For one who admits to having little background knowledge of constitutional interpretation, Alex Rawson '01 does a generally respectable job assessing the arguments for and against the judicial philosophy of Justice Antonin Scalia in his Feb. 27 column. Respectable — but also seriously flawed.
Using abortion as an example, Rawson asserts that since the issue is not directly addressed in the Constitution, "the courts should rule on whether or not it is within federal or state power to pass a law at all," and this need for court action requires adherence to a "living Constitution." Such a position, however, ignores the most basic distinction between federal and state government in this country: While the federal government is only permitted to exercise those powers enumerated for it in the Constitution, individual state governments hold powers of general jurisdiction to make laws — presumably according to the will of the majority — that pertain to issues of "public health, safety, and morals." In order for a state to be overstepping the bounds of its authority, it must be acting such that it violates a pre-existing constitutional right — yet if these "rights" may be discovered or otherwise extracted by activist judges, state majorities simply become subservient to the will of an ever-changing 5-4 Supreme Court majority. For all his talk of protecting minority rights, Rawson wholly fails to explain which minority's rights he wishes to protect.
Returning to abortion, one must ask whether protecting the minority applies to the minority of women seeking abortions, the minority of concerned citizens who want abortion obliterated in all instances or — perhaps the most underrepresented group of all — the minority composed of unborn children whose interests are simply the opportunity to live.
There are and always will be competing interests on many issues and, ultimately, the unique preferences of all minorities will not be reflected in any democratically determined outcome. By merely taking these issues out of the realm of public debate and individual state legislative decisions, however, and ascribing them instead to the Supreme Court majority, the "living Constitution" does nothing to advance either democratic rule or minority protections.
Read More
Campus is isolated: Be the voice that speaks out
Wynne Conger“Although today’s encampment represents a significant and monumental stride in campus activism, the culture of the Orange Bubble must fundamentally shift in order to ensure long term change.”
Protesting for peace and justice
Nura Liepsner“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
“To me, the work that pro-Palestine protesters at Princeton, across the nation, and abroad are fighting for can be viewed as a part of a much larger dream of liberation.”
Encampments are not ‘inherently unsafe.’ Princeton should not arrest or expel students for them.
Daily Princetonian Editorial Board“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
“We urge Princeton to cease student arrests and to refrain from expelling students simply for engaging in prolonged protest.”
