Lewis Trondheim speaking in Moscow, IdahoThis weekend, the Supreme Court has declared the Unwed and Teenager Mothers Protection Bill unconstitutional.
My initial response was shock and outrage.
I've pondered this ruling for several hours now, and I now have more mixed feelings about it.
The Supreme Court argued for a very strict interpretation of clauses 16 and 17 of the Powers Amendment. I would not have argued the same way, but the Justices' interpretation is certainly valid. The real problem lies with the Constitution.
Therefore I have proposed to the Constitutional Convention to include a "General Welfare" clause, modelled on the same clause in the US Constitution, in the Atlas Constitution.
They also struck down the bill because it dictated to the regions how to spend money appropriated to them. I would have to read the relevant sections of the Constitution very well, but it is quite possible that I would have actually concurred on this part of the verdict.
However, the Justices went further. Even though it was not even strictly necessary to arrive at their verdict, they pronounced:
Furthermore, this bill violates the equal protection clause of the Civil Liberties Amendment. By only applying to unwed and teenage mothers, this bill discriminates against certain women on the basis of marital status.
Now, the equal protection clause states "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Just before, the Court argues for a very strict interpretation of the Constitutional text, and now they come up with THIS?
On that basis - that the equal protection clause forbids discrimination on the basis of marital status - you would have to strike all those provisions in the Tax Code that put a married couple in a better situation financially than two unrelated persons making the same wages.
Worse, the thrust of the argument seems to be that the equal protection clause forbids laws that discriminate - that
differentiate between individuals that are not alike.
This doctrine would strike down any law that actually makes a difference in people's lives on the very grounds that it makes a difference in people's lives.
This is a horrible decision, and it will be very hard to defeat its ill effects. Essentially the only options would be to repeal or modify the Equal Protection Clause - which noone can want, seriously - or to get a better Suprime Court bench. As the Justices have not in my opinion committed any impeachable offense, this will test your patience.
The Justice who cast the deciding vote in this decision, the Honorable* John Dibble, has been nominated and confirmed to the Court just days ago. His position on the Teenage and Unwed Mothers Protection Act was known at the time. Yet the same Senators that had voted for the Act confirmed him with very little debate.
Thence, if there is one lesson to be learned from this sad affair, it is this: Senators, be more cautious with lifetime appointments. A LOT more cautious. If you feel that somebody's take on the meaning of the constitution is radically different from yours, DO NOT confirm that person, whatever their record may be, however nice blokes they may be. YOU have the power to control who makes it onto the bench, do not waste it anymore.
* Is that the right term of address? What is the right term of address? Whatever it is, assume that I used it.
