Author Topic: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)  (Read 509418 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49749
    • View Profile
WSJ: SCOTUS's Textualism Test
« Reply #1500 on: November 23, 2019, 11:20:58 AM »
The Supreme Court’s Textualism Test
Kagan tries to lure Gorsuch and Roberts off the Scalia method.
By The Editorial Board
Nov. 21, 2019 7:21 pm ET

The Supreme Court in Washington. PHOTO: ERIN SCHAFF/REUTERS
It won’t grab headlines like impeachment, but a major political drama this year will unfold at the Supreme Court. To wit, how will the Court, and especially new Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, define the meaning of textualism and originalism?

Did Gordon Sondland Make the Case for Impeachment?


SUBSCRIBE
These are the watchwords of the jurisprudence made prominent by the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and all of the Justices claim to honor them in one way or another. But how the Justices define these tools of judicial interpretation will determine how the Court decides major cases going forward. An important test will be the discrimination cases under Title VII that the Court heard in oral arguments last month.

***
On traditional grounds of textualism, the two cases—Bostock v. Clayton County, and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC—should be straightforward. The plaintiffs say they were fired because they were gay or transgender, and that such discrimination is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

But Title VII bans discrimination because of “race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.” No one in Congress in 1964 claimed that outlawing discrimination based on sex applied to sexual orientation, much less to the transgendered. The plain meaning of the text of Title VII is that “sex” referred to a man or a woman.

Under this plain reading, the Justices could and should say that discrimination against gays or the transgendered is invidious but that Title VII doesn’t ban it and it isn’t the job of judges to rewrite the text. If Congress wants to ban such bias in the workplace, it should pass a law, as some 23 states have done.

Enter Justice Elena Kagan, bearing a different definition of the text of the statute, updated for current mores. During oral arguments, she sought to redefine “sex” in Title VII to mean more than the binary choice of a man or woman. She offered a hypothetical case in which a company fires a woman employee for dating another woman but wouldn’t have fired a man for dating a woman. Voila, discrimination based on sex.

Justice Kagan is a shrewd Court politician, and her goal in politically significant cases is to attract one of the conservative Justices to form a 5-4 liberal majority. She’s succeeded more than once with Chief Justice John Roberts, who is above all an institutionalist who wants to preserve the Court’s public standing. Justice Kagan has used appeals to precedent and the “legitimacy” of the Court to pull the Chief to liberal policy ends.

Her main target on the Title VII cases is Justice Gorsuch, and, sure enough, in oral arguments he suggested he might agree with Justice Kagan’s nouveau interpretation of “sex.” At one point he said “the textual evidence” is “really close, really close” and we’re not talking about “extra-textual stuff.”

At another point he asked Solicitor General Noel Francisco to respond to Justice Kagan’s argument “and the fact that at least one contributing cause [of dismissal from the job] appears to be sex?”

Mr. Francisco gave an excellent answer: “First, I don’t think that one contributing cause is sex. I think that as long as you’re treating gay men and women exactly the same regardless of their sex, the contributing cause is sexual orientation, not sex. And, two, I think it reflects the fact that sex and sexual orientation are different traits.”

In other words, the employment bias isn’t based on sex since it could apply to gay men or gay women. The bias is against sexual orientation. Congress has expressly protected against such bias in other statutes, taking care to balance other interests such as religious views. Simply because Congress hasn’t done so for Title VII doesn’t mean the Court should usurp the role of the legislature and do so.

American social mores have traveled far since 1964, and today there is broad acceptance of differences based on sexual orientation and gender self-identification. The Fortune 500 and most employers have policies that ban bias on either grounds. A Supreme Court decision that said the job of reforming Title VII is up to Congress could well supply the political impetus to do so, while also allowing for the compromises necessary to protect other interests such as concerns over same-sex bathrooms and women’s sports teams.

***
The larger threat is to the new Court and the use, or misuse, of textualism. If the plain binary meaning of “sex” in 1964 as a man or woman can be redefined to fit today’s cultural politics, then textualism as a legal doctrine becomes meaningless. Justice Scalia might say it tortures the language more than it can bear. Textualism would become merely one more tool for judges to impose their politics on the law—based on whatever creative uses Justice Kagan can conjure to apply it.

Justice Clarence Thomas is now the Court’s foremost originalist and he makes his spirited arguments within the four corners of his opinions. Justice Samuel Alito appreciates textualism, though he also is a more traditional follower of judicial restraint.

Justice Gorsuch has taken on the role of public evangelist for the Scalia method, as he’s shown with his recent book “A Republic, If You Can Keep It.” He wants younger Americans in particular to understand and appreciate the benefits of textualism and originalism—a laudable mission unless their proper understanding is washed away when politically convenient.

Justice Kavanaugh, Justice Gorsuch’s generational peer, will also have a say in defining what textualism means in the years ahead. If Justice Gorsuch or the Chief Justice follow Justice Kagan in defining textualism down, we hope Justice Kavanaugh and the others will explain their errors.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49749
    • View Profile
Electoral College
« Reply #1502 on: January 04, 2020, 03:18:06 PM »
« Last Edit: January 04, 2020, 03:20:48 PM by Crafty_Dog »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Constitutional Law: New state electoral vote laws unconstitutional?
« Reply #1503 on: January 17, 2020, 05:17:08 PM »
Just my opinion but these new state laws awarding their states delegates to the national popular vote winner are unconstitutional.  They disenfranchise that state's voters.  We will see.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/17/supreme-court-takes-key-electoral-college-cases-ahead-of-2020-election.html

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49749
    • View Profile
Rivkin & Casey: Congress declares War, but only the President can make it
« Reply #1504 on: January 20, 2020, 12:00:55 PM »
Serious article by serious resumes

Congress Declares War, but Only the President Can Make It
The effort to tie Trump’s hands in Iran would be unconstitutional if it weren’t meaningless.
By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey
Jan. 15, 2020 7:11 pm ET


Iranian soldiers outside the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, Nov. 13, 1979. PHOTO: ASSOCIATED PRESS

House Democrats, joined by a few Republicans, responded to the killing of Iran’s Maj. Gen. Qasem Soleimani by questioning the president’s authority to order that strike. But the resolution they passed last week makes a mockery of Congress’s own powers. It purportedly “directs the President to terminate the use of United States Armed Forces to engage in hostilities in or against Iran or any part of its government or military” unless Congress authorizes the use of force or an Iranian attack on the U.S. is “imminent.” But it’s styled as a nonbinding resolution. That means it doesn’t need Senate approval, but it also makes no pretense of having the force of law.

Which is just as well. Congress cannot limit the president’s constitutional authority to wage war in the way it pretends to here.


The resolution purports to restrict the president’s power to an even greater extent than the 1973 War Powers Resolution. The latter was enacted over President Richard Nixon’s veto, and every president since has regarded it as unconstitutional. It demands that the White House notify Congress anytime U.S. forces are introduced into hostilities abroad, then either obtain congressional authorization or withdraw troops within 90 days. The new resolution applies to all forms of military power, including drones and missiles, and claims to prohibit them effective immediately.

It’s true that the Constitution assigns Congress the power “to declare war.” Yet even in the 18th century, a declaration of war wasn’t required to create a state of armed conflict, governed by the laws of war. Today, such a declaration has to do with how citizens and property from belligerent and neutral states are treated, rather than the actual use of force. The last time Congress formally declared war was in 1942. Since World War II, lawmakers have approved U.S. military actions by other means, from the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which allowed President Lyndon B. Johnson to expand U.S. involvement in Vietnam, to the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.

The power to declare war is different from the power to make war, which belongs to the president in his role as “commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” There are few constraints on that power when the president is defending Americans, civilian or military, against armed attack.

True, the Framers didn’t grant the president power to initiate hostilities at his pleasure. They gave Congress, not the president, the authority to raise and support armies, to create a navy, and to make rules and regulations for their governance. It’s also up to the legislative branch to define the legal framework for armed conflict: offenses against international and military law, the procedures for their prosecution, the treatment of captured enemy property and prisoners and so forth.

Congress also has the power “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia.” Military officers are subject to Senate confirmation. Congress can use its exclusive appropriation powers to limit or eliminate funding for a particular conflict—if lawmakers are prepared to take the resulting political risks. Inaction or nonbinding resolutions have no constitutional import.

Even if it passes legislation, Congress cannot dictate when and how the president exercises his power over the military forces it has provided—especially in selecting targets. Like any American, Speaker Nancy Pelosi is free to speak her mind. But her claim that the attack on Soleimani was “provocative and disproportionate” is preposterous.

Iran has been engaged in on-and-off armed conflict with the U.S. since “students” seized the embassy in Tehran in 1979. Soleimani was a uniformed member of the Iranian armed forces, and a critical player in Iran’s worldwide terror campaign. All that made him a legitimate target. The notion that Soleimani was too senior to be killed finds no support in the laws of armed conflict. Even the most senior military leaders can be targeted, as the U.S. did in 1943 when it shot down Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto’s plane in New Guinea.

Nor is it legally relevant, as some congressional Democrats have claimed, that killing such a high-ranking officer could heighten the danger of a wider war. Any military action has the potential to escalate hostilities, as do other exercises of presidential authority. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s imposition of an oil embargo against Japan in August 1941 arguably prompted the attack on Pearl Harbor four months later.

Under Mrs. Pelosi’s logic, virtually every major foreign-policy decision would require congressional authorization. Imagine if President John F. Kennedy had to ask lawmakers for approval during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 before subjecting Cuba to a “naval quarantine,” an act of war against Havana. The threat of Soviet missiles in Cuba was real, but it wasn’t “imminent” in the sense that Mr. Trump’s critics use that word today.

Kennedy acted to prevent a long-term, highly dangerous change in the nuclear balance of power that would have put Moscow in a position to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. with virtually no warning. But there was no reason to think an attack was planned for the immediate future.

Kennedy decided that action, while risky, would enhance deterrence, as President Trump did when he ordered the killing of Soleimani. The president deserves credit for a decision that would, at any time until recently, have been considered a triumph by Democrats and Republicans alike.

Messrs. Rivkin and Casey practice appellate and constitutional law in Washington. They served in the White House Counsel’s Office and Justice Department under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 12043
    • View Profile
Issues American Creed Constitutional Law, Equal Rights Amendment - Just Say No
« Reply #1505 on: February 14, 2020, 08:48:55 AM »
Ruth Bader Ginsburg among others has put ERA back in the news.
https://www.baltimoresun.com/opinion/editorial/bs-ed-0216-era-ratification-20200213-kzp6yfftunbxrai42wdykwdt5i-story.html

Working to see this fail in the 70s and early 80s was my own mother's passion.  Most of what she warned against is already here, women in combat, gay marriage, the end of gender distinction.  However we feel about those issues, the equal rights amendment would end any remaining special protections girls and women enjoy.

We don't have a draft right now but if we needed one, drafting our daughters into war with equal opportunity would be a constitutional requirement if we needed to draft anyone into combat.  No distinction on the basis of gender allowed, regardless of whom the needs most.  Leftists think this prevents war, but WWII etc were not wars of our choosing.

Sports may be one of the last remaining areas of gender recognition.  This is already being screwed up by the trans movement with boys winning girls events.  Sports may seem trivial but ask the girls who benefited from girls and women's sports what it meant to their upbringing.  With ERA, LPGA is gone.  WNBA gone.  Title IX, gone.  Girls tennis, girls soccer, girls everything, mixed doubles, gone.  Girl Scouts, no longer.  Equal prize money at the US Open?  Not needed anymore, they only need one event and men will be winning it.  Federer versus Serena?  Not going to happen, she wouldn't make the qualifying round.  No distinction on gender is constitutional mandate under ERA.  Lost not just for the athletes, but those who like to watch women compete.

Who does this benefit?  No one.

Gender discrimination is not what holds women back in the workplace.  But even if it is, it's already against federal law.  My mom was an aeronautical engineer in the 40s. She entered when there was one woman in the field. Girls weren't kept out of engineering; they wanted out of engineering.  That has (partly) changed.  A constitutional amendment would not affect wrongful discrimination, but it would end any remaining preferences girls and women still enjoy.

Equal means the same and the TWO genders are not the same.  Some of us enjoy the differences.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49749
    • View Profile
Re: Issues in the American Creed (Constitutional Law and related matters)
« Reply #1506 on: February 14, 2020, 02:35:30 PM »
I remember debating exactly this point with Ruthie back in 1980 when the ERA came up in class.  She acknowledged my point about the validity of a time limit.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 49749
    • View Profile
Ruthie gets it right on ERA
« Reply #1507 on: February 15, 2020, 11:31:32 AM »
Truth in Constitutional Amending
Justice Ginsburg says the push for the Equal Rights Amendment should start over.
By The Editorial Board
Feb. 14, 2020 6:40 pm ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
89

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg participates in a discussion at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, D.C., Feb. 10.
PHOTO: SARAH SILBIGER/GETTY IMAGES
Everything old is new again in politics, including socialism. So why not the long lost Equal Rights Amendment that failed in the 1980s? The answer came Monday from no less than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said at Georgetown University’s law school that ERA supporters are obliged to “start over.”

Congress passed the ERA in 1972, but it fell short of the three-quarters of the states it needed to become a constitutional amendment. Progressives have made a cause of reviving it in recent years, and Nevada, Illinois and recently Virginia have added their names to the list of ratifying states. Which brings the total to 38 states, the number they need.

One problem: The original legislation passed by Congress imposed a deadline of seven years. Though Congress later extended the original 1979 deadline to 1982, the amendment still didn’t garner enough states to be added to the Constitution. Another complication is that five state legislatures (Idaho, Kentucky, Nebraska, Tennessee and South Dakota) rescinded their original ratifications, most of them before the 1979 deadline.

On Thursday Nancy Pelosi’s House of Representatives passed, 232 to 183, new legislation meant to resolve the problem by dissolving the deadline. But the measure will likely die in the Senate, bringing us back to square one.

Meanwhile, the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has produced a memo saying that the Supreme Court has upheld Congress’s constitutional authority to impose a deadline for ratification—and “because that deadline has expired, the ERA Resolution is no longer pending before the States.” Although the memo disagreed with the office’s previous conclusion in 1977 that Congress can extend a ratification deadline on an amendment that’s still pending, it agreed that “Congress may not revive a proposed amendment after the deadline has expired.”

This is the legal and political context in which Justice Ginsburg offered her opinion. She did so, moreover, as a strong supporter of the ERA, not an opponent. “If you count a latecomer on the plus side,” she asked her audience, “how can you disregard states that said, ‘We’ve changed our minds?’”

The ERA also isn’t necessary today. America in 2020 is a very different place for women than it was when the ERA was written. Laws bar discrimination against women in all walks of life, and women are CEOs, Senators and the Speaker of the House. There are also legitimate concerns that the ERA would become another avenue for judges to impose a progressive agenda on abortion or transgender rights.

Justice Ginsburg is right to counsel prudence and process. If the champions of the ERA truly believe the Constitution needs revising, stop with the gimmicks and do it the right way.