Settled Law and a Living Constitution

We are often told that we have a "living" constitution. I am a moderate and agree with this assessment. After all, if it were not so, we would still be living with a permanent decision in the Dred Scott case. Nobody is in favor of that.

A "living" constitution has given us most of the freedoms we enjoy today. Many of them are bundled within the 14th Amendment, which is somewhat akin to placing all your eggs in one basket. But that's another story......

This year there has been a sea change in our society surrounding the Roe v Wade decision, which was made under the auspices of the 14th Amendment. Several states, almost half at this point, have passed new restrictions on abortion, leading the Pro Choice crowd to talk of "settled law."

While I am pro choice, I am also a Constitutionlist and a believer in a "living" Constitution. After all, it was this belief in a "living" Constitution upon which Roe v Wade was predicated and upheld.

Settled Law implies that once the Supreme Court decides an issue, then it's settled. Court nominees have had to convince Congress that they believe Roe v Wade to be settled law. I do not believe in "settled" law.

So, how do I merge both beliefs, which may seem to be in opposition to one another? Let's explore this.....

A Living Constitution implies that changes made by Amendment will apply as the people change and society grows.

Some people will be saying that the changes to abortion law are all part of a "living Constitution", and there is merit in that argument.

Others will opine that "Settled" Law means there can be no changes made to law after a Supreme Court decision has been rendered. There is also some merit to that view.

To really decide this issue you have to look at which changes by Amendment have been successful and which have not. You don't have to look very far for the example. It was the Volstead Act, the 18th Amendment in 1920. It was a failure and repealed by the 21st Amendment in 1933.

Here then, is the dilemma we face.

If we believe in settled law then we should still have slavery under Dred Scott, or Separate but Equal. Since "settled" law is not possible with an amendable Constitution, we don't have those things anymore.

So, we would have to say we don't believe in settled law. We believe in a "living" Constitution which changes with the needs of the people. (Notice I say "needs" and not "wants.")

People wanted Prohibition, just as they once approved of slavery. We are not populists. So, the "living" Constitution is capable of changing its mind, just as it did with the Volstead Act.

This may seem as being in agreement with a reversal of Roe v Wade under the 14th Amendment, but it wouldn't be true.

The big difference in all of this argument, and the point which most often goes unsaid, is that "settled" law has only always applied to our being granted more rights under the law.

The one time they tried to use the Bill of Rights, which is comprised of all 27 Amendments, to tell us what we could not do, was a failure and needed to be reversed.

Abortion is a right granted, not removed. As such, "settled" law is not contradictory to our "living" Constitution. It is compatible with it.

"Camp X-Ray" with Kirsten Stewart and Payman Maadi (2014)

This is a terrible movie. It would have you believe that our soldiers are unthinking and unfeeling automatons, and also that women do not belong in the military. They are too emotional. Those are not my beliefs; but that is the message of this film.

Payman Maadi plays an Islamic man who is abducted from his home in a Muslim country after 9-11. No reason is given. He is a poet and an intellectual- they let you know that. He is transported to Gitmo and is still there 8 years later when Stewart arrives.

Almost immediately we are treated to scenes of the soldiers drunken revelry in their off time; and to some extent this is fairly accurate. Having been to Gitmo several times I can attest to that. But for every soldier or sailor encountered being drunk, there are a half dozen taking college courses and working on furthering their careers.

As far as Stewarts behavior goes; when confronted by the detainees who believe her to be unfit to guard them, she does everything to prove their point. She allows herself to become emotionally involved with Maadi’s character and places herself as well as her teammates in jeopardy as a result.

This film is an attempt to persuade you that all of the detainees in Gitmo were snatched willy nilly from all over the Arab world in a misguided attempt to make ourselves feel better after 9-11. There may be some truth to that, but the majority of detainees were rounded up after intelligence gathering had unearthed their names in terrorist data bases. To be sure, there were some innocents who were caught up in the madness; this can’t be denied. But to paint with such a broad brush is irresponsible and ridiculous.

So, if you are looking for a film to insult your intelligence; as well as reinforce the stereotype of women not being fit to serve in the Armed Forces, and guard prisoners; this film is for you.

Interesting note: People who feel that women should not be serving in the Armed Forces are in agreement with the terrorists who hold women to be second class citizens at best. The soldiers who abuse Ms. Stewart in this film are of the same mind set as the Islamic fundamentalists. 

Real Women Have Curves

I love these new mannequins. They look like real women. Not those scrawny alley-cat looking Goth models slinking down the runways at Milan or in Paris or New York. These mannequins look like real women; ones who hold real jobs, and have real kids like so many of us do. In an age where a woman is valued more for her looks than her brains, this is a very refreshing change.

As a boy growing up in the 1960’s and early ‘70’s, I was always confused at how women wished to be perceived. In the films and books of the times, women were housewives and mothers, nurses, waitresses etc. And the models were all waif-like and almost asexual; I never could get the “hots” for Twiggy.

As the women’s movement grew and changed their perceptions of themselves; in many cases freeing them from a life of few selections; something strange happened. For decades men had been accused of valuing women only for their sexuality, and men had to learn a hard lesson in how to treat women properly. Then came the confusing part; many women took Roe vs. Wade as being the apex of victory in the Feminist Movement. Indeed, it is a pet peeve of mine that women never did push further for the ERA after Roe was decided. Instead they took the sexual equality as being the victory itself, rather than merely a component of a larger goal. And until this very day, America remains one of the only industrialized nations on Earth without an Equal Pay Act for Women.

The war against women is full on in America today, with many of the leading culprits being women politicians who have been elected, in large part, by women. It will never cease to amaze me at how many women turned out the vote for Hillary Clinton as she traveled the world demanding Equal Rights for women, while remaining silent on the same issue at home. Condolezza Rice and Madeleine Albright, along with every woman congressperson and senator, all share the blame in this.

Excuse my rant; I am just happy to see that someone, somewhere, is taking a vital step towards having women view themselves through the lens of accomplishment rather than the size of their dress. 

"A Concert for Hotspur" - December 3rd

Lacey “Hotspur” Long; a close friend of my daughter Sarah for several years; passed away a few weeks ago. Her friends have gotten together and planned a concert in her memory at Winthrop University in Rock Hill, where most of them first met. Although they all graduated and many moved on to different schools, they managed to stay in touch and even socialize together; friends for life.

It is always a tragedy when someone passes away. The world is diminished by each death, for we all have something to offer. Although I only met Lacey a few times, I was instantly struck by her vibrant personality and interest in almost all things. She was a very rare individual; one of those people you feel as if you have known forever; even if you have only met them once.  

There is an old English rhyme which was used on the cover of a Rolling Stones album that was intended as a tribute to Brian Jones. I have a feeling that Lacey would have been very comfortable with it as an epitaph of sorts;

"When this you see, remember me,

and bear me in your mind.
Let all the world say what they may,
speak of me as you find."

RIP Lacey