Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/12pdf/12-96_6k47.pdf
Page Number: 41

10 

SHELBY COUNTY v. HOLDER 

GINSBURG, J., dissenting 

clear recognition of the transformative effect the Fifteenth
Amendment  aimed  to  achieve.  Notably,  “the  Founders’
first  successful  amendment  told  Congress  that  it  could
‘make no law’ over a certain domain”; in contrast, the Civil 
War Amendments used “language [that] authorized trans­
formative  new  federal  statutes  to  uproot  all  vestiges  of 
unfreedom  and  inequality”  and  provided  “sweeping  en­
forcement  powers  . . .  to  enact  ‘appropriate’  legislation
targeting state abuses.”  A. Amar, America’s Constitution: 
A  Biography  361,  363,  399  (2005).    See  also  McConnell, 
Institutions  and  Interpretation:  A  Critique  of  City  of 
Boerne  v.  Flores,  111  Harv.  L. Rev.  153,  182  (1997) 
(quoting  Civil  War-era  framer  that  “the  remedy  for  the
violation  of  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  amendments 
was  expressly  not  left  to  the  courts.    The  remedy  was 
legislative.”).

The stated purpose of the Civil War Amendments was to
arm Congress with the power and authority to protect all 
persons  within  the  Nation  from  violations  of  their  rights
by  the  States.    In  exercising  that  power,  then,  Congress
may  use  “all  means  which  are  appropriate,  which  are 
plainly  adapted”  to  the  constitutional  ends  declared  by
these  Amendments.    McCulloch,  4  Wheat.,  at  421.    So 
when  Congress  acts  to  enforce  the  right  to  vote  free  from 
racial  discrimination,  we  ask  not  whether  Congress  has
chosen  the  means  most  wise,  but  whether  Congress  has 
rationally selected means appropriate to a legitimate end. 
“It  is  not  for  us  to  review  the  congressional  resolution  of 
[the need for its chosen remedy].  It is enough that we be
able  to  perceive  a  basis  upon  which  the  Congress  might 
resolve the conflict as it did.”  Katzenbach v. Morgan, 384 
U. S. 641, 653 (1966).

Until  today,  in  considering  the  constitutionality  of  the
VRA, the Court has accorded Congress the full measure of 
respect its judgments in this domain should garner.  South 
Carolina  v.  Katzenbach  supplies  the  standard  of  review: