
Paul Krugman writing the kind of stuff that would be way too shrill, aka true, for his former editors:
Zohran Mamdani’s upset victory in New York’s Democratic primary has created panic in MAGAland. Stephen Miller, the architect of Donald Trump’s deportation policies, waxed apocalyptic:

Scott Bessent, the Treasury secretary, declared that New York is about to turn into “Caracas on the Hudson.”
And Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama basically declared New York’s voters subhuman, saying:
These inner-city rats, they live off the federal government. And that’s one reason we’re $37 trillion in debt. And it’s time we find these rats and we send them back home, that are living off the American taxpayers that are working very hard every week to pay taxes.
These reactions are vile, and they’re also dishonest. Whatever these men may claim, it’s all about bigotry.
Miller isn’t concerned about the state of New York “society.” What bothers him is the idea of nonwhite people having political power.
Trumpism is an ethno-nationalist movement, based on white supremacy, patriarchy, and massive economic inequality packaged as equal parts traditional patriotism and anti-intellectual “common sense.”
It’s all Great Replacement paranoia, that has been around forever, with the replacements (great name for a band) being in turn and all at once the Catholics, the Irish, the Chinese, the Italians, the Jews, the Mexicans, and always always The Blacks and the Women Who Don’t Know Their Place.
And while Tuberville stands out even within his caucus as an ignorant fool, his willingness to use dehumanizing language about millions of people shows that raw racism is rapidly becoming mainstream in American politics.
Remember, during the campaign both Trump and JD Vance amplified the slanders about Haitians eating pets.
And now that they’re in office, you can see the resurgence of raw racism all across Trump administration policies, large and small. You can see it, for example, in the cuts at the National Institutes of Health, which are so tilted against racial minorities that a federal judge — one appointed by Ronald Reagan! — declared
I’ve never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable. I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.
You can see it in the renaming of military bases after Confederate generals — that is, traitors who fought for slavery.
You can even see it in a change in the military’s shaving policy that is clearly custom-designed to drive Black men — who account for around a quarter of the Army’s new recruits — out of the service.
So racism and bigotry are back, big time. Who’s safe? Nobody.
Trump has been riding the crest of a massive reactionary wave for a decade now, and while that wave has many sources, THE key winds blowing the storm are racism and patriarchy. The 15th and 19th amendments, giving black people and women actual political rights, represent the biggest constitutional revolutions since the founding, since they fundamentally altered who “the people” of We the People were going to be, going forward.
Jack Balkin recently directed my attention to a 1922 SCOTUS case I hadn’t heard of, in which Louis Brandeis spent exactly one short paragraph shooting down a claim that the 19th amendment was illegitimate because it robbed the sovereign states of their sovereignty, by forcing them to admit into their polities foreigners, politically speaking, who were not part of the People, properly speaking. Brandeis’s argument consists of nothing more than noting that the 19th amendment is structurally identical to the 15th, and that the constitutionality of the 15th couldn’t be questioned.
The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the federal Constitution and sought to be exercise does not extend to this amendment because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the state’s consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each, the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid. That the Fifteenth is valid, although rejected by six states, including Maryland, has been recognized and acted on for half a century. See United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214; Neale v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370; Guinn v. United States, 238 U. S. 347; Myers v. Anderson, 238 U. S. 368. The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.
I went down a rabbit hole and discovered that the lawyer behind the anti-suffrage suit had published an article in the Harvard Law Review twelve years earlier, arguing precisely that the 15th amendment wasn’t really part of the Constitution, because it forcibly disenfranchised “the People” — meaning the white men of property — who had entered into the constitutional compact originally, without their consent or that of their posterity. (Note that this is a separate argument against the Reconstruction amendments than the “forced adoption at gunpoint” argument much favored by white supremacists over the years, which Brandeis rejects in the last sentence of the quoted paragraph, and which the author of the HLR article also doesn’t rely on).
The past is never dead. It isn’t even past, apparently.
The post That train’s never late appeared first on Lawyers, Guns & Money.