Celene Vargas
Staff Writer
Claremont McKenna College professor Ralph A. Rossum spoke about how Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is committed to pursuing an “original general meaning” approach to interpret the constitution on Tuesday in the Campus Center Ballroom.
The University of La Verne College Republicans Club hosted the lecture “Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court’s Most Controversial Justice” presented by Rossum, Salvatori Professor of American Constitutionalism.
“Rossum … had the chance to work alongside Justice Thomas,” said Cate Tuning, junior political science major and president of the College Republicans club.
To explain what he meant about Thomas applying an “original general meaning” approach to the constitution, Rossum explained the differences between original intent, original understanding and original meaning.
He said original intent is trying to identify what the delegates at the constitutional convention in Philadelphia intended to accomplish when they wrote the constitution.
Original understanding focuses on identifying the understanding of what the constitution meant to the delegates, he said.
Original meaning is trying to determine the meaning of the constitution when it was written, Rossum explained.
That means using dictionaries or encyclopedias from that time period to make sure the definition of certain words have not changed.
Rossum said Thomas uses all three approaches when hearing cases, calling it an “original general meaning” approach.
He is one of only two Supreme Court justices to do this. “(Thomas) is unswayed by the claims of precedent,” Rossum said.
Rossum said Thomas’ argument is that something has got to be wrong when interpreting one provision makes the other provisions unnecessary.
Rossum said the Supreme Court seems to feel that Congress can regulate anything that has an effect on Congress.
He said Thomas rejected the idea that Congress should be able to have that much power, citing the United States vs. Lopez case where Thomas agreed with the argument that Congress’ power under the Commerce Act, while broad, was still limited as stated in the constitution.
“(Thomas) also finds it wrong because, by interpreting Congress so broadly, it confers on the federal government a police power to regulate anything which was intended to be left on the hands of the states,” Rossum said.
Rossum also spoke about the difference between Thomas’ first decade on the bench and his second.
He said in the first decade law reviews were unapologetically hostile toward Thomas.
In the second decade, things changed.
“They praise him as the next great dissenter, the low principal federalist and the emerging commercial speech protector,” Rossum said.
Rossum said the title of his lecture is a bit misleading because Thomas is now perceived as less controversial and instead more significant.
“(The College Republicans club) just thought it would be a great way to introduce him to the campus and to make an event that’s not just specific to one group of people but that could appeal to many different students,” Tuning said.
A few members of La Verne’s College Democrats club attended the lecture to show support.
“College Democrats are in support of bipartisanship and we want to work together to facilitate meaningful discussions on campus,” said Anthony Reyes, senior political science major and member of the College Democrats club.
Celene Vargas can be reached at celene.vargas@laverne.edu.
