Interview With James Madison

 You hear a lot from conservatives these days about the "original meaning of the Constitution," which they claim to know. So I decided to ask the guy who knows more about the Constitution than anyone living or (in his case) dead, James Madison. Madison more than anyone is responsible for the final document. Our dialogue went something like this.

             -So Mr. Madison

-James please

-Okay James. Let me start by asking you about the Supreme Court decision from about 10 years ago, Citizens United. Congress put limits on the ability of corporations to give to political campaigns.

-Corporations? Giving money to political campaigns?

-Yeah. That’s a thing nowadays

-Do political campaigns really need a lot of money?

-Are you kidding? Money for TV advertising

-TV?

-Microtargeted internet ads …

-Are you even speaking English?

-Look take my word for it. Politicians need boat loads of money these days. And corporations have a lot of money they’re willing to give to influence policy in their favor.

          -Well in my day, corporations were just state sanctioned monopolies that built roads and canals and stuff like that.

-Well today, corporations pretty much run the economy. They make cars, microchips, refrigerators.

-I have no idea what any of those things are.

-Never mind. Anyway some corporations are worth billions of dollars?

-Billions with the b?

-Yeah.

-And they’re able to give money to candidates?

-Yeah. But Congress passed a law restricting their ability to do that, and Supreme Court struck it down.

-On what grounds?

-First Amendment. You know, freedom of speech

-I know what the First Amendment is. The court said corporations have First Amendment rights to give cash to politicians?

-Yeah, more or less.

-You’re joking right.

-Well, only five of the nine justices said that. Those were the justices who believe the Constitution should be interpreted according to its original meaning.

-Now I know you’re joking.

-Okay. Then there is the whole problem of whether the First Amendment can deal with social media companies, where people use their platforms to spread disinformation, and how the social media algorithms amplify extremist and misleading content.

-I don’t think I understood a single word of what you just said. Maybe “the” and “with”.

-Ok. Forget that. Then there’s the issue of the Supreme Court saying that public employee unions can’t automatically deduct dues from employees pay checks, because that would violate the employees’ First Amendment rights? What do you think of that?

-What are unions?

-Ok. Never mind that either. What about the Second Amendment. Some people are wondering whether the right to bear arms includes the right to have semiautomatic weapons.

-Excuse me? What are semiautomatic weapons?

-Semiautomatic weapons with high capacity magazines can rapid fire 50 shots without reloading.

-No!

Yes!

-In in my day, you know you’d have to reload your musket ball after every shot.

-Got it.

-Look. Let’s step back  a minute. What I want to say, generally, is that we, I’m talking about the people who wrote the Constitution, we didn’t really think about a lot of what you’re dealing with in the 21st century, over 200 years later. How could we? You have to use the light of your own reason to adapt the basic principles of the Constitution to your own modern situation. Don’t bother dead people like me with lots of questions.

-Well James, okay. But with a wishy washy answer like that, you would never have made it as a commentator on cable news.

-What’s cable news?

-You don’t want to know.

 

Robert Katz

Robert Katz served as a staff attorney and supervising attorney at the California Supreme Court from 1993-2018. Before that he was in private practice representing public agencies, and worked as a newspaper reporter covering local government in Santa Cruz County. 

Subscribe to this blog by email: click here.


 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dobbs and Brown v. Board of Education: A Comparison

  As we mark the 50th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I note that the supporters of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization , the decision revoking the constitutional right to an abortion, have sought to draw celebratory parallels between that decision and Brown v. Board of Education. This was the case that recognized the principle that “separate but equal” treatment of Blacks and Whites in segregated schools was incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like Brown , Dobbs overturned a foundational precedent that had been in force for decades, and according to anti-abortion proponents, established an important right – the right to fetal life -- denied by the discredited precedent. The Dobbs opinion itself referenced Brown a number of times, and Mitch McConnell said of the Dobbs decision: “The Court has corrected a terrible legal and moral error, like when Brown v. Board overruled Plessy v. Ferguson.”   But the differences between Brow...
Read more

Thoughts on Transgender Issues

   The treatment of transgender people is one of the most active fronts in our never-ending culture wars. Any nuance gets lost on both sides of the debate. At the risk of being caught in the cross-fire, this post attempts to formulate a sensible framework for understanding these issues.  My starting point is the affirmation of two principles. First, people should be able to express their gender identity as they wish, not in conformity with other people's ideas. That principle is rooted in the fundamental right to express oneself linked to the First Amendment protection of freedom of speech.  Second, gender dysphoria, the strong sense of belonging to a gender other than the biological gender into which one was born, is real. The causes of gender dysphoria are not well understood, but seems to have a physiological basis, at least in some  cases . From this emerges the principle that people experiencing gender dysphoria should be given “reasonable accommodation,” a...
Read more

The Supreme Court's Second Amendment Folly

  You may have seen this news item and thought it was some kind of joke. A Federal District Court in Texas, and then the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ruled in   Rahimi v. United States , that a Texas law prohibiting people subject to domestic violence protective orders from owning guns was unconstitutional. Why? Because no such prohibition was recognized when the Second Amendment to the Constitution protecting the right to “keep and bear arms” was enacted back in 1789 or, in 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment applied federal constitutional rights to the states. After all, these were the bad ol’ days when there was no such thing as a domestic violence protective order. This court decision was the kind of absurd news item worthy of the Onion. But it was no joke. The explanation for this bit of judicial nonsense is to be found in the Supreme Court’s decision last term,  New York Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen . Back in 2008, on a 5-4 vote, the Court decided that t...
Read more