|
DanielButrymowiczFirstPaper 2 - 13 Feb 2008 - Main.DanielButrymowicz
|
| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
| |
<
< | | | | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | All comments are welcome. | |
>
> | All comments are welcome. | | | In the canonical series of cases about the political question doctrine, the Supreme Court often emphasizes that they can't hear a case unless there are "judicially manageable" and observable standards by which they can decide the issue. Similarly, they claim to be constitutionally barred from hearing a case where the issue is "textually committed" to another branch.
It seems that the justiciability doctrines could be described as: "The condition of the Court's thinking about a case at all is that it can be thought about constitutionally."
Our legal and political obsession with "constitutionality" has all the trappings of a creed. What is or is not "constitutional" has little to do with the actual document and more to do with centuries of confused socio-political decisions by various groups of nine justices. The doctrines are complex, confusing, and often contradictory. And yet, people and groups who know nothing about constitutional law constantly assert that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, or that prayer in schools is unconstitutional, along with any number of issues that involve complicated questions of constitutional law. | |
<
< | Or perhaps the "constitution" creed has evolved past "creed" status. Perhaps it has become what Arnold describes as a
fact of the world, like democracy. There is debate about what is or is not constitutional, but essentially never about whether the constitution should be abandoned altogether. | >
> | Arnold points out that, "In an age where Reason is God, constitutions or fundamental creeds are supposed to be the result of rational thought on the part of our forebears." In such a society, the constitution serves to "furnish the limits beyond which controversy may not extend."
American culture has certainly internalized this principle. Our constitution is regarded as containing the wisdom of our forefathers (this creed's heroes). It is impermissible for any political or judicial decision to "violate" the constitution. Unfortunately, since the constitution is so often silent, it is difficult for most people (or perhaps all people) to determine exactly when it has been violated. This creates a "fundamental problem" akin to the inability to determine guilt from innocence (Frank). There is no empirical or observable way to determine if unanticipated and attenuated social situations conform to the constitution as framed by our forebears. Instead, we employ magic.
Constitutional magic manifests itself most visibly in the form of the Supreme Court. In order to determine if a decision comports with our creed, we send it to nine wise elders (usually men) who are able to discern whether or not it is constitutional or unconstitutional. The entire process is a ritual. Magical/ritualistic elements permeate oral arguments. The nine "justices" (named so as to indicate that they represent an unbiased and objective ideal) wear flowing robes, have special and sacred titles (your honor), and command rituals to show respect (standing until they are seated). The court begins its sessions with a traditional ritualized chant ("Oyez, oyez, oyez...").
The magic of the criminal process occurs largely out of the public eye. It is easy for the general public to believe the system is working. They generally don't watch actual criminal trials. Instead, television and movies provide a dramatized view of the criminal justice process in which the system usually catches and convicts the bad guy, or lets off the innocent guy. | | | | |
<
< | Then there is the issue of the constitution as magic. Much has been read into the constitution over the lifetime of the country. To this day, Justices make tortured connections between the text of the document itself and modern political situations that could never have been foreseen by the framers. Does the constitution provide a right to abortion? Does the constitution prohibit the death penalty? Questions like these are not addressed in the text. So society deals with them the same way people deal with the fundamental problem of determining guilt. | >
> | Constitutional magic, on the other hand, occurs more publicly. Supreme Court decisions are often highly anticipated and highly publicized. Further, Supreme Court decisions frequently have direct political and/or social implications (Brown v. Board, Roe v. Wade, Bush v. Gore). These cases tend to be the central front in a conflict between competing sub-groups both attempting to use the constitutional creed. Both sides seek to claim the mantle of "constitutionality" for their political/social agenda. This leads to an interesting split after a decision has been handed down. Typically, both sides will still attempt to retain the mantle of constitutionality. The victorious party will claim that the magic has been successful and that the constitution has been correctly interpreted and applied to the present issue. The losing party will claim that the court used inappropriate magic, and insist that the case was "wrongly decided." Both of these approaches take for granted that the proper application of magic would lead to a correct result, reaffirming the Supreme Court as a magical mechanism for determining the validity ("constitutionality") of various movements. | | | | |
<
< | Since we (especially the laymen) do not appear to have discovered an observable/technical means of determining what is or is not constitutional, we rely on the magic of the Supreme Court. The idea that the Supreme Court is able to accurately determine the constitution's view on present day issues is magic. It's a ritual; a way of justifying decisions that are often made (with varying degrees of transparency) for reasons of policy or social or political preference. | >
> | Constitutional magic is far more self-conscious than criminal magic. In criminal proceedings, the correct ritual is easy to identify. The facts of the case are applied to the law, providing a clear result. The attempts by competing ideologies and interests to claim the mantle of constitutionality has led to a self-conscious examination of the different magical approaches used and arguments over which should be applied. There is no more objective/observable reason to consider the constitution a "living document" than to decide constitutionality based solely on its text. Arguments can be made for the intent of the framers, but their intents often conflicted. | | | | |
<
< | Hopefully I can distill these general thoughts into a clearer and more concise idea. Any suggestions on what to focus on would be appreciated. | >
> | Evidence indicates that many justices take a fundamentally functional tact with their decisions. This can be seen perhaps most clearly in so-called "structural" or "prudential" arguments (i.e. Presidential Communications must be privileged in order to give the President the necessary freedom to use his executive power). Even in those instances when the court is making policy arguments, they still feel the need to ground their arguments in the magic of "constitutionality." Perhaps, then, constitutionality has become (or is becoming) a political "fact" akin to democracy. Perhaps the judiciary has determined, as has government, that they need to continue to provide an appeal to emotion to justify their existence to the majority of people while being practical behind the scenes and making "constitutionality" fit whatever policy the believe appropriate in a given instance | | | |
|
|
DanielButrymowiczFirstPaper 1 - 12 Feb 2008 - Main.DanielButrymowicz
|
|
>
> |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper%25" |
|---|
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Constitution as Judicial Creed
-- By DanielButrymowicz - 12 Feb 2008
Preliminary Notes:
All comments are welcome.
In the canonical series of cases about the political question doctrine, the Supreme Court often emphasizes that they can't hear a case unless there are "judicially manageable" and observable standards by which they can decide the issue. Similarly, they claim to be constitutionally barred from hearing a case where the issue is "textually committed" to another branch.
It seems that the justiciability doctrines could be described as: "The condition of the Court's thinking about a case at all is that it can be thought about constitutionally."
Our legal and political obsession with "constitutionality" has all the trappings of a creed. What is or is not "constitutional" has little to do with the actual document and more to do with centuries of confused socio-political decisions by various groups of nine justices. The doctrines are complex, confusing, and often contradictory. And yet, people and groups who know nothing about constitutional law constantly assert that Roe v. Wade is unconstitutional, or that prayer in schools is unconstitutional, along with any number of issues that involve complicated questions of constitutional law.
Or perhaps the "constitution" creed has evolved past "creed" status. Perhaps it has become what Arnold describes as a
fact of the world, like democracy. There is debate about what is or is not constitutional, but essentially never about whether the constitution should be abandoned altogether.
Then there is the issue of the constitution as magic. Much has been read into the constitution over the lifetime of the country. To this day, Justices make tortured connections between the text of the document itself and modern political situations that could never have been foreseen by the framers. Does the constitution provide a right to abortion? Does the constitution prohibit the death penalty? Questions like these are not addressed in the text. So society deals with them the same way people deal with the fundamental problem of determining guilt.
Since we (especially the laymen) do not appear to have discovered an observable/technical means of determining what is or is not constitutional, we rely on the magic of the Supreme Court. The idea that the Supreme Court is able to accurately determine the constitution's view on present day issues is magic. It's a ritual; a way of justifying decisions that are often made (with varying degrees of transparency) for reasons of policy or social or political preference.
Hopefully I can distill these general thoughts into a clearer and more concise idea. Any suggestions on what to focus on would be appreciated.
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" on the next line:
# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, DanielButrymowicz
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|