At the time, Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA) warned that “Robert Bork’s America (“Originalist” or “textual” interpretation of the Constitution) is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, Blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy….”
“originalism,” the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted only as the framers had intended when they wrote it, an argument that focused on the creation of law at the state level
Seemingly the on-going civil rights battles (that is, secular or related to ordinary citizens and their concerns as distinct from military or ecclesiastical matters) at the highest level of judicial pronouncement (the Supreme Court of the United States) is less about civil rights and more about preserving the right of white people to perpetuate the fiction that was the Confederacy.
The Confederate States of America (CSA), commonly referred to as the Confederate States or simply the Confederacy, was an unrecognized breakaway republic in North America that existed from February 8, 1861, to May 9, 1865.
In the Cornerstone Speech, Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens described its ideology as centrally based “upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.”
No foreign government ever recognized the Confederacy as an independent country, although Great Britain and France granted it belligerent status, which allowed Confederate agents to contract with private concerns for weapons and other supplies.
The Confederacy was formed on February 8, 1861 by seven slave states: South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas. All seven of the states were located in the Deep South region of the United States, whose economy was heavily dependent upon agriculture—particularly cotton—and a plantation system that relied upon enslaved Africans for labor. With that model having now disappeared there is no longer the economic argument for preserving or endorsing it. Instead what remains are “good people on both sides” (according to former President Donald J. Trump) who are ostensibly card-carrying anarchists and supremacists of untold bounds.
After the (civil) war, Confederate states were readmitted to the Congress during the Reconstruction era, after each ratified the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution outlawing slavery. Lost Cause ideology, an idealized view of the Confederacy valiantly fighting for a just cause, emerged in the decades after the war among former Confederate generals and politicians, as well as organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Intense periods of Lost Cause activity developed around the time of World War I, and during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s in reaction to growing public support for racial equality. Advocates sought to ensure future generations of Southern whites would continue to support white supremacist policies such as the Jim Crow laws through activities such as building Confederate monuments and influencing textbooks to put the Confederacy in a favorable light. The modern display of Confederate flags primarily started during the 1948 presidential election when the battle flag was used by the Dixiecrats in opposition to the Civil Rights Movement and segregationists continue the practice as a rallying flag for demonstrations.
The division between the north and the south touched (and continues to touch and polarize) politicians, business owners, men, women, families and churches. The idealized version of freedom in the United States of America is little more than a technical blip, a textbook insertion which fosters endless argument about interpretation but very little about the issue at hand; namely, freedom of rights and choice.
Stephen Breyer, under whom Jackson clerked (that is, Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, nominated by President Joe Biden on February 25, 2022, to take a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States), offered a new intellectual counterpoint to originalism that sought to move beyond the political lines of the post-Reagan era. He explained that we should approach constitutional questions by starting at the beginning: what did the Framers intend for the Constitution to do? Their central goal was not simply to protect liberties like free speech or gun ownership, he argued; their goal was to promote democracy. All court decisions, he said, should take into consideration what conclusion would best promote democracy.
In the current state of society in the United States of America there is often little incentive to enlarge the rights of citizens. The underlying demarcations of wealth, health and education are such as to enforce the continuance of isolation. The multitude of “gated communities” in the United States of America is more than mere metaphor. Certainly in Canada the limitations of rights of citizens are less evident but probably that is only because of the minority of inferior classes of people. In South Carolina for example one is constantly surrounded by a servant class which very often bears the mark of Mexican heritage both in appearance and language. As a result white people become accustomed to their unwitting (and undeserved) sense of privilege and superiority. This in turns affects opportunity for the minority and subservient class. And to complete the circle the further collateral is that there is little instinct for improvement or change. Thus the cycle continues.
The wave of immigration of brown and black people to the United States of America from the Caribbean, Central America, Mexico, Africa, China and India means the demographics are altered; which in turn signifies diverse interests to promote. White people who cling to the old way of living are perhaps too old to change their attitudes or habits. But their days of superiority are marked not only by demographic change but by the mere fact of nature; viz., they are old and dying. Soon brown and black people will not have to wait for the illumination of intellect or beneficence to afford themselves of opportunity, relief from the shackles of appearance only. Instead the uneducated, unemployed, free-loading, diabolical and addicted whites will become the lower class whose misfortune, unluckily for them, will be of little consequence or interest to the replacement class of purveyors, administrators and supervisors. In short it is only a matter of time before the materiality of many white people will significantly alter both socially and politically.
Meanwhile on the fringe of this developing society of inclusion will be other opportunists such as gay rights activists who, while not offering a particular social or economic imperative to change, will appeal to the intellectual bounty of the new leaders. One must recall that if indeed all humans are “equal” (or by broader description, characterized by the same “natural” instincts of all human beings for food, shelter, family and employment), it is similarly likely that whatever “colour” takes control of government there will remain distance from what is not considered natural or normal in society. Apparently the native Indian population of North America had room for sexual differences – distinguished by some supernatural or religious strength – but the Arian “races” or white northern Europeans generally haven’t adopted such extension except perhaps as a gainful aim at broadmindedness or superlative bounty. Speaking as I do from both perspectives I consider that the so-called sexual anomalies are, first, far more prevalent than the majority prefers to admit; and, second, are just as natural as otherwise, just as God-given (if you prefer a religious sanction), just as commonplace (if you prefer historical approbation). Some others may derive artistic value in association with the Greeks who in turn strengthened their own proclivity with the philosophy of Epicurus.
For Epicurus, the purpose of philosophy was to help people attain a happy (eudaimonic), tranquil life characterized by ataraxia (peace and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of pain). He advocated that people were best able to pursue philosophy by living a self-sufficient life surrounded by friends. He taught that the root of all human neurosis is death denial and the tendency for human beings to assume that death will be horrific and painful, which he claimed causes unnecessary anxiety, selfish self-protective behaviors, and hypocrisy. According to Epicurus, death is the end of both the body and the soul and therefore should not be feared. Epicurus taught that although the gods exist, they have no involvement in human affairs. He taught that people should behave ethically not because the gods punish or reward people for their actions, but because amoral behavior will burden them with guilt and prevent them from attaining ataraxia.
Significantly, “Though popular, Epicurean teachings were controversial from the beginning. Epicureanism reached the height of its popularity during the late years of the Roman Republic. It died out in late antiquity, subject to hostility from early Christianity.” My point is that the mysticism, spirituality and occultism brought an overriding and subversive influence upon what God himself did or may have meant to do. I am in no position to reject that unauthenticated proposition. However I do not hesitate to direct my attention to the lack of logic or reason. If one prefers abstract speculation I hardly think its lack of legitimacy should overrule palpable reckoning. Not far removed from the elemental guidance of religion is that of custom; both these elements have historical and persuasive foundation but neither proves right or entitlement either scientifically or logically. Nor am I in a position to attack or defend either foundation because quite aside from their legitimacy I have profited by both and abandoned both to one degree or another. My historic involvement in and devotion to the Anglican Church of Canada; my education in an independent boys boarding school; my forty-year practice of law; my social involvement with artistic, professional and well-to-do people both before and after retirement; and my 26-year personal private partnership with another man make me a troublesome advocate for complete social renovation. What however trumps anything I or others think or propose is the impending change of demographics. That change is a wave of such predominance, such impending magnitude like an unseen tsunami that when at last it comes to shore it will prove to be utterly irresistible by the trifling arguments of religion, society or law. Nor is it helpful to recall wistfully the days of one’s book and bottle; or, the more productive attentiveness to one’s tulips and pineapples. The British paradigm of landlord and vassal is mere decaying wallpaper imagery.
As for the alleged “dark money” turnstile that controls the evolution of change on the Supreme Court of the United States one need only look at nothing less democratic than popular television ads. Insinuating almost every popular merchant advertisement are people of colour and alternate sexual persuasion. When this so-called “liberal” character has affected business in America, it is evident where the money is going and where it leads if followed. Not everything is America’s money interest in governed by the likes of the Koch brothers.
The Koch family is an American family engaged in business, best known for their political activities (active role in opposing climate change legislation, donating to libertarian, criminal justice reform, and Republican Party causes) and their control of Koch Industries, the largest privately owned company in the United States (with 2019 revenues of $115 billion). The family business was started by Fred C. Koch, who developed a new cracking method for the refinement of heavy crude oil into gasoline. Fred’s four sons litigated against each other over their interests in the business during the 1980s and 1990s.
By 2019, Charles Koch and David Koch, commonly referred to as the Koch brothers, were the only ones of Fred Koch’s four sons still with Koch Industries. Charles and David Koch built a political network of libertarian and conservative donors and the brothers funneled financial revenue into television and multi-media advertising. David Koch died in August 2019.
Finally on the level of technology, I note the increasing and irreversible popularity of solar panels , wind turbines and electric cars. The good ‘ole days are long gone!
