Sexual encounters? When you have no choice, it's rape.

Agreed. The author of this piece treats the Jefferson-Hemmings relationship as some kind of romantic liaison kept hidden because of the strictures of the society they lived in.

It completely glosses over the fact that she was considered his property.

The amazing thing is, in less than 200 years, we've come from a society that considered the owning another human being as something normal to something repugnant and obscene.

I agree as well which makes the arguments of judges like Scalia who feel that we should try to interpret the Constitution just like our founders would even more repugnant. Our society has evolved since Jefferson's time and our reading of the Constitution should as well.

The original intent doctrine is pretty ridiculous. How can anyone claim to know with any degree of certainty what someone 200+ years ago was thinking? Oh sure, we can infer some things based on their other writings, but even that is subject to interpretation.

I'm more of a plain text sort of guy. Take the words for what they mean. Of course, that does mean that as society evolves, it may draw different lines. For example, in 1787, public hangings were considered a normal form of execution and putting someone in the stocks so that people could throw garbage at them was considered a normal punishment for minor infractions. "Cruel and unusual" basically meant no drawing and quartering. Today, most people would a agree that hanging someone in the town square was definitley cruel and unusual punishment.