"Lawmakers have long used the power of the pen to discriminate against minority groups in order to uphold this country's dedication to white supremacy. For centuries, legislators have hidden ignoble agendas behind high-minded laws that they present as beneficial for all. When a law is ambiguous, interpreters of the law look to legislative intent to determine how the law should be applied. But what if the hidden intent of the law's writer is not to define criminal behavior but rather to define a group of citizens as criminals?" (Crump, 85)

Here in this passage Crump explains the difference between what we can see on the face of the law and what the intent behind the law might be. How does this relate to the concept of legal subjectivity? Can you please explain, how questions of formal equality, historical and political context, and systemic racism might be helpful in determining legislative intent? and In your opinion is the identification of legislative intent a socially useful exercise or ought we instead proceed by reading the law at face value? and please give reasons for your position.