The Watering Hole
2000
Shinbone
readers bend a few elbows, and fire back
ssssssssss
10/17/00
I am writing a speech for my public speaking class at the University of Pittsburgh. I chose to do a persuasive speech on why a living constitution is better than a literal interpretation. I am in need, however, of thoughts on a literal interpretation and arguments for it. My speech is due in two weeks so I would really appreciate a speedy response if possible. Any input would be so helpful! I'm a poly sci major so I'm pretty well informed but I want to present both sides views fairly.
Heather
-- A literal interpretation of the Constitution is vital to the preservation of our most fundamental rights, as well as to our government's system of checks and balances. If our Supreme Court subscribes to the theory of a living constitution, as it has for the better part of the last 35 years, then it is up to the justices themselves to determine the Constitution's new meaning. This usurps the amendment process from the federal legislative branch, and from the governments of the several states, which means that the power to amend the Constitution is taken out of the hands of those representatives accountable to the voters, and places it in the hands of nine judges who are appointed for life, and accountable to nobody.
If the Constitution can be interpreted to mean something other than what it says, then it is effectively rendered moot. Take, for example, the First Amendment's guarantee that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. One justice could take the position that this goes not just for Congress, but for any authority at any level. Another justice could say that the term "speech" has "grown" to include expression of any sort. Yet another could say that, as the times have changed, this right has become antiquated, and so it really doesn't exist at all. There then would no longer be a right to speak, free of federal repression; there would only be one degree or another of permission, depending on which among the varying opinions of the justices emerges victorious.
So the debate over whether or not to literally adhere to the Constitution is actually a debate over whether or not there should be a Constitution at all, or only a continuous stream of proclamations handed down by a group of unelected judges.
For more opinions regarding this issue from The Shinbone, please read The Shinbone Manifesto, Left on the Bench, and Oh, the Humanity. -- DC
ssssssssss
9/5/00
I just have a question. Is there anything in the Constitution that allows for discrimination on the basis of sexual preference or gender? My liberal friends say there is but I've yet to see proof. Thanks.
Roger
-- Before I start getting angry letters demanding to see my credentials, let me point out that I am not a member of the legal profession. I'm just an active citizen like yourself, who is confident that he is capable of reading and understanding the Constitution.
The problem with debating the constitutionality of discrimination is that the Constitution is written in precise language, while "discrimination" is an extremely imprecise word. If by discrimination you are referring to legal double-standards, the answer is surely no, since the Fourteenth Amendment demands equal protection under the law. For instance, a law which draws separate sentencing guidelines for assaults and murders, depending on the victims' sexual preferences, would clearly be unconstitutional.
If we take the word "discrimination" literally, though, the answer to the question of whether the Constitution allows it is, of course it does. All people constantly make discriminating judgments, most of which are perfectly benign and logical, and give no reason for the government to interfere. Imagine, for example, that you are producing a film about the life story of Ted Williams. Naturally, you would consider only white male actors to be eligible for the lead role. Your friends could truthfully cite your decision as an example of race and gender discrimination, but no sane person would argue that an injustice had been done, and that a legal remedy is needed.
What your friends are probably referring to is the recent Supreme Court decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, in which the Scouts' right to exclude homosexuals was upheld. The Court's decision in this case was based on freedom of association, which is implicit in the First Amendment's guarantee of a right to peaceably assemble.
The minority opinion in that case argued that the Boy Scouts were not allowed to discriminate because they are not a private organization, but a "public accommodation." This would be a dubious conclusion, even if it were based on a factual premise. In an isolated instance, discrimination by a public accommodation, like a restaurant or a hotel, is not unconstitutional. A business owner is within his rights to decide not to serve somebody, however poor his reason. It was only when such discrimination became uniform throughout entire communities in the segregated South, that it amounted to a physical confinement of black Americans, and therefore was found to be a violation of their Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment liberty rights. Barring homosexuals from the Boy Scouts poses no such threat. -- DC
ssssssssss
6/29/00
Thank you for bringing to our attention the comments of Patrick Stewart Harumph! Harumph! '00 , trashing the notion that America is the land of opportunity with all of the pomposity of the erstwhile Frenchman he portrays. Mr. Stewart, (who is about as convincing a Francophone as John Wayne was a Mongolian), should get down on his knees and thank God that he came to this country and avoided a life of Shakespeare in the Park performances, earning a bunk and a few quid per week under some Tony Blair make-work project.
Perhaps he should seek out Counselor Troi. Actress Marina Sirtis, who portrays the good counselor, has made the rounds of the talk show circuit, waxing effusively about the opportunities that life in America has given her. She comes across as genuinely and sincerely grateful that Hollywood gave her an opportunity that saved her from life on the dole in Great Britain. She has gone so far as to express shame over the fact that she was the only member of the show's cast who drove an American-made car. Perhaps she can perform the level-one diagnostic on the good Captain and get his mind right. Or perhaps he should seek out that previous Enterprise captain, William Shatner, for a discussion of the joys of stock-options in Priceline.com.
All of which brings to mind the metaphor of the Borg as today's Hollywood.
You will be assimilated.
Resistance is Futile!
John -- Pittsburgh, PA
ssssssssss
1/12/2000
Mr. Clark,
"If he takes offense to that, then he should stop representing clients who are lower than mink." from=> It's Not Unusual: 8th Amendment ok's Old Sparky (11/20/99)
I take offense to that TOO. You think you're so cute and that electrocution is just a joke. You misuse the First Amendment. They should add CRUEL AND UNUSUAL expressions in that Amendment too. I hope that you will put your act together. No wonder your site has only been visited by 550 people or so. Nobody wants to read your ignoble opinions.
Sincerely,
Mary
-- As always, The Shinbone takes pride in its unapproved use of the First Amendment.--DC
The Shinbone: The Frontier of the Free Press