Thread by @PaulHRosenberg

Conservatives' fantasy Constitution, from *Dred Scott* to Trump's "phony emoluments clause," there's a VERY long history of just making stuff up. The Constitution they love is all in their heads. 1/10
salon.com/2019/10/28/rep…

Trump's "phony emoluments clause" claim reflects the underlying conservative impulse & assumption that the Constitution means whatever he wants. Thus, "Constitutional Sheriffs" believe *they* get to interpret the Constitution—even though they're not even mentioned in it! 2/10

But conservative constitutional fantasies from the *actual* Supreme Court have done far more damage to our democracy—from *Dred Scott* to *Heller* & *Masterpiece Cakeshop*—and they even employ a fantasy-based judicial “philosophy”, “originalism” to justify what they do. 3/10

Let’s start with *Dred Scott*. The decision rests on the historical fantasy, that when the Constitution was adopted, blacks were regarded as "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." That’s a lie: 4/10

The Civil War Amendments were passed to ensure full citizenship rights to blacks, but *not* in the conservative fantasy version. Instead, they first claimed the 14th Amendment was intended to protect *corporations* as persons: 5/10

Then, in *Plessy* conservatives indulged in a fantasy festival, upholding the absurdity that segregation qualified as equal treatment. First was the fantasy that the problem was all in black people's heads: 6/10

Second came the exact opposite fantasy, that black inferiority was an immutable fact that human laws could do nothing to alter: 7/10

Third was the fantasy that either nothing needed to be done, or that nothing could be done: 8/10

The fantastical nature of the *Plessy* decision is thrown into sharp contrast by the bracing realism of John Marshall Harlan’s dissent: 9/10

That’s only what I covered in the 19th Century. You can read the whole story of conservatives' fantasy constitution here: 10/10
salon.com/2019/10/28/rep…