100 Years Ago
Thank you Craig B. for your service in Irock. We are all glad you made it home safely.
My brain is free. For better or worse, I’ve got more time on my hands as I am only teaching one class this summer and working at the hhe. Alex and I stopped by the PDawg’s and he still seems open to the idea of me doing the follow up to breather in his studio. Here’s what I have to do this week before I can even start thinking about starting Kish.
1. Do Century of Progress practice on Thursday (or whenever the boys can do it)
2. Talk to ChrisB about live to Internets feed for the fB
3. Talk to Snare Systems guy about breather site
4. Call Larry about finishing the dupes of breather review copies
5. tt OD about doing a blogger thing for breather
With my supervisor’s husband coming home safely from the war (that’s Craig above – and thank God again for this) I’ve been thinking about the impending deployment (probably not the right term) of the Guard to our Southwestern border. I’m wondering if the g bushy crew is using this as a part of an exit strategy for Irock. I’m probably giving Captain Blue Tie too much credit here because nothing in this war has made that much sense to me. Once we establish a military presence there we will find out quickly that whatever the initial force numbers, they won’t be enough. Could Bush really make an argument that American security will actually be benefited by a redeployment of other troops from Irock to our Southern borders? Maybe even to the Northern border – hey, those Canadians can get pretty chippy when they talk their hockey, their Bob ‘n Doug, their rock critics awards show where Alanis Morrisette gets every honor.
Great SOX game Sunday. Yeah 56 Mark Buehrle got lit up in the first inning. But Buehrles and the SOX did something that hadn’t been done in baseball in 100 years…he ended up as the winning pitcher after giving up 7 runs in the first inning. What else happened 100 years ago? The WhiteSOX won their first World Series.
Here’s why I will not miss teaching at university should the day come where I am no longer doing that. First off, the university certainly will not miss my mish-mashing of the language (or my pathetic propensity for alliteration for that matter)…I spent an entire semester reminding my Religion and the Constitution class that the words “separation of church and state” are nowhere to be found in the unamended Constitution nor can they be found in the 1st Amendment. Those words are first used as a way of interpreting the 1st Amendment by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. the New Jersey Board of Education (1947). Justice Black gets those words from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he sent to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
There were plenty of Blue Book responses that reminded me that I failed as a teacher this semester, because they reminded me that not only are the words separation of church and state the guiding principles of the 1st Amendment…they are all that amendment has to say according to some of these students.
Has Justice Black and other justices of his ilk used an interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments for good ends? Yes. But we ought to remember that much of the “good” the Court did in the 20th Century has been based on an interpretation – and often times this interpretation can not be squared with a plain reading of the text or the debates, letters and journals of the drafters of the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights.
Surely this is why my friends who call themselves liberal are worried about the confirmation of Justice Roberts and especially Judge Ito. They understand that the Constitution and the Court has been about power for much of the past century and that shows no sign of stopping. By the way, this love of the Supreme Court among the left is so unquestionable that nobody questioned the SC’s decision in g bushy vee Alphonse Gorrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Rather than following the Constitution for guidance re: the Florida recount, everyone on both sides was happy to let the SC decide. When the Gorrrr supporters lost (although then Veeeeeep was well represented by this lawyer from Sycamore, IL of all places) they called it a day. The Supremes have spoken, the fat lady hung the last dog. Yeesh, did I need to be that graphic?
One of the things that energizes me as a teacher of government (especially this government) is I can point to the Constitution and say: ‘Look, here’s the users’ manual. You can read it, I can read it. We don’t need nine sophisticated dictionaries to redefine phrases, clauses or words to fit whatever purposes the dictionaries claim to be most pressing.’ To those who have a fondness for the social/judicial activism of the Court in the 20th Century, I remind them, the Court is going in a different direction. Now how do we stop them? We as “we the people” have let our muscles for interpreting the Constitution atrophy to the point that – now that we may really need them, they are of no use to us.
Anyway, I think I failed – but even if I succeeded, what’re ya gonna do? Pants the Supreme Court?
Most of those fuckers aren’t even wearing pants.
My brain is free. For better or worse, I’ve got more time on my hands as I am only teaching one class this summer and working at the hhe. Alex and I stopped by the PDawg’s and he still seems open to the idea of me doing the follow up to breather in his studio. Here’s what I have to do this week before I can even start thinking about starting Kish.
1. Do Century of Progress practice on Thursday (or whenever the boys can do it)
2. Talk to ChrisB about live to Internets feed for the fB
3. Talk to Snare Systems guy about breather site
4. Call Larry about finishing the dupes of breather review copies
5. tt OD about doing a blogger thing for breather
With my supervisor’s husband coming home safely from the war (that’s Craig above – and thank God again for this) I’ve been thinking about the impending deployment (probably not the right term) of the Guard to our Southwestern border. I’m wondering if the g bushy crew is using this as a part of an exit strategy for Irock. I’m probably giving Captain Blue Tie too much credit here because nothing in this war has made that much sense to me. Once we establish a military presence there we will find out quickly that whatever the initial force numbers, they won’t be enough. Could Bush really make an argument that American security will actually be benefited by a redeployment of other troops from Irock to our Southern borders? Maybe even to the Northern border – hey, those Canadians can get pretty chippy when they talk their hockey, their Bob ‘n Doug, their rock critics awards show where Alanis Morrisette gets every honor.
Great SOX game Sunday. Yeah 56 Mark Buehrle got lit up in the first inning. But Buehrles and the SOX did something that hadn’t been done in baseball in 100 years…he ended up as the winning pitcher after giving up 7 runs in the first inning. What else happened 100 years ago? The WhiteSOX won their first World Series.
Here’s why I will not miss teaching at university should the day come where I am no longer doing that. First off, the university certainly will not miss my mish-mashing of the language (or my pathetic propensity for alliteration for that matter)…I spent an entire semester reminding my Religion and the Constitution class that the words “separation of church and state” are nowhere to be found in the unamended Constitution nor can they be found in the 1st Amendment. Those words are first used as a way of interpreting the 1st Amendment by Justice Hugo Black in Everson v. the New Jersey Board of Education (1947). Justice Black gets those words from Thomas Jefferson in a letter he sent to the Danbury Baptists in 1802.
There were plenty of Blue Book responses that reminded me that I failed as a teacher this semester, because they reminded me that not only are the words separation of church and state the guiding principles of the 1st Amendment…they are all that amendment has to say according to some of these students.
Has Justice Black and other justices of his ilk used an interpretation of the Constitution and its amendments for good ends? Yes. But we ought to remember that much of the “good” the Court did in the 20th Century has been based on an interpretation – and often times this interpretation can not be squared with a plain reading of the text or the debates, letters and journals of the drafters of the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights.
Surely this is why my friends who call themselves liberal are worried about the confirmation of Justice Roberts and especially Judge Ito. They understand that the Constitution and the Court has been about power for much of the past century and that shows no sign of stopping. By the way, this love of the Supreme Court among the left is so unquestionable that nobody questioned the SC’s decision in g bushy vee Alphonse Gorrrrrrrrrrrrgh. Rather than following the Constitution for guidance re: the Florida recount, everyone on both sides was happy to let the SC decide. When the Gorrrr supporters lost (although then Veeeeeep was well represented by this lawyer from Sycamore, IL of all places) they called it a day. The Supremes have spoken, the fat lady hung the last dog. Yeesh, did I need to be that graphic?
One of the things that energizes me as a teacher of government (especially this government) is I can point to the Constitution and say: ‘Look, here’s the users’ manual. You can read it, I can read it. We don’t need nine sophisticated dictionaries to redefine phrases, clauses or words to fit whatever purposes the dictionaries claim to be most pressing.’ To those who have a fondness for the social/judicial activism of the Court in the 20th Century, I remind them, the Court is going in a different direction. Now how do we stop them? We as “we the people” have let our muscles for interpreting the Constitution atrophy to the point that – now that we may really need them, they are of no use to us.
Anyway, I think I failed – but even if I succeeded, what’re ya gonna do? Pants the Supreme Court?
Most of those fuckers aren’t even wearing pants.
posted by edP | 9:18 PM
23 Comments:
I can only image the Blue Book responses. You're a brave man! Kudos to you for gunning to your sticks!
Oh I'm a gunnin' awright!
Wha?
Along with people's gross misperception of what their "rights" are ("free" speech, anyone?) that separation of Church and State thing has to be the most oft-quoted, least understood myths.
What? The Supreme Court doesn't make the laws in this country? I object!!
Of course the Right has their myths, too. Their Founders knew how to thump a Bible. Jefferson thumped his so hard all the miracles fell out!
The Jefferson Bible leavres out all the boogity boogity.
The good thing about those myths on the religious right is that they're too stupid to be believed by anyone with half a brain. These other myths however, most of the people I know believe 'em.
And most of the people I know have way more than half a brain.
I think the mention of a creator was intentionally left out of the constitution to avoid the inclusion a religious test. Many of the original states were reluctant to ratify the constitution because it did not require that you be Protestant to vote. Those friggin' Catholics will do wahtever the pope tells 'em and we don't want those Roman bastards running the show! I think they were also mindful of the lessons learned in 16th century Europe when Catholics and Protestants were slaughtering each other by the millions. So even though it is not in the constitution , I believe the separation of church and state was very much implied and also a very good idea.
The bad thing is that those people without brains seem to be at least 20% of the population.
There may or may not be a lot "implied" but the only thing we know for sure concerns the Fed. Gov. making any law establishing one form of religion. I don't think it necessarily implies keeping your God out of my Peanut Butter (though I think that's a good idea too). Some would be shocked to see how much religion was front and center in the public sphere for most of this country's short history.
Michael understands an important component of the argument, but I don't think it leads him to the right conclusion.
Here is what Michael is 100% correct about.
The unamended constitution did not have the kind of mention of a creator god that many of the state constitutions had.
This was shocking to many – and is also a nice bit of evidence to use against those Rushchzzz Qualaudbalboa, Bill O’Really? Listening/watching folks who will tell you the Founders were very religious. The fear of many Americans against the drafters of the Constitution drawn up in committee in 1787 was that they had created a novel instrument of government in America…a “godless constitution.” Also, the only mention of religion in the unamended Constitution is the “no religious test clause” (Article VI Par. 3). Again, this was shocking to many in America when they realized the unamended Constitution’s only mention of religion could be interpreted as a “secular accommodation” – offering the possibility of an “oath” or an “affirmation.”
This is a wonderful example of how Michael gets it more than half right. See, the unamended Constitution tends in the secular direction you would like it to…BUT (and the “but” is important that’s why it is capitalized) there is no mention of the separation of church and state there – and when Justice Black tells Michael and everyone who will listen that the Constitution erects a “high and impregnable wall of sep” he is doing so when interpreting the 1st Amendment.
This is where the story gets very confusing.
Justice Black, in the interpretation of the 1st Amendment in Everson claims that Madison and Jefferson (again the words sep of church and state are actually ripped off by Jef in that letter I mentioned previously) are the chief authorities on the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
Those two are strange choices, here’s why.
Madison (one of the authors of the Fed papers) wrote and argued constantly for the adoption of the unamended Constitution. Why would he be considered an expert on the meaning of the 1st Amendment? Sure he wrote early drafts of the 1st Amendment but he started doing this because of political pressure. The pressure came from the so-called anti-Federalists. They wanted something like the 1st Amendment. Why did they want something like the 1st Amendment? Because they feared the unamended constitution for all the reasons I mentioned above. While Madison wrote early drafts, important language was changed in a meaningful way – hence it is a mistake to think that the final wording of the religion CLAUSES of the 1st Amendment carry all of Madison’s principles regarding the place (or non-place) of religion in good government.
I could say more about the language taken out of Madison’s drafts, but I will see if anyone is interested in this shit first.
Michael actually reminded me of this in his blog a few days back. I’m a regular reader there (I have to link him up) but I had to stop reading a part of his Constitutional interp re: religion because I felt like I was bringing my work home with me. But Michael is thoughtful and his interp deserves a response. I figure I’ll do it here and see where it goes.
Oh, Jefferson is a curious choice as an expert on the meaning of the 1st Amendment.
Mercifully, he was in fucking France during the drafting and adoption of the unamended Constitution and the drafting and changing of the 1st Amendment.
And Jefferson is an idiot.
Oh, Jefferson's not an idiot. He's just an English major. At a distance it looks like the same thing.
You miss the crucial step here, mr. edP -- it was the incorporation doctrine that led Black down this road, or at least that made the road significant (sep of church and state means little w/o the incorporation doctrine).
And that's a thorny problem. Well, maybe not for me -- I'd be happy to let Texas do whatever it wanted provided they stop saddling us with Johnson's and Bush's. But for most people it's a real problem, because of how dysfunctionally we acted in the 40s and 50s re: civil rights, and how incorporation was the way out of congressional deadlock and disgusting inaction by state & local auths.
So how do you solve that edP? (My vote: New England secedes and moves into the 21st c., we let the red states rot, IL can join us if she so wishes, we'll take over a strip of Canada to connect us.
"Qualaudbalboa"
You got quaalude, dilaudid (or laudanum) and "Balboa" in there.
All in a not-so-elegant (much less sensical) way of riffing on the name "Limbaugh."
My hat is off to you, sir.
So where does it say "seperation of church and state" in the Declaration of Independence? I can't find it.
Whe should just sneak into the National Archives and add a few more articles to that thing and be like, "Lookee here! There were some pages that were stuck together. Looks like Jefferson was eating a PB&J at the time." Also, I heard there was a treasure map on the back. I bet Josh's dad has the keys.
Please do go on about Madison's drafts. I'm interested, but too lazy (busy?) to do my own research.
You wrote (in part): "this love of the Supreme Court among the left is so unquestionable that nobody questioned the SC’s decision ... everyone on both sides was happy to let the SC decide. When the Gorrrr supporters lost ... they called it a day."
Not true. Some of us expressed our displeasure with our votes. The fact that we were unsuccessful (yet again) does not mean we gave up. If the SC were an elected post, we may have been able to make a more pointed expression, but since it is not, we did what we could.
Trendite, re: Incorporation by way of the 14th Amendment, we haven't gotten there yet. But you might want to note the sordid history of the Court's use or non-use of Ye Olde 14th Amendment before the 20th Century.
I'm not talking about the "landmark" Slaughterhouse cases...a very clever lawyer tried to use portions of the 14th Amendment to extend "privlgs & immunities" to a woman who wanted the right to vote in Missouri in the late 1870's early 1880's. The clever lawyer said that Mrs. Minor (I think) had recourse for Fed protection under this component of the 14th Amendment and under certain circumstances one might see this as the beginnning of "incorporation" under the 14th Amendment for everyone.
But that's not what happened.
Here's what happened.
The SC said the 14th Amendment didn't protect Mrs. Minor's rights of citizenship...sex (according to the court then) had never been made an element of citizenship whereas race, color or previous condition of servitude had.
See what Ye Olde SC did? It said the 14th Amendment should only be understood in terms of the 13th and the 15th...as a way for the Fed govt to enforce all of the Reconstruction ammmnnnndndndnsnnssn
But now we jump back into Trendite's observation - he knows now that the 14th Amendment applies to everyone and it is the way the SC extends the Bill of RIghts to the rest of us.
And Justice Black says this in Everson.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT EVEN MORE BIZARRE THAT JUSTICE BLACK REFERRS TO MADISON AND JEFFERSON AS THE AUTHORITIES ON THE MEANING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT
They never even heard of the 14th Amendment (unless Jefferson invented a time-travellin' dumb-waiter that he never told anyone about).
It seems there is some interest here in continuing. I'm, on semi-vacation so I'm going to driving range.
More later if folks are still interested.
Thanks for the support oh wise and mighty Jeanz et al.....
The people at your firm will think I'm crazy believing that the COnstitution means anything other than what the judges say.
Thanks Mrs. MeatHead (I hope you don't mind that I call you that). And aren't congrats in order for you? Didn't you walk across a graduation stage in the recent past?
Your kind words are appreciated.
I taught HS for awhile too...it can be a trip.
There's a thoughtful thought.
Everyone here rocks.
More later.
One other point from Jeanz here:
"Not true. Some of us expressed our displeasure with our votes."
See, is that what we are left with? Rather than having a resource in the federal (or God forbid the local) government to resist the will of the Supreme Court we say all that is left (pardon the expression) is to vote for the Pres candidate from the other party and hope they get to appoint judges that reflect our views?
Where is healthy democratic-republican government there?
We show our vibrancy and our potential (all Americans, not just ones whose views I may or may not be sympathetic to) when we question with our reason - and the occasional protest sign and other such stuff. Not with the Supreme Court. We lay down like dogs and hope to sgod that we get a President who will nominate judges we like.
I will say one thing for the Supreme Court, they are the only ones who've really rattled g bushy's cage (pardon the expression) regarding the status of enemy detainees. Please note that while I see no reason for me to criticize the actions at GITMO (not the right way to write that) I appreciate the lengths the Court went to (last year?) to question actions some deem questionable.
The Congress' questioning of g busy on this score (as well as domestic wiretapping, mismanagement of national intelligence as well as the intelligence leading to the rush up to war) is a joke.
At least the SC said something about enemy combattants that the Administration didn't want to hear.
G'night
More on the Madison drafts tomorrow.
Kim and I are going to watch a lecture on the Theology of the Body.
That is not code you sick bastards.
"is that what we are left with?"
Yes. It's all we ever had. The Constitution explicitly provides for appointment of SC justices by the Pres. If I remember correctly - and please correct me if I'm mistaken - the boys wanted one branch to be appointed rather than elected so that there could be a longer-term consistency, rather than have every post of govt be subject to the changing tides & whims of We the P.
I'm not saying it's the best, or even a good, way to structure it (that the J's maintain office as long as they exhibit "good Behaviour"), but that's what we have.
Oh - as for what my firm thinks - you'll have to come to lunch someday & enjoy a rousing powwow with them. You'd be more welcome than I, for sure (guests get a nice treatment, but lowly staffers... not in Our lunchroom, please).
Jeanz, I'm not sure it is all we ever had. Or maybe a better way to say this is that the stakes were never this high regarding the SC because no one among the Founding generation thought the SC would ever have this kind of power. It grapped that power in the 20th Century and hasn't looked back.
Fed 71 (I think) stated that the Court would rule on measures passed by the legislature (the definite article adjective is important) if such measures were in "irreconcilable variance" with the Constitution.
Translation: The Constitution comes first, the interprative whims of the judges comes never.
We had a Constitution that everyone could read and understand. We didn't always need the 9 Dictionaries. Now we have top pin our hopes on the power of the presidency...and hope he is in accord with our views of rights and enough judges die or retire that we can shape, reshape whatever - the COurt's power structure along the lines of the proper ideology. See, that's not constitutional democracy, that's the internal machinations of a Political Science Department power struggle. Yuck. I'm still taking my damned work home with me.
If we had follwed the Constituion in the Election of 2000, there would've been riots in the streets. That is the kind of shit that scares me.
Two small points: (1) 4 million people are a heck of a lot easier to supervise than 300 million. Logistics alone demands a more complex system. (2) SC Justices, like everyone else, are living a whole lot longer than they were 200 years ago. If it had been reasonable then to foresee 40-year terms on the court, they may have modified the provision to impose a limit. As you say, the Founding F's didn't foresee the justices having this kind of power - but I'm inclined to think it's more about the length of terms than the power-grab.
You are right that the Court didn't have much to do until they starting nosing around in social issues, but I don't see where that is prohibited by the Const., so I don't see why it's seen as such a dastardly coup. A bold move at best.
um, they have sorta become the sole guarantors of our rights...and done so in no small part as a result of a misinterpretation and misapproproation of the Bill of Rights.
Some people like to think of the Larry Flints of the world as a hero. I'd like to live in a country where New York can call him a hero, DeKalb can call him a hero but Cincinatti can still call him a pornographer.
That is sort of a joke. What has accompanied the ascention of the Court in the past century is the notion that there is - or oughta be - a national set of societal/cultural standards. We get that because of the power the court has - bringing our bill o Rights rights to us by way of the 14th Amendment (again, a sign of the newness of this set of activities).
By the way Chief Justice Marshall is often credited with setting the standard for judicial review. All praise for that - but the first Justice to rule on the Bill of Rights? Justice Tawney's degenerate interpretation of the 5th Am leading him to the worse conclusion that Dred Scott was property.
Finally regarding this: "4 million people are a heck of a lot easier to supervise than 300 million."
I'm not sure if you are talking about recount - but the actual Constutional provision didn't require this. It required that the Florida Legislature, in order to secure its electoral representation - could vote a slate of electors before the Dec 18 (or whatever it was) deadline. We all know why that would be a problem in lil brother's state.
It is a drastic example, I admit - but it speaks to the character of our notion of free government. We'd rather trust the expressions of liberty to nine supposedly detached gods rather than ourselves.
We got what we deserved - a g bushy inauguration speech with stormtroopers every 12 feet.
When Jefferson won the much nastier election of 1800, he walked across Penn Ave to make his speech. Inaug Day of 2001, if someone crossed Penn Ave - they would've been shot.
Und Re-Shot!
Hmm I love the idea behind this website, very unique.
»
Super color scheme, I like it! Good job. Go on.
»
Post a Comment
<< Home