WWW.THESIS.DISLIB.INFO
FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Online materials, documents
 
<< HOME
CONTACTS



Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |   ...   | 10 |

«Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 24, Issue 3 1996 Article 5 Linking Genes with Behavior: The Social and Legal Implications of Using Genetic Evidence ...»

-- [ Page 3 ] --

Of course, proponents of the Bill of Rights advocated an explicit enumeration of certain fundamental rights to be protected from government infringement.38 Moreover, even opponents of amending the Constitution to add the Bill of Rights did not disagree with the natural rights philosophy; to the contrary, they opposed adding the Bill of Rights precisely because of that philosophy. Consistent with that philosophy, they believed that an express Bill of Rights was at best unnecessary and at worst dangerous. It was unnecessary because the Constitution did not-and, indeed, could notvest the new government with power to violate inherent individual rights. Worse yet, they considered an express Bill of Rights to be at least potentially dangerous, because the enumeration of certain rights could create an implication that no other fundamental rights were secure against government infringement.39 Specifically to counter any such "negative pregnant," the Ninth Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights, stating: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."'' 4 Consistent with the plain language of the Ninth Amendment and the underlying constitutional history, every Justice on the current Court and in modern history has agreed that the Constitution implicitly protects some unenumerated rights; 41 the Justices simply

37. U.S. CONST. preamble (emphasis added).

38. Stephen Macedo, Originalismand the Inescapability of Politics, 84 Nw. U. L.

REV. 1203, 1208 (1990) (noting that the Anti-Federalists insisted on an explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution to "ensure the preservation of popular liberty").

39. Thomas B. McAffee, The Original Meaning of the Ninth Amendment, 90 COLuM. L. REV. 1215, 1226 (1990) (stating that the "[F]ederalists responded that the inclusion of specific reservations of particular rights, as contemplated by the proposed bill of rights, was not merely unnecessary, but positively dangerous. A bill of rights would reverse the Constitution's premise that all not granted was reserved; instead, the government would hold all power except what was prohibited in the bill of rights").

40. U.S. CoNsT. amend. IX.

41. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 869 (1992) (O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter, JJ.) (recognizing "the constitutional liberty of the woman to have some freedom to terminate her pregnancy"); id. at 912 (Stevens, J., concurring/dissenting) (finding that "[t]he Constitution would be equally offended by an absolute

RELIGION AND POLITICS

1997] disagree among themselves as to which such rights it protects. Justice Scalia himself has recognized the existence of implied fundamental rights,42 even in his JTS lecture. He said that when the Constitution's text is unclear, the benchmark for protected rights should be "what American society has traditionally accepted." But he was also willing to depart selectively from this asserted benchmark (just as he was willing to depart selectively from strict textualism).

The first question that this assertion by Justice Scalia triggered in my mind was actually asked by someone else in the audience at his lecture: What about such time-honored American traditions as outlawing interracial marriage, mandating segregated schools, and imposing sectarian prayers in public schools? Justice Scalia's answer to that question was disturbing in two respects. First, he answered only regarding interracial marriage. Therefore, maybe he would find, for example, that sectarian public school prayers are justified by tradition; indeed, his answer to another audience question indicated that to be the case, as I will discuss later.

Second, Justice Scalia said that anti-miscegenation laws violated the text of the Equal Protection Clause. But that is certainly not requirement that all women undergo abortions as by an absolute prohibition on abortions"); Dallas v. Stanglin, 490 U.S. 19, 24 (1989) (Rehnquist, J.) (finding a right of freedom of association); id. at 28 (Stevens and Blackmun, JJ., concurring) (finding a right of association); Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618 (1984) (noting, in a 7-0 opinion, that the "Constitution guarantees freedom of association... as an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties"); Moore v. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) (plurality opinion) (upholding the constitutional right to structure family living arrangements); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 463 (White, J. concurring) (finding a right to use contraceptives); Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941) (holding, without dissent, that the Constitution implicitly protects a fundamental right to interstate travel); Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925) (reaffirming unanimously Meyer's holding of the right of parents to determine their children's upbringing); Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 (1923) (holding, without dissent, that parents have a fundamental right to raise their own children).

42. Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia, 116 S.Ct. 1186, 1218 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (quoting Broadrick v. Oklahoma, stating that the Supreme Court must act whenever "rights of association [are] ensnared in statutes which, by their broad sweep, might result in burdening innocent associations." 413 U.S. 601, 612 (1973));





Board of Directors of Rotary Int'l v. Rotary Club, 481 U.S. 537, 550 (1987) (Scalia, J., concurring) (agreeing that a California statute requiring California Rotary Clubs to admit women did not violate members' rights of association); Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (1993) (holding that the "right-to-interstate travel" is not impinged by anti-abortion protesters, whose actions limited respondents' intrastate travel); Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) (joining the Court's holding that inmates had a constitutionally protected right to marry).

FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. XXIV obvious from the plain language of the clause itself,4 3 or from its history. Nor does the plain language" or history of the Equal Protection Clause clearly outlaw segregated schools. Even the Court's landmark decision invalidating such schools, Brown v. Board of Education, itself recognized this.4 6 Indeed, Justice Scalia's usual ideological ally, Chief Justice Rehnquist, a law clerk to Justice Jackson while the Court was considering Brown, notoriously urged Jackson to reject Brown's challenge to racially segregated public schools on this basis.47 Just as Justice Scalia selectively sanctions the Court's departure from tradition to uphold rights that are not clearly protected in the Constitution's text, he also has approved the Court's departure

43. One could plausibly argue that anti-miscegenation laws do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because they apply equally to any affected races; for example, whites are no more free to marry blacks than blacks are to marry whites. Indeed, courts rejecting constitutional challenges to these laws prior to Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), had accepted this argument. See Pace v. Alabama, 106 U.S. 583 (1888) (finding no discrimination against any race in the statute because "[w]hatever discrimination is made in the punishment prescribed in the two sections is directed against the offense designated and not against the person of any particular color or race. The punishment of each offending person, whether white or black, is the same.").

If Justice Scalia rejects the reasoning of Pace, that should bode well for his analysis

of another type of marriage ban that might eventually trigger Supreme Court review:

the prohibition on same-sex marriages. If the Equal Protection Clause constrains any ban on marriages between members of two races, even though the ban applies equally to members of both races, then it should also constrain any ban on marriages between members of the same gender, even though the ban applies equally to members of both genders (i.e., both males and females are prohibited from marrying someone of the same gender). See Erik J. Toulon, Call The Caterer: Hawaii To Host First SameSex Marriage, 3 S. CAL. REV. L. & WOMEN'S STUD. 109, 133 (1993). Toulon notes that in Loving, the Court held that prohibitions on interracial marriage denied equal protection because such prohibitions discriminated by allowing a white man to marry a white woman while at the same time preventing a black man from marrying a white woman. Id. Toulon points out that this is the same analysis employed by the Supreme Court of Hawaii within the context of a ban on same-sex marriages in Baehr v. Lewin, 852 P.2d 44 (1993) (i.e., the court found that Hawaii's ban on same-sex marriages denied equal protection because the state conditions access to marriage on the basis of sex, allowing a man to marry a woman while at the same time preventing a woman from marrying a woman). Toulon, supra.

44. See U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1 (stating that "[n]o State shall.., deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.").

45. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).

46. Id. at 489-90.

47. David J. Garrow, The Rehnquist Reins, N.Y. TIMES, Oct. 6, 1996, at 65 (noting that a "controversy [arose] when a Rehnquist memorandum arguing against any Supreme Court voiding of segregated schools and for a continued endorsement of the old doctrine of separate but equal was discovered in Jackson's fie on Brown v. Board of Educ. Rehnquist unpersuasively insisted-as he would again during his 1986 confirmation hearings for Chief Justice-that the memo represented an articulation of Jackson's views rather than his own.").

RELIGION AND POLITICS

1997] from tradition to deny constitutional rights-specifically in the context of religious liberty. As I explain more fully below,4 8 Justice Scalia authored a 1990 decision that not only jettisoned the Court's modern precedents enforcing the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause; moreover, it did so without any consideration of-and, indeed, in defiance of-the historical underpinnings of that Clause.

In short, Justice Scalia does not in fact demand strict adherence to tradition in answering questions not clearly resolved by the Constitution's text. Accordingly, his vaunted tradition-based approach to constitutional interpretation lacks the chief advantages that he ascribes to it: predictability, objectivity, and constraining judicial discretion.

A tradition-centered constitutional interpretation could not be justified even if it were consistently invoked and therefore did constrain judicial discretion. Contrary to Justice Scalia's deference to tradition, the Supreme Court has long recognized that "no one acquires a vested or protected right in violation of the Constitution by long use, even when that span of time covers our entire national existence and indeed predates it."'49 Moreover, there is an even more fundamental problem with the notion of limiting constitutional freedoms to those encompassed by Justice Scalia's formulation, "what American society has traditionally accepted": it is a complete reversal of the concept of fundamental rights underlying our governmental system. Our government's founders wisely recognized the potential "tyranny of the majority," 50 in James Madison's famous phrase. Therefore, the government they created was not a pure democracy. To be sure, most public policy decisions are committed to the democratically elected, majoritarian legislative and executive branches of government. However, as the Constitution's framers recognized, there are some rights that are so fundamental that no majority, no matter how large, may deny them to any minority, no matter how small or unpopular.

This constitutional philosophy was most eloquently stated in the Supreme Court's landmark 1943 opinion in West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette. Significantly, for present purposes, Barnette was a case involving religious liberty-specifically, the reliSee infra part IV.

49. Walz v. Tax Commission of New York, 397 U.S. 664, 678 (1970).

50. Clarence Page, Bork Shows His Grouchy Side, Again, CHI. TRIB., Oct. 6, 1996, at 23 (noting that after the framers of the Constitution put majority rule into place, they went back and shored up minority rights in the Bill of Rights precisely to guard against what James Madison called "the tyranny of the majority").

51. 319 U.S. 624 (1943).

FORDHAM URBAN LAW JOURNAL [Vol. XXIV gious freedom of Jehovah's Witnesses, who believed that saluting the American flag violated the First Commandment's bar on idolatry. In striking down mandatory flag salute laws as violating the rights of the members of this minority faith, the Court ringingly affirmed not only freedom of belief and conscience; it also set out

core precepts regarding all fundamental rights:

The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.5 2 In his JTS lecture, Justice Scalia praised the common law approach of building on tradition, and said he wanted to emulate it for constitutional law. But even the arch-apostle of common-law judging, Oliver Wendell Holmes, himself denounced the type of rigid adherence to tradition that Justice Scalia espouses. Holmes declared, "It is revolting to have no better reason for a rule of law than that it was so laid down in the time of Henry IV. It is still more revolting if the grounds upon which it was laid down have vanished long since, and the rule simply persists from blind imitation of the past.



Pages:     | 1 | 2 || 4 | 5 |   ...   | 10 |


Similar works:

«(ORDER LIST: 580 U.S.) MONDAY, JANUARY 9, 2017 APPEAL SUMMARY DISPOSITION 16-588 PARROTT, NEIL, ET AL. V. LAMONE, LINDA H., ET AL. The motion of The Campaign Legal Center, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The appeal is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. CERTIORARI SUMMARY DISPOSITION 16-6430 PHILLIPS, PRESTON C. V. UNITED STATES The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is...»

«HUNGARY Hungary is a republic with a population of approximately 10 million and a multiparty parliamentary democracy. Legislative authority is vested in the unicameral parliament (National Assembly). The National Assembly elects the head of state, the president, every five years. The president appoints a prime minister from the majority party or coalition. The National Assembly elections on April 11 and 25 were assessed as free and fair, with the conservative FideszChristian Democrat (KDNP)...»

«BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F310788 HAROLD RIPLEY, Employee CLAIMANT MANSFIELD PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, Employer RESPONDENT AIG CLAIM SERVICES, INC., Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED MARCH 30, 2004 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by JAY TOLLEY, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Respondents represented by R. SCOTT MORGAN, Attorney, Pine Bluff, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE...»

«Microsoft Dynamics™ GP Collections Management Sample Reports Copyright Copyright © 2007 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any purpose, without the...»

«HCLU on Capital Punishment There has been no capital punishment in the Hungarian legal system since 1990 but initiatives to have it re-introduced have occasionally been launched and the majority of Hungarian citizens approve of the idea of administering death as a penalty. HCLU subscribes to the opinion that a barbarous form of punishment such as the death penalty has no place in a state which respects human rights. Capital punishment violates the right to life and counts as a cruel and...»

«IRSH, Page 1 of 24. doi:10.1017/S0020859011000423 r 2011 Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis Jewish Ethics and Women’s Work in the Late Medieval and Early Modern Arab-Islamic World KARIN HOFMEESTER Internationaal Instituut voor Sociale Geschiedenis E-mail: kho@iisg.nl SUMMARY: In this article, Moses Maimonides’ interpretation of Jewish law on women and work – as reflected in his Mishneh Torah – is contrasted with the daily lives of Jewish working women as portrayed in...»

«BRB No. 07-0145 J.P. ) ) Claimant-Petitioner ) ) v. ) ) EUREST SUPPORT SERVICE/COMPASS ) DATE ISSUED: 07/26/2007 ) and ) ) ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE ) COMPANY ) ) Employer/Carrier) Respondents ) DECISION and ORDER Appeal of the Decision and Order of Lee J. Romero, Jr., Administrative Law Judge, United States Department of Labor. Louis R. Koerner, Jr. (Koerner Law Firm), Houma, Louisiana, for claimant. Michael W. Adley (Judice & Adley, APLC), Lafayette, Louisiana, for employer/carrier. Before:...»

«1 JURIS DOCTOR PROGRAM Introduction Juris Doctor Degree Requirements List of Requirements Required First-Year Program Upperclass Legal Writing Requirement Juris Doctor Program Professional Responsibility Requirement Experiential Course Requirement Credit and Program Length Requirements Transfer Between Full-Time and Part-Time Programs Programs Graduate Specific Visa Reporting Requirements for International Students Academic Evaluation and Attrition Standards Attendance, Examinations, and...»

«De aard en juridische kenmerken van co-assurantie met een rechtsvergelijkend onderzoek naar co-assurantie: common law versus civil law Student: Jessica Roos (10003282) Begeleiders: prof. mr. J.G.J. Rinkes & prof. mr. M.L. Hendrikse Universiteit van Amsterdam Voorwoord Voor u ligt mijn scriptie ter afronding van mijn masteropleiding Privaatrecht aan de Universiteit van Amsterdam. In deze scriptie zullen de aard en juridische kenmerken van coassurantie worden besproken. Tevens worden in een...»

«BEFORE THE ARKANSAS WORKERS' COMPENSATION COMMISSION WCC NO. F500414 LOUIS VAN GALDER, Employee CLAIMANT WAL-MART STORES, INC., Employer RESPONDENT CMI, Carrier RESPONDENT OPINION FILED JULY 28, 2005 Hearing before ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE GREGORY K. STEWART in Springdale, Washington County, Arkansas. Claimant represented by BRENT STERLING, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. Respondents represented by CURTIS L. NEBBEN, Attorney, Fayetteville, Arkansas. STATEMENT OF THE CASE On July 14, 2005, the...»

«Total sales of Lawrence Green's books (including school and overseas editions) exceed half a million copies. LAWRENCE G. GREEN has also written 1933 The Coast of Treasure 1935 Great African Mysteries 1936 Secret Africa 1937 The Coast of Diamonds 1938 Strange Africa 1940 Old Africa Untamed 1945 Where Men Still Dream 1946 So Few Are Free 1947 Tavern of the Seas 1948 To the River's End 1949 In the Land of Afternoon 1950 At Daybreak for the Isles 1951 Grow Lovely Growing Old 1953 Lords of the Last...»

«WASHINGTON STATE MINORITY AND JUSTICE COMMISSION THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE Research Report Katherine A. Beckett, Ph. D. Alexes M. Harris, Ph. D. Heather Evans August 2008 WASHINGTON STATE MINORITY AND JUSTICE COMMISSION THE ASSESSMENT AND CONSEQUENCES OF LEGAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS IN WASHINGTON STATE Research Report Washington State Minority and Justice Commission Washington State Supreme Court Temple of Justice Post Office Box 41174...»





 
<<  HOME   |    CONTACTS
2017 www.thesis.dislib.info - Online materials, documents

Materials of this site are available for review, all rights belong to their respective owners.
If you do not agree with the fact that your material is placed on this site, please, email us, we will within 1-2 business days delete him.