1. Al Parker says:
I still don’t see how you can hold that the non-whites should not be considered Our Posterity when we accept that some generation after the Founders is allowed to change the definition of “our posterity.” The way I see it, if the rules can be changed, then they can be changed. Maybe the generation that changed the laws on miscegenation and opened up immigration to all peoples had an epiphany on the meaning of posterity. How does the fact that something was a certain way at a certain time argue against this when we accept that meaning can be changed?
And another meaning of posterity is simply “all generations to come” as in the sentence, “After being turned down by numerous publishers, he had decided to write for posterity.”
With that meaning, “all our generations to come” would include the descendants of ANYONE living here today. Maybe it is not completely coincidental that that is the law.
The founders should have expounded on “our posterity.”

ME:

“Maybe the generation that changed the laws on miscegenation and opened up immigration to all peoples had an epiphany on the meaning of posterity.”

Certainly if each generation makes up the Constitution as it goes along, that is true. I am talking about the ONLY one we adopted. If they had meant for each generation to have its own epiphany, the Constitution would not have been written down.

The Federalist Papers points out in passing that the judiciary would be the WEAKEST branch. They did not warn that the courts should BECOME the Constitution and that today we would have one branch which IS the Constitution and two branches that have to obey it.

If you combine 1) the fact that it was written down and 2) that every state had and enforced miscegenation laws, it is hard to imagine why those who wrote thee Constitution would have gone into any further detail abut what posterity meant.

And it would have made no difference if they had. Since the courts have ruled that thirteen states that ALL had and enforced antimiscegenation laws intended to ban all antimiscegenation laws, they could have appended an entire book of specific definitions of what THEY meant by “posterity” and the court would just define it as they wish.