W.D.Moore – APSA-03– Slaughter-House – p.28
thereby supporting a position that its authority, based on standards of internal constitutional
coherence, was partial rather than complete or totally lacking. Approaching these matters from a
broader perspective, the fourteenth amendment’s addition to the U.S. Constitution might have
resulted in its being or remaining partially coherent, rather than fully coherent or completely
incoherent.
These considerations point toward one of the ways that criteria of internal constitutional
coherence have exerted gravitational pull within the constitutional order. They have done so by
calling into question interpretive positions that would render the Constitution more incoherent.
Conversely, they have supported interpreting the fourteenth amendment as consistent with other
norms of U.S. constitutionalism. Thus it should not be surprising that Justice Miller relied on
criteria of internal constitutional coherence in Slaughter-House to oppose interpreting the
fourteenth amendment as “radical” in its implications and to support interpreting the new
amendment as having brought about more modest constitutional change.
His taking this position may be viewed, moreover, as part of a broader strategy aimed at
consolidating and reinforcing the fourteenth amendment’s authority. Most immediately, Justice
Miller’s (re)construction of the amendment was a way of avoiding the problems of constitutional
incoherence that he suggested would have plagued the interpretive positions he rejected. More
affirmatively, the majority’s position satisfied the imperative of reconciling the fourteenth
amendment with other norms of U.S. constitutionalism. Holding other interpretive positions
constant, internal constitutional coherence was achieved relatively easily -- with little disruption of
established precedents and other existing institutions -- by treating the new text as having brought
about modest rather than sweeping changes to the constitutional order. Accordingly, a
commitment to treating the fourteenth amendment as authoritative across this dimension appears to
have exerted an influence, analytically, toward emphasizing constitutional continuities based on
connections between the fourteenth amendment and antecedent norms.
The dissenting opinions indicate, however, that Justice Miller’s approach was not the only
available means of negotiating the imperatives of internal constitutional coherence. Justices Field,
Convention