Graphic of the Haymarket Riot from Harpers Weekly

Evolution And Individuals

/12 Comments/in /by

Posts in this series

The Individual In Contemporary Society
Evolution And Individuals
Maturing In US Society
Human Individuality
Expressions Of Individuality In Democracy
Neoliberal Individuals

The first post in this series took up the question of the nature of the individual in contemporary US society.  I think answering this question is necessary if we are to create a theory of government for our time.

An evolutionary tale

Let’s start with a story. I can’t remember where I found the story I’m about to tell. Maybe it was The Evolution of Agency by Michael Tomasello, or The Dawn Of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow, or maybe Eve by Cat Bohannon, or maybe something I ran across while writing about those books, or a combination of these.

Of course we will never know the “truth” about evolution, and there’s always a danger of falling for just-so stories. But this tale seems plausible and I’ll point out some circumstantial evidence.

As our ancestors evolved, they moved around in loose groups. The change began about 6 million years ago. Perhaps a group of primates got cut off from the rest by a rising river or an earthquake, or maybe they just wandered too far to be reunited. Conditions changed in the new area, resulting in less food. This led to smaller and weaker creatures. They were easy prey for other larger, stronger creatures with sharper ears, eyes and noses.

Their survival came to depend on their ability to cooperate. One form of cooperation might have been scavenging. After one of the big predators made a kill and gorged, the scavengers appear: jackals, hyenas, vultures. Our ancestors may have worked together. One or more scare off the other scavengers while others rip at the carcass. They run away and share the prize. Or it might have been cooperative hunting, where the victory is, again, shared.

Chimpanzees and other primates in and near our line of evolution do not cooperate in hunting. They may work side by side, but if they succeed, there is no sharing. Every chimp grabs what it can, whether or not it participated in the hunt.

In either case, or otherwise, about two million years ago, they began to use tools. Maybe they started with sticks and rocks. Eventually they learned how shape tools. This is a learned and teachable behavior.

Social cooperation requires the ability to recognize the existence of others as similar to oneself. When I feel a certain way, my body does X. If I see a creature doing X, I assume they feel like I would if I exhibited that behavior. From there, more and more complex social interactions can develop. Hunting can proceed by explicit agreement. Simple hand signals and noises can be used to indicate planning and the means of cooperation.

Over the next 1.6 million years, brains gradually grow larger. From the shape of fossil skulls we can guess that the parts of the head that grew are those necessary to accommodate the parts of the brain used in social interactions. The larger heads change the way the female body was shaped and the way they gave birth. The difficulty of birth required increased social cooperation, probably centered on the females.

The infants were dependent far longer than their primate ancestors. This was another force leading to increased social cooperation. Bohannon speculates that the primary source of language was the interaction of mother and infant, because they spent so much time together. Eventually we became Human, and as Graeber and Wengrow put it: we began doing human things.

Some evidence

There are a number o papers showing that there are regions in primate brains that are specific to facial recognition. There other papers  showing that primates make and recognize some facial expressions. Another group says that the parts of the brain responsible for speech are separate from the parts that perform thinking operations.

1. Facial-recognition regions. In this article from Scientific American, Doris Y. Tsao, a professor at Berkeley, explains how she and her colleagues discovered specific regions in the brain whose function is to recognize faces.  She performed fMRI studies on monkeys, creatures with whom we share a common ancestor. When fellow scientists objected that fMRI is inconclusive, she and her colleagues tested individual neurons in the patches, and found that all but a tiny number of cells in those patches responded solely to faces.

2. Primates recognize individual faces of conspecifics (members of their species) and some recpgmize human faces. They also read at least a few emotions from the facial expressions of conspecifics. A example is the teeth-bared grimace, which has different meanings in different species. It is common among chimpanzees, monkeys of many species, and in some canids. The teeth-bared grimace can look somewhat like the human smile. It is used in several papers I read as an example of the evolutionary roots of human facial expressions. Here’s one example from 2001. From the introduction:

One of the central questions in human evolution is the origin of human sociality and ultimately, human culture. In the search for the origin of social intelligence in humans, much attention is focused on the evolution of the brain and consciousness. Many aspects of human cognition and behavior are best explained with reference to millions of years of evolution in a social context Human brainpower can thus be explained, in part, by increasing social demands over the course of human prehistory. Cites omitted.

3. We do not need words to think. This was news to me, because I have a bare acquaintance with the fundamental ideas of Noam Chomsky. But this article in Scientific American asserts that the regions of the brain used in problem-solving are separate from the centers used in language.  The paper surveys dozens of studies. It finds several kinds of evidence.

First, there are studies of thinking in aphasic people. These are people who cannot use language, but nevertheless are able to solve problems, make plans, read faces and perform other tasks requiring mental processing.

Second, there are many fMRI studies showing that when people are solving problems, like doing Sudoku, the speech centers are not active.

Third, language is optimized for communication, not for thinking. There are ambiguities in words and sentence structures that would make problems solving fuzzy.

The areas of the brain that do language are late developments. We didn’t need complex language to survive. We could learn the techniques for knapping rocks into tools by watching and practicing. But the more we learn, the more we need language to share knowledge. If we think of knowledge as an internal state of mind, we can see language as a way to communicate that knowledge, that internal state, to others.

It seems me that each of these supports the idea that human evolution is oriented towards social cooperation. Our survival as a species has been built around our ability to work together to survive together. For us, evolution isn’t driven by the survival of an individual, but by the survival of our group. Our genes aren’t just ours, we share many of them with others in our kinship group. For most of our evolutionary history, kinship was at the root of our social groups. At least I think that’s probably so. Thus, if our cousins survive, many of our genes go with them.

But cooperation isn’t the only mode of interaction. All of our abilities can be used for more than one purpose. For example, our social skills can be used to deceive others. That’s always been true, and some of our primate relatives can do it too. We should assume that our earliest ancestors could and did take advantage of those skills and use them for individual gain. And we should assume that societies develop systems for coping with those non-cooperative behaviors. I think deception developed side by side with our social skills, and may have driven our social evolution to some extent.

But I think that at bottom, cooperation is a fundamental aspect of our selves, and that the capacity to deceive is a variant of cooperation skills. I think our first social control systems developed out of cooperation in reaction to those who refused to cooperate. Is that too optimistic?

Implications

This story is the opposite of the dominant theory of our times, neoliberalism. Our society tells us that we are nothing more than isolated individuals competing in a fiercely competitive arena for the resources we need to survive. Neoliberalism is at the heart of US capitalism, the economic system established by the rich and powerful. Many of our own ancestors fought back against aggressive capitalists, but were crushed again and again by a combination of state and federal armed forces, and private armies.

Of course, we don’t teach that history any more, but you can get a start reading A People’s History Of The United States by Howard Zinn. We occasionally remember that Black people resisted, sometimes violently, but we never talk about the coal miners, the factory workers, and small farmers resisting the grotesque demands of the filthy rich. These men and women fought together. I mean literal fighting, with guns and pitchforks. Eventually they won minimal legal protection.

Then their children threw it away. They bought into a story about Lone Rangers and Honest Sheriffs and Invisible Hands.

These are people who don’t know their own history. Maybe we need to teach them their about their ancestors. All of their ancestors.

 

 

Share this entry
Last judgment by da Modea, Cathedral Bologna, IT. Shows tortured bodies and giant beast in the center eating the damned and shitting them out

Now What?

/141 Comments/in /by

I’ve had lots of feelings about that miserable election: anger, hostility, fear, worry, and more. But life goes on. Now what?

Self-Care

I practiced bankruptcy law for 25 years, mostly representing middle-class people who got hammered by one of the four most common causes of financial distress — divorce, illness/injury, job loss, and financial crashes. Almost all of my clients were shocked and horrified that things had come to the place where they needed to consult a lawyer. I had one piece of advice: take care of yourself. You can’t help anyone else if you’re totally stressed out.

It’s good advice. I took it myself, in fact, I’m still taking it. I did a media cleanse: no billionaire media, quit reading newsletters and Substacks, got off Xitter, and limited my screen time. I watched movies, read novels, talked to my friends over dinner and drinks. I cleaned out closets and drawers, took a close look at expenditures, and talked to my stock broker.

I’ve read this site, and the comments. I moved to Bluesky (@edwalker.bsky.social) and used the starter packs to replace my curated list of follows on Xitter. I’m exercising and eating mindfully. It’s helping.

The Blame Game

I’ve been thinking about why the election turned out so badly. Of course there are many reasons for a huge loss, but these seem make me angriest.

1. Voters. Democracy only works if voters can discriminate among candidates. Donald Trump is a law-breaker, a sexually abusive creep, and a business and governmental failure. People who think this repulsive demented jerk is a plausible candidate and voted for him and people who refused to vote failed the basic test of democracy. There is no excuse for this. With the exception of Muslims who refused to support genocide, discussed below, those people failed as citizens.

2. Billionaire media. The billionaire-owned and controlled media (the “BM”) rehabilitated and enabled Trump. When Trump was impeached for inciting a riot to hold on to power after getting whipped n the 2020 election, the BM announced that the impeachment was futile. Then when the coward Mitch McConnell protected him the BM patted itself on the back and announced that Trump was the leading candidate for 2024. Then he was discovered to have stolen critical national security documents from the government and refused to return them. The BM treated this as spectacle, thrilled by his contempt of law, and continued to treat Trump as the leading Repub candidate.

Meanwhile, the BM’s political reporters decided that inflation was Biden’s fault because of all the government spending on COVID relief, infrastructure and bringing manufacturing jobs back to the US. This was a lie. The primary cause of inflation was supply chain blockages brought on by corporate just-in-time practices. Prices rose as supply dropped, just as predicted by Econ 101 textbooks.

But when supply chain problems eased, prices didn’t come down as predicted by those textbooks. The largest US corporations have oligopolistic market power, and were able to keep prices rising. This was a replay of the mid-1970s when right-wing economists pretended inflation was caused by Keynesian spending instead of the ripple effects of OPEC price hikes. Sadly, BM political reporters lack the capacity to learn from the experience of being bamboozled.

By mid-2023 it was obvious that Biden’s policies were bringing our economy to a soft landing, and many economists (not the right-wing toads) began calling for the Fed to reduce interest rates. The Fed, led by a Republican, refused. That helped keep inflation from falling. BM political reporters blamed Biden for all it.

It doesn’t matter why. They failed. They are to blame.

3. The Democratic Party. Famous Will Rogers quote: “I don’t belong to an organized political party. I’m a Democrat.”

The election was a massive failure of Democratic “leadership,” the timid politicians, the know-it-all rich donors with their hands out, and the incompetent consultants. They all failed. They all should head to a monastery or convent and spend the rest of their days in shame and prayers for forgiveness on account al the people Trump will hurt physically and psychologically.

There is no Democratic Party. There are a bunch of politicians who claim the label, and their supporters and apparatchiks. They won’t help a single person now. For years lefties have begged them to do things that will help people directly — things like raising the minimum wage, protecting voting rights, strengthening labor laws, and reducing student debt, legislating abortion rights, and much more. Zippo.

We begged them to attack the policies and the politicians of the stupid party. We begged them to defend against the Ratfuckers’ ugly attacks on teachers, librarians, liberal clerics, college students, intellectuals, scientists, not-White people, asylum-seekers, LGBTQ+ people, and anyone with a brain capable of telling right from wrong. We begged them to communicate forcefully their successes. We begged them to use the power we gave them to help all of us flourish. They refused. They took our money and our time and then punched the dirty fucking hippies for funsies.

Time to clean House and Senate.

All right, big mouth, now whatcha gonna do?

1. There are a couple of things I can do locally, and I’m going to try to do them, hopefully in the company of people better equipped than I to accomplish them.

2. I’m going to continue with my current project of examining what it means to be an individual in current US society. But instead of treating it as a personal project, I’m going to try to make it more useful. More on that later.

3. I think the Democratic Party as currently constituted is purely transactional. It has no center, no reason for existing. There is nothing to bind us to the party. Instead, we are expected to support people who have claimed the label, regardless of whether or not they are furthering our goals.

As an example, Muslims who voted for Biden were asked to vote for the party’s chosen successor, Kamala Harris, despite her apparent support for Israel’s genocide in Gaza, its attacks on Lebanon and Hezbollah, its evident attempts to stir up war with Iran, and the close connection between the Israel’s odious warmonger Netanyahu and Trump.

Compare this to the 2012 election. We were asked to support Obama and his team despite their flat refusal to hold Wall Street accountable for causing the Great Crash. We were asked to support Obama’s choice to “foam the runway”, to allow the perps keep all the money they stole and use it to buy up all the houses that went into foreclosure. We were told to ignore the fate of millions of our fellow citizens who suffered loss of homes and savings. I didn’t vote for him. I couldn’t. How could I demand that Muslims support Harris in the face of genocide? How could anyone? Maybe other people felt similarly about other failures to deliver on promises.

The Democratic Party is not our friend, and it’s not going to help. We all have to figure out how to fix the mess that crowd of failures created. The shell of the party remains. I might be able to help with one obvious problem the lack of a governing theory.

4. I’m going to continue to attack the MAGAts on SCOTUS. I know how to read their bullshit opinions, and I know what plausible jurisprudence is, and I can and will show my contempt.

5, I think another serious problem is that we have no way to communicate with a large audience. By we, I mean thoughtful left-leaning writers and thinkers. We have no mass media presence, and we aren’t likely to develop one under a Trump administration.

At the Democratic Convention the Harris team centered a group of what it called “content creators,” people with podcasts. TikTok followers, Instagram accounts, and other ways of communicating. Those reach some of our target audience and could reach more.

Maybe that’s a way forward? Some kind of grouping of these content creators? Some sensible organization that stretches across all these forums? A coherence based on common goals and maybe even a theory? Maybe some way to make a little money?

Conclusion

We’re all going to have to find a way forward. Any thoughts?

_________
Front page photo: Detail of The Last Judgment by Giovanni da Modena, a fresco at the Cathedral of Bologna, Italy. Photo by Artemisia.

Share this entry

The Individual In Contemporary Society

/45 Comments/in /by

 

I’m on the road, it’s been raining in Paris, time for something new. I’ve been posting here for a long time, this is number 334, and almost all of them have been about some aspect of our national life. Lately I’ve been thinking about what it means to be an individual person in contemporary US society.

Vignettes

Should we define ourselves in terms of our work lives?

1. Neoliberals talk about homo economicus.  Humans are rational agents competing against each other for necessary resources and desired objects.

2. This is from a 2019 article in Scientific American, How the Brain Reads Faces by Doris Y. Tsao, a professor at Berkeley.

I believe at each stage in life one has a duty. And the duty of a college student is to dream, to find the thing that captures one’s heart and seems worth devoting a whole life to. Indeed, this is the single most important step in science: to find the right problem.

3. Dr. Tsao’s view isn’t reserved for college professors. I recently sat in the Cloisters of San Marco in Florence, an open courtyard surrounded on four sides by a slope-roofed portico,  supported by arches on pillars of pietra serena topped with Ionic capitals. It is a quiet space. Tourists seem muted as they pass through. It was designed by Michelozzo in the mid-15th C., but I was thinking about the builders, the working men who carved out the pillars and the capitals, built the arches, coated them with plaster, and whitewashed them.

Maybe they felt like the Kentucky coal miners described in the book Stolen Pride by sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild. Here’s an excerpt from a book review; the quotes seem to be from the author.

For more than a century, eastern Kentucky was one of the centers of the American coal industry. Though back-breaking and sometimes deadly for its workers, the sector employed thousands of people, lifted many out of poverty, and brought railways and other infrastructure into the region. Men took pride in their work, which required courage and knowhow, and the people of the region were proud that their coal fueled America.

“[People could] proudly say, ‘We kept the lights on in this country; we won world war one, world war two by digging coal,’ and the coalminer was kind of like a decorated soldier – he faced danger. Many died young, of black lung. But it was like a trade passed down from generation to generation for men, and then suddenly it was cut off.”

Should we look for something sciencey?

The is from Possession by A.S. Byatt; this part of the story is set in the mid 1980s.

Roland had learned to see himself, theoretically, as a crossing-place for a number of systems, all loosely connected. He had been trained to see his idea of his “self” as an illusion, to be replaced by a discontinuous machinery and electrical message-network of various desires, ideological beliefs and responses, language-forms and hormones and pheromones. Mostly he liked this. He had no desire for any strenuous Romantic self-assertion. P. 459.

Should we be looking for meaning?

1. From the Baltimore Catechism. It’s slightly different from my memory from St. Joseph’s Grade School.

2. Q. Who is God?

A. God is the Creator of heaven and earth, and of all things.

3. Q. What is man?

A. Man is a creature composed of body and soul, and made to the image and likeness of God.

6. Q. Why did God make you?

A. God made me to know Him, to love Him, and to serve Him in this world, and to be happy with Him for ever in heaven.

2. This is from The Myth Of Sisyphus by Albert Camus. It was, as I recall, the first serious philosophy book I ever read. My mother gave it to me when I was 16, and I have thought about it ever since. We all know the myth, at least the part about the punishment meted out to Sisyphus, which is the subject of this essay.  This is the concluding paragraph of Camus’ essay:

I leave Sisyphus at the foot of the mountain! One always finds one’s burden again. But Sisyphus teaches the higher fidelity that negates the gods and raises rocks. He too concludes that all is well. This universe henceforth without a master seems to him neither sterile nor futile. Each atom of that stone, each mineral flake of that night-filled mountain, in itself forms a world. The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man’s heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy. P. 78.

So what?

None of my vignettes involve any of the conditions under which we humans evolved. None of them deals directly with food, clothing, and shelter, the requirements of survival. None of them takes up the question of the relations between and among people. Admittedly I was only looking for pieces about individuals, but that was easy, because there is little in our literature related to human solidarity.

There’s something else missing. Here’s a bit more about Roland from Possession. He is a barely employed researcher into the life of a fictional Victorian poet, Henry Randolph Ash. He’s uncovered a previously unknown connection with the poet Cristabel LaMotte. He shared this discovery with Maud, an expert in LaMotte and in feminist theory. Byatt writes:

He thought … of Maud’s faintly contemptuous look at their first meeting. … [T]here was little real connection between them. Maud was a beautiful woman such as he had no claim to possess. She had a secure job and an international reputation. Moreover, in some dark and outdated English social system of class, which he did not believe in, but felt obscurely working and gripping him, Maud was County, and he was urban lower-middle-class, in some places more, in some places less acceptable than Maud, but in almost all incompatible. All that was the plot of a Romance. He was in a Romance, a vulgar and a high Romance simultaneously; a Romance was one of the systems that controlled him, as the expectations of Romance control almost everyone in the Western world, for better or worse, at some point or another. P. 459-60.

Are we all caught up in systems that control us? Is that what it means to be an individual? I am nothing more that a crossing-place of a number of externally generatedJ systems that control me? It doesn’t feel like that, but ….

 

 

=======

The front page pic is a detail from The Expulsion From The Garden Of Eden by Masaccio in the Brancacci Chapel of Santa Maria Del Carmine in Florence, Italy. It was painted about 1425. Source.

 

Share this entry
none

Conclusion To Series On Rights

/5 Comments/in , , /by

 

Posts in this series

Conclusion to How Rights Went Wrong

In the last half of Jamal Greene’s book he gives us his explanation of a better way forward, and applies it to several controversial issues, including abortion and discrimination. Greene thinks that courts, especially SCOTUS, spend too much time on their made-up rules about about rights, instead of the rights themselves. He thinks all applicable rights claims have to be considered in rendering decisions and establishing remedies.

The Rodriguez case discussed in the last post is a good example. Kids are going to school with bats, but nothing can be done because of court-created rules designed to limit the reach of the Reconstruction Amendments. I think Greene is right about this.

I think that there are two problems underlying our current judicial approach that prevent Green’s ideas from being effectuated. First, immediately after the enactment of the Reconstruction Amendments SCOTUS limited their reach. The purported reason was preservation of federalism, as we see in The Slaughterhouse Cases. But that doesn’t explain the ferocity with which the Court attacked individual rights and especially Congressional action up to the 1930s, and then after a short respite, returned to the attack beginning in the Reagan era and continuing to the present.

This, I think, reflects a deep skepticism of democracy, whether in claims of individual rights against governments, or in concerted political action through the legislature. It seems SCOTUS has little respect for rights claims of ordinary people regardless of whether the rights arise through legislation or under the Constitution.

The judicial branch has always been a bastion of the privileged elites, who mostly like things the way they are. Powerful commercial interests are heavily over-represented, and have always been. Lewis Powell, the author of Rodriguez, is an example.

The second issue, I think, is the general unwillingness of the judicial system to make rulings requiring other branches to enforce. As an example consider Holmes’ 1902 decision in Giles v. Harris, discussed by Greene. Giles, a Black man, had been registered to vote in Alabama for years. The Alabama Constitution was changed to allow local election registrars to deny registration to people who lacked good character. Giles was not allowed to register under the new system. Ovrall, registration of Black men drooped to nearly zero. There is no doubt that this was a violation of the 15th Amendment. Holmes refused to do anything. One of his reasons was that “…the sheer scale of the conspiracy Giles was alleging exceeded the Court’s power to remedy it.” P. 49.

Courts have always been concerned about their ability to enforce their decrees, and rightly so. But that’s not an excuse for simply refusing to enforce rights. Courts are really good at collecting money. Creative use of this power is a great solution to weakness.

For example, in the Rodriguez case Powell could have given the school district a money judgment large enough to construct a new school, one less friendly to bats, and awarded further monetary damages necessary to bring the school’s textbooks up to date and deal with other issues. He could have imposed costs and attorney’s fees on the school district, and awarded the plaintiffs monetary damages for the injuries they suffered by going to school with bats and ripped up out-of-date textbooks. That would open the door to other under-funded schools in Texas to sue the State and local districts to equalize things. The legislature eventually would have been forced change the funding arrangement.

A third issue, most pornounced in the current panel of SCOTUS, is its effort to justify its decisions by newly created doctrines. The so-called Major Questions Doctrine is an example. This was apparently created for the purpose of thwarting government efforts to remedy serious emergencies pursuant to express legislative action. Another example is the absurd result in US v. Trump, where the loons expressly denied that they were looking at the facts of the actual case:  Trump’s efforts to overthrow an election. Instead they insisted they had to make a rule for the ages.

This is preposterous because the right-wingers on the Court don’t have a problem throwing out cases and rules they don’t like.

There are many better ways forward, including Greene’s. But so what? All Republicans including those on SCOTUS are incorrigible. We can’t even get the current crop of geriatric Democrats to hold a hearing on the corruption we all know exists in the judicial system, ranging from the ethics violations of right-wing SCOTUS members to the scandalous judge-shopping of the creepy right wing, to the overtly political decisions of the District and Circuit Court in Fifth Circuit. The fact is that only sustained aggressive demands will ever change anything.

Conclusion To The Conclusion

In this series I’ve discussed three texts: The Evolution Of Agency by Michael Tomasello; Chapter 9 of The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt; and Greene’s thoughtful book.

Tomasello provided a look at the way we humans evolved. I think it hints at how we came to think about rights. He speculates that the earliest ancestors of humans were weaker, slower, more fragile, and had less sensitive eyes, ears and noses than their competitors. They survived by being more cooperative, more attuned to their group, more sensitive to the desires and emotions of individuals in the group. This increased receptiveness to others was the genesis and result of increasing brain size. The larger brain changed the bodies of women to enable birth babies with larger heads. That led to complications of birth. Dealing with those complications required more social cooperation. The longer dependency of the young also increased the demands of cooperation. These changes increased over time and eventually we became human. For a similar view, I recommend Eve by Cat Bohannon, which discusses evolution from the perspective of the female body and mind.

The importance of cooperation in this story leads me to speculate that rights are a way of maintaining individuality among creatures who are tightly bound for the sake of survival.

The Arendt selection says that rights are mutually guaranteed by equal citizens in a society. It also says that rights don’t matter unless there is some way to enforce and protect them. These are her conclusions about the last 200 years, not the earlier millenia.

Greene’s book tells us the story of our national attempt to insure our rights through the legislature and the judiciary, and the sad results.

I think everything we know and essentially all we think and think we know comes from other humans. That includes our rights. Some of us talk about natural rights, some about constitutional rights, some about human rights, some about God-given rights, but all of that comes from other humans and our own interpretations of their thinking. We draw from religions, philosophy, novels, catechisms, preachers, practical experience, our own emotions and sensitivities, laws, each other, our parents and teachers, our colleagues and our children.

But it’s always just us humans, trying to survive as individuals and as members of a group.

So I conclude with a question: how do you discuss questions of rights with people who believe that they possess the absolute unvarying truth?

 

 

 

Share this entry

The Injustice Of Our Rights Regime

/16 Comments/in , /by

Posts in this series

We’ve seen the rise of the Holmes/Frankfurter theory that the Constitution protects few rights but protects them strongly. In practice that means that if a law infringes a constitutionally protected right, there is a heavy burden on the government to justify it, called strict scrutiny, but if there is no right, the law stands unless there is no rational basis for it.

Chapter 4 of Jamal Greene’s How Rights Went Wrong is titled Too Much Justice. The phrase comes from a dissent by William O. Brennan in a death penalty case, McClesky v. Kemp. McClesky showed that in Georgia, Black people convicted of killing white people were disproportionately sentenced to execution. Lewis Powell constructed a slippery slope argument to the effect that any kind of defendant might show such disproportion and then what? Brennan wrote that McClesky would die because Powell was afraid of too much justice.

San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, (1973) is similar.  The plaintiffs were the families of kids in the Edgewood district of the Defendant San Antonio Independent School District (SAISD). They claimed that the funding system for Texas school districts was unconstitutional because it effectively deprived their kids of a decent education.

Greene begins his discussion with a description of the school that the Rodriguez kids attended:

The school building was falling apart. Many of the windows were broken. Many of the teachers were uncertified and underpaid; a third of them had to be replaced every year. Temperatures in San Antonio reached the mid-80s that day, but the school had no air-conditioning. There was no toilet paper in the restrooms. A bat colony had nested on at least one floor of the school. P. 94.

Powell wrote the 5-4 majority opinion. He starts with a detailed history and description of the funding system which is based on property taxes in each district. Edgewood had the lowest property value in the SAISD. Texas capped property tax rates. Even though Edgewood had a higher property tax rate, it raised substantially less than other school districts in the SAISD. Edgewood had $356 per student compared with $596 in Alamo Heights, which had the highest property tax valuation.

Powell’s discussion of applicable law starts with a discussion of the decision below. A three-judge panel of the District Court found that the Texas funding system discriminated on the basis of wealth, that wealth was a suspect category, that education was a fundamental right, and therefore the State was required to carry a heavy burden of proof justifying this system. Of course Texas could not show a compelling reason for the funding system.

Powell rejects that analysis. He doesn’t bother with the actual facts of the case as they affect the plaintiff. His only interest is the nature of the legal rights asserted by the plaintiff.

We must decide, first, whether the Texas system of financing public education operates to the disadvantage of some suspect class or impinges upon a fundamental right explicitly or implicitly protected by the Constitution, thereby requiring strict judicial scrutiny.

Powell says the wealth discrimination shown here is unlike any other kind of wealth discrimination accepted by SCOTUS to date. Later he says the same about education as a fundamental right.

Wealth Discrimination

The lower court found that poorer people in San Antonio received “less expensive” educations that those in weather districts. It held that that was enough to find wealth discrimination. Powell says that’s simplistic. Powell says he has to find a class of disadvantaged poor people that can be defined in the customary language of equal protection cases; and then evaluate the relative — rather than absolute — nature of the asserted deprivation is of significant consequence.”

He says there are three possible ways to show discrimination.

1. People with incomes below an identifiable and relevant level, which he calls “functionally indigent” (my quotes).
2. People relatively poorer than others
3. People who live in poor districts regardlesss of their incomes.

He says he will stick to SCOTUS precedents. He offers two groups where wealth discrimination has been found. He says that in those cases, the group discriminated against was so poor they could not pay, and thus were denied a benefit available to wealthier people. We are treated to several pages of cases, an expanded form of what lawyers call string-citing. Based on this analysis, the Texas plaintiffs must be relying on Powell’s first definition of a class of poor people.

But that is no good. There are equally poor people in wealthier districts. There’s a study saying that poor people tend to live in districts with a high concentration of warehouses and industry, which would support a higher property tax rate. That’s tnot the case here.

Anyway, SCOTUS precedents require that the class be denied the benefit. Here the kids are getting an education, and some money, and that’s good enough under the Equal Protection Clause.

 … [I]n view of the infinite variables affecting the educational process, can any system assure equal quality of education except in the most relative sense. Texas asserts that the Minimum Foundation Program provides an “adequate” education for all children in the State.

Who can tell? It’s all so complicated.

The right to education

Powell says SCOTUS is committed to education as an important right. Then he says that education is just another service offered by the state. The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t require equality in that service. Powell says education isn’t a fundamental right set out in our Constitution.

It is not the province of this Court to create substantive constitutional rights in the name of guaranteeing equal protection of the laws.

Discussion

1. There’s more. Lots more. And that’s not counting the 114 footnotes. But I doubt many EW readers got far into the discussion before saying to themselves, But what about the kids going to school with BATS? The bat colony isn’t mentioned in either the SCOTUS decision or that of the lower court.  The lawyers are so wound up about the funding mechanism and court-created rules about classification that they ignored the actual outcome: kids are going to school with bats!

2. Powell gives us a slippery slope argument: if we say kids shouldn’t have to go to school with bats, we might have to say they have to be fed a nutritious meal at school.

3. Greene describes Powell’s background in some detail. Reading between the Ines, Powell seems like one of those genteel Southern Politicians, the ones who would never use the N-word in public, but can’t quite pronounce Negro, especially at the country club.

4, The 14th Amendment says in part that no state is permitted to “… deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” How hard is it to apply that rule to kids going to school with bats?

5. This case and hundreds of others are the direct result of the refusal of SCOTUS to enforce the 14th Amendment. Instead, we get blindingly stupid holdings based on what John Roberts called the dignity of the state. A state that makes kids go to school with bats and calls that an “adequate” education has no claim to dignity.

 

Share this entry

Using Social Media For Good Or At Least Fun

/33 Comments/in /by

In Tuesday’s debate, Vice President Harris showed her ability to dog-walk Trump into betraying his unfitness and his fury. If you hang out on social media much, you’ll see the same fury among his followers. They’re responding with vehement ugliness.

For the past several months I’ve been experimenting with my Xitter feed, trying to figure out some tactics for coping with these people. In this post I’ll lay out some of the things that seem to work, at least to make it more fun for me, and possibly to discourage some of them.

I think most of this works on any social media platform swarmed by the ignorant, the trollish, and the ugly, but I don’t use any of the others so I don’t know.

1. On Xitter, use lists. You probably only follow sane people, funny people, people who have some expertise in a field you care about, people whose views you want to read. Make private lists. These are lists that only you see and are not shared with others. I currently follow about 500 people. There are a lot of lawyers, a couple of philosophers, some funny people, a few journalists, and experts in science, economics, and finance. I selected a about 150 and put them on lists. I sorted the lists so that one has my current favorites, then one with second favorites, and a third for the rest. I move accounts around from time to time.

When I read Xitter on my phone I’m given columns at the top. One is the “for you” column. It’s loaded with Musk garbage, lunatic right-wingers, Qanon freaks, Covid deniers, anti-vaxxers, and other loons. I never read it. I don’t even update it. I just let it sit there in all it’s noxious glory. The next column is “following”. I read it when I’m waiting at a doctor’s office and expect to be sitting awhile. Then there are columns for each of my lists. I read them regularly.

On my desktop, I go directly to the button on the left column labeled lists and select one. That’s it. I don’t read Musk garbage.

2. One of the criteria I use for selecting for lists is the quality of the reposts I get. I follow several people who do a great job of reposting things I’m interested in.

3. I often reply to posts in my lists. I try to accomplish one of three things with those replies. First, adding some useful information. For example, if I see a post on something related to Project 2025, I often add a page citation and a link, encouraging people to see for themselves. Second, I try to be funny. It’s hit or miss on that.

4. The third goal is more open, I reply to some of the loons who have replied. I try never to respond to anyone with fewer than 300 followers, and lately more. If I do, it’s usually one or two words: Troll, Troll Alert, or “You seem smart,” which I stole from Lizz Winstead.

For MAGAs, I have several stock responses.

A) “You seem smart, can you tell me what Trump meant here?” Then I add one of several tweets I’ve bookmarked. One example is this from Judd Legum. It’s a collection of Trump’s nonsense. Another is this from Acyn, where Trump promises to bring back cement. I ask if they know where the cement went.

B) “You seem like a real patriot. Please empty your retirement account and send the money to Trump. If he doesn’t get elected, the world will collapse and you won’t need it.”

C) “You seem really angry. That can’t be good for you and your friends and family.”

D) “We got rid of our old guy, and he was a decent man who maybe lost a step. Why are you welded to your old guy who ignores every norm of human decency and who says weirdo stuff like this: [adding one of my links].”

5. You will get responses from some of these. I have some rules for handling them.

A) If they are seriously angry, mute and block. Life’s too short for that kind of nonsense.

B) Most of the replies are personal attacks. Often it’s homophobia, or you’re stupid, or “your a commie” [sic]. I never reply to the slur. Instead I keep the focus on them. An easy way is 4. (A) or (B) above or variations.

C) Check their Xitter profile. For crypto dudes and related finance types, I might go with “How much did you lose on $DJT, which is Trump’s social media company?” I often link to a Google search for that symbol, and set it to one year. It’s an ugly chart.

D) There’s a lot of obscenity and jerk behavior. I’ve been replying with some version of: “Ooh that’s ugly. It’s natural to be distressed after seeing your doddering old criminal get whipped by the Vice President, so maybe take a break from this site until you recover.” If they reply I continue in the same vein: “It’s okay: psychic pain is normal after a crushing defeat.” No matter what, keep the focus on them and their defects.

E) I make an exception for the anti-abortion crowd. I don’t see much of them unless they’re replying to a post from someone else. I generally reply with this link to an article on human reproduction by an embryologist, https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ntls.20220041

I often suggest they need to learn about the reality, not what their preacher says. The goal is to get them to realize the dangers of pregnancy, and the actual facts about things like fetal heartbeats and fetal pain. I don’t think you can convince anyone, but maybe it’s a good first step to opening minds.

One common claim from rabid anti-abortion people is the execution after birth lie. This one is deeply rooted. A Chicago Sun-Times reporter attended a debate watch party sponsored by the Niles Township GOP; Niles Township is a suburb North of Chicago.

… [Attendees were in disbelief after Harris said, “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion,” with audible claims that she’s lying or “full of s—t.”

My stock response to these ignorant people is: Killing babies is a crime. If you know of such a crime and don’t report it you are an accessory and are criminally liable.

6. I have a few phrases I use all the time, including:

• The filthy rich and their price-gouging corporations
• Doddering old criminal
• MAGA SCOTUS
• Billionaire media and their hired hacks

I also try to use words and phrases current on the site. Sane-washing is a good current example.

7. Family. I’m lucky that my extended family is fairly normal politically. My dad was always conservative, but in his old age he became besotted by Fox News. It was miserable. I don’t have much to go on, but maybe the following will help.

Don’t respond immediately. Wait until the initial response dies out, and then wait some more.

There may be a specific reason for the anger. We have no way to figure that out for strangers on social media, but we can at least try with family. Then maybe you can work with that in a later interaction, away from the immediate contact. At least maybe you can avoid triggering something unpleasant.

Post a lot of family pics, pet videos and non-political funny stuff. It’s harder to be angry with people who make us laugh. If they go off the hook, respond later, much later, with a funny, or a link to a sports thing or anything but a reply. Life’s too short to be angry with family.

Finally, if you do respond, do so with a question: Where did you hear that? Do you have a link? Why do you think that? Could you explain?

I’m pretty sure the actual facts and your links won’t help matters, but I have to believe that getting people to say things directly, to type them out, to try to justify them, will help in the long run.

 

This isn’t a game for everyone. But I think it’s important to push back as best we can. We can’t let the creeps ruin everything. Do you have ideas? Comments are open!

 

UPDATE: There are a number of accounts that hang around accounts you might like, such as Democratic politicians. Here’s a good example: Paul A. Szypula 🇺🇸, @Bubblebathgirl. This person spends hours posting garbage tweets, which draw lots of response. The account does not engage, and any time you spend there is wasted. Do not engage. If you feel like it: reply with “Do not engage with this troll”.

Share this entry

Strict Scrutiny and Rational Basis Scrutiny

/17 Comments/in , /by

Index to posts in this series

In Chapter 2 of How Rights Went Wrong, Jamal Greene introduces us to a rule of Constitutional interpretation suggested by Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissent in Lochner v. New York (1905).  The idea is that the Constitution protects few rights, but those it protects, it protects strongly. This cashes out as the requirement that the government must show very strong grounds if it infringes a protected right, the strict scrutiny test. However, the government need only show that it has a rational basis for other legislation, the rational basis test.

Chapter 3 explains how that rule came into effect, worked for a while, and then proved inadequate. The principle driver of change was Felix Frankfurter, showing once again the importance of people and relationships in the evolution of our legal system. Frankfurter was the son of Austrian immigrants. He came to New York City in 1894 at the age of 11. He was a star student, went to Harvard Law, and began to rise in government service. Greene describes him as “An inveterate sycophant and social climber” (p, 60). One of his targets was Holmes, and over the years, Frankfurter slobbered over him.

In 1914 Frankfurter joined the law faculty at Harvard and began to advocate for the Holmes dissent in Lochner. He was in and out of government service, and became a sort of Leonard Leo figure, placing his best students in clerkships and government positions.

He forged a relationship with Franklin Delano Roosevelt during WWI when both served on a government board. The relationship grew when FDR became governor of New York.

The effort to actualize Holmes’ Lochner dissent wasn’t going well through the 1920s, as the Supreme Court repeatedly applied the rule of the Lochner majority. When FDR was elected president, Frankfurter became one of his most trusted advisers. In the early years of the New Deal, SCOTUS struck down most of the laws enacted to deal with the Depression. That led to FDR’s threats to pack the Court, and to the sudden change in the outcomes of these cases.

US v. Carolene Products Co. was an early example. In that case, the majority based its decision on Frankfurter’s view of Holmes’ Lochner dissent. Further, it expanded that rule with Footnote 4, which Greene summarizes as holding that strict scrutiny would apply in three different cases:

(1) when the law interferes with a right the Constitution specifically protects, (2) when the law restricts the political process itself, or (3) when the law discriminates against particular religious or racial minorities. P. 66.

I read Greene as suggesting  that one of the factors in Frankfurter’s advocacy was his progressive view of the need for government regulation of corporations. Footnote 4 connects that view with strong protection for minority groups.

Greene shows how this rule made its way into the leading treatises and legal textbooks, largely through the influence of people trained and steeped in Frankfurter’s views.

With minor adjustments, that remained the rule through the 50s and early 60s. That was a period of vast social change, and social unrest, as Black people, women, LGBTQ people, Native Americans, and poor people from all groups began to make demands on the legal system that went beyond the bare scope of Footnote 4.

One example of this push is Griswold v. Connecticut, which Greene discusses in detail. One of Frankfurter’s last SCOTUS decisions was Poe v. Ullman; Poe was a facial challenge to Connecticut’s ban on birth control. Frankfurter punted, saying that the statute was never enforced. Side note: the legal term is desuetude. It ought to apply, for example, to the Comstock Act which isn’t ever enforced, but with the current majority on SCOTUS, who knows.

Estelle Griswold, the executive director of Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, got herself and a doctor arrested and convicted for dispensing birth control material and information. Frankfurter had retired due to a stroke. William O. Douglass, who had dissented in Poe, wrote the majority opinion in which he laid out the right to privacy.

In the remainder of the Chapter, Greene looks at the different ways courts, especially SCOTUS, have tried to deal with the demands of groups whose rights were limited by all branches of state and federal governments.

Discussion

1. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that Greene thinks that the values, biases, and opinions of judges play a crucial role in decisions. This is one of several versions of legal realism.

For the purposes of this Article, I define “legal realism” as the perspective that Supreme Court decisions resolving important constitutional law questions are based primarily on the Justices’ values, politics, and experiences, not on text, history, or precedent. In other words, personal preferences, rather than the prior law dictate most Supreme Court constitutional law decisions.

2. Here’s an example. Richard Posner is an intellectual. He served on the 7th Cir. From 1981 to 2017. He taught at the University of Chicago Law School for decades. He seems to have been influenced by the strict neoliberalism taught at the Chicago Business School. That connection perhaps led him to his theory of law and economics, which I would describe as the idea that in deciding cases Posner would assume that the law favors the economically efficient outcome.

In a 1985 article, An Economic Theory of the Criminal Law,  he analyzes crimes like rape in terms of markets and market efficiency, apparently indifferent to the inherent silliness of the effort.

Put differently, the prohibition against rape is to the marriage and sex “market” as the prohibition against theft is to explicit markets in goods and services. [footnote omitted]

After the Great Crash of 2008, he formally renounced the entire project of the Chicago School of economics, including his own law and economics branch. Here’s a discussion.  That, of course, is the mark of an intellectual: he rejected a theory he had relied on for decades when he saw it didn’t work.

2. Greene mentions the deeply felt trope that we have a government of laws, not men, citing John Adams. P. 58.  How does it square with the theory that the prejudices and deeply held world views of judges are a critical factor in their decisions?

In routine cases it’s not a problem. But it’s a huge problem for major constitutional law issues decided by SCOTUS. Neil Gorsuch pompously demonstrated this when he said at oral argument in Trump v. United States,  “…we’re writing a rule for the ages” about presidential immunity from criminal accountability. P. 140. That is not the job of a judge. Writing rules for the ages is the responsibility of legislatures. But the current majority doesn’t think like that. As they showed in Dobbs and the gun cases, they don’t even believe there are rules for the ages. There are only rules laid down by five unelected unaccountable lawyers, good only until changed by five other unelected unaccountable lawyers.

3. I think that when institutions are controlled by people willing to subvert the norms of their jobs to achieve ideological or political goals, the institutions will fail. There are no rules sufficient to restrain them. The only solution is to remove them and replace them with people who comply with the norms.
__________
Graphic: Gilbert Stuart’s portrait of John Adams.

Share this entry

Two Views Of Protection Of Rights

/114 Comments/in , /by

Index to posts in this series

The Supreme Court Has Always Been Terrible.  In Chapter 2 of How Rights Went Wrong, Jamal Greene selects three examples of terrible cases: Dred Scott v. Sanford, Plessy v. Ferguson,  and Lochner v. New York. These three cases are so blatantly horrible that no one can support their outcomes and be considered acceptable in academia. Or in polite society, if you ask me.

Greene sees Dred Scott as a case about who is entitled to rights under the Constitution.

At stake in Dred Scott were the boundaries of the political community entitled to the law’s protection and able to claim rights under it.
…
Chief Justice Roger Taney acknowledged that the Declaration of Independence had emphasized the “self-evident” truth “that all men are created equal.” But, Taney continued, “it is too clear for dispute, that the enslaved African race were not intended to be included, and formed no part of the people who framed and adopted this declaration.” P. 36.

Plessy is equally horrible. Henry Brown’s opinion says that being forced to travel in separate railcars isn’t a badge of inferiority but the “colored race” chooses to feel insulted.

Greene says that the Framers saw Constitutional rights as necessary to protect the rights granted by states and local governments from federal intrusion. On that theory, state and local majorities were free to grant or deny rights to people as they saw fit. The views of the Framers failed to protect people when those local majorities trampled on the rights of Black people and others. Local majorities can be just as tyrannical as any unaccountable monarch, and frequently are.

Reconstruction Era cases repurposed the 14th Amendment to protect capitalists from regulation by state and federal governments. Lochner is the example frequently given. The bakers of New York persuaded the legislature to pass health and safety laws concerning their work hours and other matters. Lochner sued, saying that the laws interfered with his right to contract, which he alleged was guaranteed by the Constitution. The holding, that the right to contract prevails over state and federal laws, lasted  until the 1930s when Franklin Delano Roosevelt threatened to expand SCOTUS.

There were two dissents in Lochner, by Oliver Wendell Holmes and John Marshall Harlan. Holmes took the view that there are Constitutional rights, and these must be given maximum protection. But laws that do not implicate Constitutional rights are in the province of the legislature and must be respected and enforced by the courts.

For Holmes, the Constitution protected very few rights—and certainly not the right to contract—but those it protected, such as freedom of speech, it protected strongly. P. 54.

Harlan took the view that all rights, including those enumerated in the Constitution, must be respected. The question for courts is the extent to which rights are respected when they conflict with other rights or the rights of society. Harlan agrees that the Constitution protects the right to enter into contracts. But.

The right to contract “is subject to such regulations as the state may reasonably prescribe for the common good and the well-being of society.” P. 55.

The job of a court in a case like Lochner is not whether there is a Constitutional right to contract. It’s to determine whether the state is acting reasonably in regulating that right. Greene notes that it might have helped if the Courts had considered the right to labor, a right protected by political action .

Holmes’ views prevailed, for reasons we learn in Chapter 3. Greene sees this as the birth of what he calls “rightsism”, the fetish for rights that we see all the time now.

Discussion

1. I’ve skipped all the material that makes this chapter so persuasive. Greene gives detailed and clear descriptions of the cases, and of the backgrounds of Holmes and Harlan. This isn’t just a dry theoretical lecture, it’s a lively picture of important documents and the people who crafted them. It’s a good reminder that we are persuaded not just by logic but by the perceptions we have of the facts and issues in cases. I found myself persuaded that he was on the right track long before we got to the meat of the arguments.

2. I’ve tried to read Dred Scott and Plessy, but failed. The mindset of the writers is jarring even through the somewhat difficult language of that era. The bias is blatant. And yet I’m sure these judges were, in the words of William Baude about the current right-wing majority, “principled and sound”, with some blemishes.

Baude explains that all the recent controversial decisions “… rightly emphasized the importance of turning to historical understandings in deciding Constitutional cases rather than imposing modern policy views.” Of course, Dred Scott, Plessy, and Lochner are soundly reasoned and in accord with historical tradition. That’s not my idea of a good way to justify any Constitutional decision. Maybe it’s relevant that Baude is a member of the Federalist Society, the organization founded by Leonard Leo.

I discussed my view of good judging in this post.  Start at “Let’s begin with this question” for the general discussion. Needless to say, it has nothing to do with anything taught by the conservative legal movement.

3. Lochner logic shows up in Project 2025’s Mandate for Leadership.

Hazard-Order Regulations. Some young adults show an interest in inherently dangerous jobs. Current rules forbid many young people, even if their family is running the business, from working in such jobs. This results in worker shortages in dangerous fields and often discourages otherwise interested young workers from trying the more dangerous job. With parental consent and proper training, certain young adults should be allowed to learn and work in more dangerous occupations. P. 595.

 

4. In The Nation That Never Was Kermit Roosevelt says that the meaning of the term “all men are created equal” changed through the efforts of Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass and many others. Greene does something similar with the idea of Constitutional rights. He explains the shift in our understanding of the Bill of Rights as protecting the power of the states from the central government, to our current view that it protects individuals from all government action.

Language and grammar change, sometimes quickly. So does our knowledge and understanding of history. That’s why originalism and textualism are suspect methods. I do not think the legal academy has given this enough attention.

Share this entry

SCOTUS Usurps Congressional Power

/37 Comments/in , /by

Posts in this series.

In the previous post in this series I described the thesis of Jamal Greene’s How Rights Went Wrong. He says the Bill of Rights was designed to protect the power of states against intrusion by the newly created federal government. Chapter 1 provides evidence to support his conclusion. My original plan was to go over the evidence he cites. Instead, I have a different bit of evidence.

SCOTUS didn’t mention the Bill of Rights when it listed the rights of citizens of the United States in any of the seminal cases construing the Reconstruction Amendments.

The issue of individual rights under the 14th Amendment came before SCOTUS in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), which I discussed here. The majority says that there is a difference between the rights which Americans have as citizens of the United States on one hand, and the rights they have as citizens of a state on the other.

The adoption of the first eleven amendments to the Constitution so soon after the original instrument was accepted shows a prevailing sense of danger at that time from the Federal power. And it cannot be denied that such a jealousy continued to exist with many patriotic men until the breaking out of the late civil war. It was then discovered that the true danger to the perpetuity of the Union was in the capacity of the State organizations to combine and concentrate all the powers of the State, and of contiguous States, for a determined resistance to the General Government.

Unquestionably this has given great force to the argument, and added largely to the number of those who believe in the necessity of a strong National government.

But, however pervading this sentiment, and however it may have contributed to the adoption of the amendments we have been considering, we do not see in those amendments any purpose to destroy the main features of the general system. Under the pressure of all the excited feeling growing out of the war, our statesmen have still believed that the existence of the State with powers for domestic and local government, including the regulation of civil rights the rights of person and of property [sic] was essential to the perfect working of our complex form of government, though they have thought proper to impose additional limitations on the States, and to confer additional power on that of the Nation.

So what does the majority say are the rights of citizens of the United States? Very few, all of which are set out in the main body of the Constitution. The majority cites several older cases, and describes each of them as saying that the rights we claim come from our status as citizens of a state.

But neither the majority nor any of the older cases point to the Bill of Rights as a source of our rights as citizens of the US. None of them say that as citizens of the United States we have a right to a jury trial, or to freedom of speech, or any other right in the Bill of Rights.

In that section of The Slaughterhouse Cases the Court says the opposite. It says that the 14th Amendment does not change the principle that our rights come from our status as citizens of a state.

As we saw in earlier posts on the Second Founding, subsequent decisions of SCOTUS including United States v. Cruikshank  and The Civil Rights Cases take the same position, and strike down all of the remedial legislation enacted by Congress under the 14th Amendment to give civil liberties to all citizens including Black people. These cases led us to Plessy v. Ferguson. All of them stand for the proposition that the Reconstruction Amendments do not grant rights to U.S. citizens, and that it is unconstitutional for Congress to grant such rights.

Congress gave up trying, and nothing happened to repair the damage of slavery or bring an end to Jim Crow segregation for 70 years.

Discussion

1. SCOTUS ignores America history and its own precedents when it puts itself in charge of our rights. It wasn’t that way in 1792, and it wasn’t that way in the late 1800s. That whole thing was invented in the 20th Century as SCOTUS began to say that the provisions of the Bill of Rights applied to individuals through the Due Process Clause. The concept of due process has a legal definition, and this isn’t it. We now call it “substantive due process,” and I have never understood how it’s supposed to work. Clarence Thomas agrees, calling substantive due process a “legal fiction” in  MacDonald v. City of Chicago, Thomas J. concurring.

Here’s the Wikipedia entry on substantive due process.  I’m not sure I agree with it completely, particularly the pre-Civil War material. Here’s another which seems closer to what I remember from law school.

2. So where do our rights come from? In early cases under the Reconstruction Amendments, the Court says that our rights come from the states. Rights might be found in a state constitution, or in statutes enacted by state legislatures. That means there is no agreed set of rights held by all of us. It means that there is nothing significant to the idea of being a citizen of the U.S. It also means that we have to go from state to state amending laws and constitutions to protect our liberty.

In this post, I pointed to Hannah Arendt’s view of rights. She thinks that rights only exist among people living in societies that are based on equality as citiznes. In those societies rights arise from a mutual guarantee. We give each other rights, and agree to enforcement mechanisms; and we benefit by having the same rights. That certainly doesn’t point to courts as the source of rights. It points to founding documents, and to the legislature. The courts and the executive branch serve only as enforcement mechanisms.

Each of the Reconstruction Amendments expressly empowers Congress to pass legislation to enforce them. This is a power given to Congress, not to SCOTUS. The idea that SCOTUS gets to overrule the exercise of expressly authorized power by Congress is not in the Constitution or any amendment.

I note in passing that the argument in Shelby County v. Holder, striking down a critical part of the Voting Rights Act, is the dignity of the states. That’s a term cited by John Roberts, a long-time foe of the Voting Rights Act and other legislation broadening democratic rights. Dignity is very important when it comes to states limiting the right to vote, says Roberts.

In Trump v. United States, the right-wingers granted the President almost total immunity in the exercise of official duties. It said in essence that citizens can’t hold Presidents accountable civilly or criminally, and it hamstrung any enforcement that might not have been foreclosed.

That’s how we should treat Congressional actions, including legislation and investigation related to its powers under the Constitution. That’s how we get our rights. We petition Congress for rights, and if granted, they are ours without regard to what five unelected zealots scribble.

Share this entry

How Courts Came to Control Our Rights

/19 Comments/in , /by

Index to posts in this series

In Chapter 1 of How Rights Went Wrong, Jamal Greene goes through the actual history of the origin of the Bill of Rights. I think most of us were taught that the Bill of Rights is a list of rights that go with being US citizens. Courts are the arbiters of the meaning of the Constitution, so they protect the minority from overreaching by the majority. That’s not what Greene sees.

The Constitution doesn’t give individuals very many rights. It bars ex post facto laws, and bills of attainder, gives people a right to trial by jury, and a few other rights, not much compared to the rights people thought they have.

The Anti-Federalists objected to the Constitution in large part because of the absence of a bill of rights. They claimed to fear that the central government would infringe on the power of the states just like the British kings had done. The people living at that time were very interested in their individual rights, but according to Greene:

… within Founding-era political thought, the institutions best suited to reconcile the competing demands of rights bearers were not courts but rather state and local political bodies: juries, churches, families, and legislatures. Democracy was not a tool of majoritarian oppression but rather was the means through which a community prevented oppression from the outside. P. 7.

The key phrase here is “reconcile the competing demands of rights bearers.” Greene thinks the goal of the Bill of Rights was to center the balancing of rights claims at the local and state levels, and to keep it out of the hands of the federal government.

This theory was consistent with the political power structures of that era, with local and state governments having the dominant role. Many of the states were run by the rich: slavers, merchants and bankers in varying proportions in each of the states. None of these people were willing to cede much power to the federal government not least because it might interfere with their own power and their own profits. The Federalists held plenty of power in their own states, and had no reason not to agree.

Side note: I may be reading some of this into Greene’s words. He doesn’t discuss power and wealth, but I think this is a fair reading of his words:

The backers of the Bill of Rights were not interested in protecting minorities from majority tyranny. They were interested in protecting their own governing majorities from others who might have different interests or agendas. P. 13

The purpose of the Bill of Rights was not to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. It was to protect state and local governments from interference and control by the federal government. Most of the provisions of the Bill of Rights in their own words apply to the powers of Congress: “Congress shall make no law”. Only a few of them seem to give rights to individuals, or protect individuals from the power of the States to regulate as they see fit. In fact, as we will see, most states and the federal government enacted laws that seem to violate the express provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Greene says the theory that state and local governments, juries, and private institutions like churches and schools were best positioned to deal with rights claims was destroyed in the Civil War.

Greene goes through each of the first 10 Amendments in the second half of Chapter 1. I’ll look at some of those in the next post.

Discussion

1. So how did the Supreme Court gain control over our rights? SCOTUS claimed the ultimate power to interpret the Constitution. In Dred Scott, it aggressively asserted that it was in charge of the slavery question, no matter what Congress and the people wanted. After the Civil War, instead of refashioning the Supreme Court and insisting on their proper role in control of our rights, Congress and the Executive gave the judiciary a large role in the enforcement of the laws and our rights, including in several Civil Rights laws.

From the beginning, SCOTUS resisted the force of the Reconstruction Amendments. In The Slaughterhouse Cases, there is a nice statement of the goal of the !3th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Then the Court says it can’t possibly really mean much by that, so those old racists went on to say that the rights of Black people, women and Native Americans were still controlled by the states. In a series of cases SCOTUS restricted the power of Congress to carry out the intent of those amendments, and repurposed them to protect corporations.

After a few decades SCOTUS decided that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment applied against the states, effectively creating a whole set of national rights for individuals which it claimed to find in the Bill of Rights. It claims that the rights it finds there are absolute, and cannot be touched by our government. Congress and the Presidents acquiesced. That’s how we find ourselves under the thumb of a rogue SCOTUS.

2. The current conservative majority agrees with those old courts. They restrict congressional and executive powers. They put crucial matters like women’s health and welfare in the hands of states. They approves of state actions to gerrymander and suppress voters to make sure minorities in those states can dominate the majority. Every disgusting decision the six right-wingers hand down would fit fine with their Reconstruction-era predecessors. Every policy choice they make would satisfy the demands of the Gilded Age Plutocrats.

The founders were rich white men infused with the biases of their day. There were slavers and people willing to compromise with slavers for their own reasons. They agreed that the lives of enslaved people and Native Americans didn’t matter, and that women weren’t really people. Those views informed their drafting of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why should they control ours? But Roberts and his majority are trapping us in the amber of those ignorant prejudices.

Share this entry