other angry people.”  There is special mention of the cowardice of Clinton and Obama: “Both Clinton and Obama stood by as corporations busted trade unions, backbone of the working class.” Recall Obama did not prosecute the Bush era banking looters. Reich recounts visits to Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Missouri, and North Carolina and the anti-establishment rage he found there. He goes on to discuss the end of the American Dream and the end of the Republican party as a political party. The final subsection offers the five elements that make fascism. He finishes with “Americans can preserve our democracy and share our prosperity only by attacking and countering concentrated wealth and the political corruption that accompanies it.” 

Part VI, The Long Game, ends the book with a smorgasbord of personal stories, a few suggestions, and a tiny slice of optimism. One story was his failed campaign for Massachusetts governor. As a political advisor he thought he knew elective politics but running for office taught him the essential personality traits he does not have: narcissist, extrovert, method actor, thick skin, and also avoid consultants and be respectful of media. He concluded “Running for office made me even more keenly aware of the role and responsibility of mainstream media in a democracy in danger of coming apart.”

Other stories describe an aborted appearance with “Dr. Phil,” his friendship and admiration for Bernie Sanders, the pleasure of seeing and remembering some of his students. The last pages have some broad suggestions for restoring capitalism, reclaiming patriotism, creating better workplaces, and sharing profits. The book ends with thoughts on growing old, 79, and the need for the younger generation to take over and restore democracy.

The Reich book is built on the same ethical principles as similar books and commentary by others like Arlie Russel Hochschild, Heather Cox Richardson, and recent books of Steven Brill and David Leonhardt. However, his 60 year career in politics and academia required him to confront an unusually long list of political disputes and meet an unusually long list of people who became colleagues, friends and adversaries. Unlike political memoirs in my experience Reich agonizes over his failures. Unlike corporate media he calls evil by its true name: campaign finance is bribery, Trump Republicans are liars, enablers and accessories to crimes against the constitution. Anita Hill was right, Justice Alito is the most cognitively dishonest justice since Roger Taney, Democrats Al Gore, Bill Clinton and Barak Obama are cowards; the Democratic party has failed for decades to protect the working class, and more.

In a section titled “My Illicit Affair” Reich describes his friendship with Republican Senator Allan Simpson of Wyoming, a political opponent he admired for “his sincerity and passion for democracy.”  Still friends in 2016, Reich asked why more Republicans weren’t speaking out against Trump.

“They’re scared,” he said.

“Scared of Trump?”

“No,” he said, lowering his voice. “They’re scared of the kind of people Trump is attracting and what he’s bringing out in them.”

“You mean they’re scared of being physically harmed?”

“Friend it only takes one nut case?”

Enough said.

The Original Meaning of the 14th Amendment

 

Randy E. Barnett, Evan D. Bernick, The Original Meaning of the 14^th Amendment: Its Letter and Spirit, (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press, 2021), 382 pages, ISBN 9780674257764

The book’s introduction begins “Nothing in the Constitution of the United States is more important to contemporary American law and politics than the Fourteenth Amendment. The book that follows gives a “comprehensive account of the original meaning and purposes” of its key components, which are Section 1 and Section 5. The authors organized the history around the three key clauses of the second sentence to Section 1. Part I has The Privileges or Immunities of Citizenship Clause, Part II has The Due Process of Law Clause and Part III has The Equal Protection of Laws Clause. A conclusion of 14 pages ends the book. Be sure to read the March 12, 1871 letter of Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley reproduced in the preface. It foreshadows what to expect from American courts.

The Introduction explains the origins of originalism and begins developing the original public meaning of the 14^th Amendment from 1868.  To do this the authors review historical writing of legal scholars that develops a distinction between the public meaning of the original text in contrast to how the text is applied later in constitutional disagreements. While the Constitution has some indeterminant words and phrases Barnett and Bernick argue it conveys an original spirit: “Where the letter of the Constitution is unclear, fidelity to the Constitution’s design requires that judges, legislators, and other constitutional decision makers turn to the law’s original spirit.”

The Privileges or Immunities of Citizenship Clause discussion in Part I makes up the longest section of the book with 217 pages. The clause as written in the Fourteenth Amendment rephrases the original Article IV, Section 2 from the 1787 Constitution. As originally written it was “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens of the several States.” The Fourteenth Amendment adds the phrase “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the Privileges or Immunities of Citizens of the United States.

The original phrase suggests states are free to define rights for their citizens and apply them to residents and all others traveling into, or through, their state; citizenship varies by state. The Fourteenth Amendment applies to Citizens of the United States, hoping to establish some uniform rights to U.S. citizens. Neither phrase defines Privileges and Immunities, which remains open to interpretation.

Barnett and Bernick narrate and document the history of the chaotic contest to define the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens. From 1787 to 1868 the demands of southern slave holders to exclude black people - free blacks, slaves - from any rights of citizenship dominant the narrative. The federal courts took the southern side – Barren v. Baltimore, Dred Scott v. Sandford to wit – which helped generate the rise of the Republican Party.

Southern secession in 1860-61 left the federal government with northerners determined to redefine and guarantee a national citizenship for all.  Chapter 4 and 5 provide a thorough discussion of the Congressional debate to define privileges and immunities of citizens and to embody them into the 13^th Amendment in 1865 and 14^th Amendment in 1868.

Ratifying the two amendments did not end the citizenship debate. Chapter 6, entitled Enforcing Citizenship, is the longest chapter in the book at 49 pages. It narrates the continuing debate that brought passage of the 15^th Amendment to guarantee the right to vote and for the need to enforce the 14^th Amendment. The 14^th Amendment includes Section 5 that gives Congress the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of Article 1. Barnett and Bernick give a thorough account of the Congressional debate of enforcement efforts leading to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Enforcement Acts in 1870-71, legislation intended to quell the violence of southern groups such as the KKK.  

The second half of Chapter 6 reviews the depressing and disruptive role that the federal courts took to redefine the privileges and immunities of citizenship to suit the racist South. In their preface the authors remind readers of the Supreme Court case of Barren v. Baltimore, which claimed the first eight amendments constrained only the federal government, but not state power. This ruling allowed the southern states to pursue their racist agenda with impunity. After winning the Civil War, northern politicians were determined to define and apply the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship to everyone, everywhere. Again though, the Supreme Court went to work to neutralize these efforts. The most notorious of these came after the legislature of Louisiana granted a monopoly to a New Orleans slaughterhouse, denying the right of citizens to choose their occupation as a fundamental part of citizenship.  

In the Slaughterhouse cases that ended in 1873 the District Court ruled against the monopoly, but a 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court reversed that ruling as a radical interference with states rights.  Justice Samuel Miller writing for the majority, decided overruling a state grant of monopoly would “fetter and degrade the State governments by subjecting them to the control of Congress in the exercise of powers heretofore universally conceded to them of the most ordinary and fundamental character.” … “We are convinced that no such results were intended by the Congress which proposed these amendments, nor by the legislatures of the States which ratified them.” The opinion by Justice Miller intends to repeal the Fourteenth Amendment by judicial decree and return to what Justice Bradley wrote in dissent as “that spirit of insubordination and disloyalty to the National government …”

After the judicial review Barnett and Bernick return to the evidence they argue defines citizenship and the original meaning of the 14^th amendment.  Chapter 7 reviews the debate and views of contemporary academics, which includes five separate theories of U.S. citizenship before moving onto Implementing the Privileges and Immunities Clause in Chapter 8. Barnett and Bernick argue historical evidence establish an operational definition of Privileges and Immunities of citizenship, which are “a set of rights that preexists the interpretation and application of the clause by a judge. We maintain that, in 1868, a preexisting set of privileges and immunities was locked into the Constitution by the original meaning of the 14^th Amendment.”

The authors list and summarize these rights as those enumerated in the Constitution of 1868, the enumerated rights in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and those enumerated rights added to the constitution after 1868. In addition, they list other unenumerated rights. Here they suggest that if individual citizens have for at least a generation of thirty years been entitled to enjoy a right as a consequence of accepted practice it can become a privilege and immunity of citizenship. The authors give examples as part of a thorough discussion of how this should work in practice, arguing in sum that judges should “discover the law” rather than “make the law.” Part I ends with “We can state with confidence that the original public meaning of the Privileges and Immunities Clause does “lock in” certain identifiable rights; that it does not lock in others; and that it does not delegate to Congress or the federal courts unbounded discretion to specify the rights that states cannot abridge.”

From here the book moves to a 53 page historical discussion of Due Process of Law and 52 page Part III on the Equal Protection of the Law. Both phrases apply to persons in contrast to the Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship. The narrative here traces the long history of the Due Process of Law back to its British origins. Discussion defines and distinguishes procedural due process and substantive due process. The spirit of substantive due process “impose a duty on both state and federal judges to make good-faith determinations of whether legislation is calculated to achieve constitutionally proper ends.” Historical discussion includes a review of legislative debate, legal cases and academic interpretations to bar arbitrary power and the proper ends of legislative power.

The Equal Protection of the Laws narrative also traces the meaning of equal protection through history. Again, Barnett and Bernick review the legislative debate, legal cases and academic writing. At a minimum equal protection guarantees a duty to protect against physical violence, but also entitles people to equal access to courts and nondiscriminatory enforcement of state and federal laws intended to protect life, liberty and property.

The Original Meaning of the 14^th Amendment combines many elements of a textbook with a well-organized historical discussion used as evidence to support tightly focused argument.  Barnett and Bernick appear to recognize the complexity of their effort and so use standard textbook devices to help readers.  The introductory chapter includes a seventeen-page “Preview of Our Findings.” Chapters begin with summaries of what will come and chapters end with summaries of major points. Part and Chapter titles and many sub headings resemble a textbook’s emphasis on orderly presentation. Important legal and constitutional terms are explained. While the writing is clear and avoids academize, serious readers will feel a need to go back and reread sections as they move along in what is not light reading.

I looked for, but did not find, a discussion of the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific R. Co. from May 10, 1886, in which Chief Justice Waite declared "corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." This declaration was not made as part of the case opinion but declared as true by proclamation in a case head note. To my knowledge it has never been disputed by Congress or a federal court, but has justified many judicial favors for corporate America, along with the prostitution of the 14^th Amendment.

Barnett and Bernick make a good case to justify their conclusions already cited above. The founding fathers accepted slavery as a condition of getting the constitution ratified. Even so Congress retained the power to abolish slavery in the territories and the District of Columbia while northern states could protect free blacks and escaped slaves. There was a begrudging acceptance of slavery for what was initially an immoral Constitution, but Barnett and Bernick establish the politicians that drafted and steered the 14^th Amendment to ratification intended to correct that, but they wanted more than that. The record cited establishes they wanted to construct privileges and immunities of citizenship known and protected equally for all. Since 1868 many judges and justices in the courts seem to think their personal interpretation will be a good substitute for the confines of positive law.  Barnett and Bernick sound as tired of that as the rest of us.

Our New White House - Coming Soon

It should be obvious to one and all that Trump intends and expects to demolish the entire White House and have his rich looting friends build him whatever he wants. No lawful means exists in this disintegrating country for opponents to prevent it.

As I write this it’s February 4, 2026 and Trump continues to announce targets of people and things he expects to destroy in his public pronouncements. Include now the Kennedy Center, which he says he will “remodel.” He has no authority to do that or appropriation to pay for it, but our paralyzed Congress does nothing and his corporate friends give him the money as a bribe.

Who will seriously believe Trump will leave a symbol of American history and democracy like the White House? Better to ask yourself if non violent protest will save the country? Remember your state National Guard has a right to bear arms.

Follow Up:

I write this follow up August 13, 2025 after I have read about $900 million construction plans for the White House. Just wondered if there are still doubters from my original post of September 22, 2025?