Regarding the idea of states ignoring Supreme Court rulings, I think of how the current state of marijuana legalization is a hodgepodge of state laws which all openly violate the established federal law. These stand because they do represent the will of the majority that Jim describes in this article. But, from a legal and constitutional…
Regarding the idea of states ignoring Supreme Court rulings, I think of how the current state of marijuana legalization is a hodgepodge of state laws which all openly violate the established federal law. These stand because they do represent the will of the majority that Jim describes in this article. But, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, they are problematic and suggest that states could "go rogue" on any number of other issues if they feel they have enough local support. Ike sent in the National Guard to enforce the desegregation at Little Rock High School. Does anyone expect the Feds to mobilize National Guard units to enforce any of the laws currently embattled, such as abortion, gun rights, marijuana, or voting rights themselves?
When I look at Alito's weird historical scavenger hunt approach, I am very confused by the logic. To argue that we must limit our understanding of the Constitution to the context of the late 1700s seems ridiculous, given how much life has changed. Surely the rules of football have been adjusted over time to protect player safety and competitiveness, without losing legitimacy as the rules of the game. To pretend that we need to view Constitutional rights through the lens of a world where only white men could vote, slavery was legal, and horseback (Paul Revere!) was the fastest way to broadcast a message would seem like a poor way to handle today's problems. Much has changed since those days: railroads, telephones, steamships, radio, TV, computers, the Internet, space travel, atomic weapons, plastics, climate change. To pretend that these things are irrelevant to Constitutional law risks making Constitutional law irrelevant to contemporary life.
And if we're going to try to think like a group of peri-wigged slaveowners in 1795, then why does he spend so many pages dredging up medieval precedents? The "it wasn't legal in Kent in 1385, so it can't be legal under the Constitution" argument is obviously anachronistic and hostile to the rights of anyone other than lords of the manor. By 1385 law, we'd nearly all be serfs, which I hope is not actually the goal here. And, although it may seem obvious, nobody in 1385 was allowed to keep a pistol in their home for "self defense" or to contribute unlimited funds to a political candidate. Times change and our understanding of how to apply the Constitution needs to be flexible enough to cope with new circumstances, or we will be as out of place as any ruler from the 1300s would be today.
Regarding the idea of states ignoring Supreme Court rulings, I think of how the current state of marijuana legalization is a hodgepodge of state laws which all openly violate the established federal law. These stand because they do represent the will of the majority that Jim describes in this article. But, from a legal and constitutional standpoint, they are problematic and suggest that states could "go rogue" on any number of other issues if they feel they have enough local support. Ike sent in the National Guard to enforce the desegregation at Little Rock High School. Does anyone expect the Feds to mobilize National Guard units to enforce any of the laws currently embattled, such as abortion, gun rights, marijuana, or voting rights themselves?
When I look at Alito's weird historical scavenger hunt approach, I am very confused by the logic. To argue that we must limit our understanding of the Constitution to the context of the late 1700s seems ridiculous, given how much life has changed. Surely the rules of football have been adjusted over time to protect player safety and competitiveness, without losing legitimacy as the rules of the game. To pretend that we need to view Constitutional rights through the lens of a world where only white men could vote, slavery was legal, and horseback (Paul Revere!) was the fastest way to broadcast a message would seem like a poor way to handle today's problems. Much has changed since those days: railroads, telephones, steamships, radio, TV, computers, the Internet, space travel, atomic weapons, plastics, climate change. To pretend that these things are irrelevant to Constitutional law risks making Constitutional law irrelevant to contemporary life.
And if we're going to try to think like a group of peri-wigged slaveowners in 1795, then why does he spend so many pages dredging up medieval precedents? The "it wasn't legal in Kent in 1385, so it can't be legal under the Constitution" argument is obviously anachronistic and hostile to the rights of anyone other than lords of the manor. By 1385 law, we'd nearly all be serfs, which I hope is not actually the goal here. And, although it may seem obvious, nobody in 1385 was allowed to keep a pistol in their home for "self defense" or to contribute unlimited funds to a political candidate. Times change and our understanding of how to apply the Constitution needs to be flexible enough to cope with new circumstances, or we will be as out of place as any ruler from the 1300s would be today.