Quote:
Originally Posted by Aulirophile  Invalid because it has been overridden by an unconstitutional exercise of Federal power, which the amendment in discussion would fix, thus nullifying the Federal influence and making the two conflicting state laws an issue, because then the state would have to decide which one to enforce. |
The desegregation cases would not be made retroactively nonbinding. The part of the Act that makes earlier cases nonbinding only applies to matters covered under Section 3, not the catchall of Section 4. Section 7 would only undo cases that dealt with the religion clauses, the right to privacy, and same-sex marriage.
Even if Section 7 also covered the catchall provision, which strips jurisdiction from the federal courts with respect to anything that "otherwise interferes with the legislative functions or administrative discretion of the states," I don't think the desegregation cases would be affected. The Fourteenth Amendment mandates that "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The Fourteenth Amendment imposes limits the legislative function of the states. Federal court decisions arising under the Fourteenth Amendment (other than those dealing with subject areas explicitly covered by the Act) would not run afoul of the Act because there's no interference with the legislative functions of the states; those functions are circumscribed and do not extend to segregating schools.
On top of that, the extremely broad catchall provision is not very prominent in the text, and courts will thus be even less inclined to read it as emasculating the Fourteenth Amendment, especially in light of the potential results.
