A state's "constitution": How much standing?

Steve Scalise

A lawyer could maybe address this matter: How much weight does a state's constitution really carry? How is the constitution to be understood in comparison to the actual state's laws and legal processes? I'm beginning to think they do not all mesh together. And of course it can be complicated. 

Here I will direct suspicion toward today's conservatives and that maybe should not surprise you. My skepticism toward their leader DJT has been great. Once again I will have to assert that I am fine with the conservative political philosophy. The conservative political and economic philosophy as represented by pillars like the late William F. Buckley. 

The application of such philosophy can be supported in many situations. For example, I am a supporter of putting the brakes on education spending and on compensation for education employees. But let's get back to the "constitution" matter before I veer off into the schools thing. 

Chris Wallace must have asked Steve Scalise of Texas the same question six times one morning. "Can you accept the 2020 election results as being final and official?" That's a pretty good paraphrase. The Texas conservative would only answer by saying "there were states that didn't follow their own constitutions." 

How do we weigh that statement? Maybe a learned lawyer would know. 

Let's drift back to when gay rights was a pretty contentious thing. And of course gays have gotten their legitimate rights over time because it just had to get that way. Just like Jim Crow was going to be eradicated down South. It just had to happen. Apart from the overwhelming moral arguments, from a legal standpoint it just wasn't going to be enforceable. 

Forum Communications of Fargo, the former owner of the Morris paper, which I believe was going to close the paper before it left here ignominiously, waded into the gay rights thing when it was contentious. The Forum attempted to prohibit marriage notices from gay couples. I wrote about one particular gay female couple that was testing this. The Forum had to try to explain. They came up with this, at least for a while: "The North Dakota constitution defines marriage as being between a man and a woman." 

As I recall it didn't take long for the Forum to break down on this. Their firmness was rather like a wet paper bag. They could have chosen to make the right decision immediately. Just like the South could have taken responsibility on Jim Crow. You saw what happened if you saw the movie "Mississippi Burning." Gene Hackman grabbing a bigot by the crotch etc. 

What happened to the Forum's defense? The state constitution would not permit the published notices, we were told at first. It's possible that the constitution does lay out the man/woman thing. It may in fact seem clear as day in writing. But is this the real true legal standard for enforcing? The Scalise response prompts the same question. Should a state's vote totals be nullified after the election because of constitution wording? 

Obviously the states saw fit to try to adjust to the massive public health emergency called covid. States wanted to discourage people gathering in confined spaces in large numbers because that would obviously be a prescription for death, literal death. 

If a state constitution is to be understood as literal law, then why didn't the appropriate authorities like the rock-ribbed conservative Supreme Court step in to remediate? The Supreme Court took the bull by the horns back in 2000 to ensure the election of George W. Bush. You remember George W. Bush, right? The war monger? 

Anyway, I'm beginning to think a state's constitution is not to be interpreted the same way as literal law. Maybe it's just a framework? 

Joel Heitkamp

I am thinking about all this today as a result of listening to Fargo radio yesterday (Monday). There, Joel Heitkamp, working hard to stay on AM mid-morning radio in spite of being an unabashed liberal. Wow! Am amazed. His sister is Heidi Heitkamp. And he's interviewing a current GOP big shot. So we got the test for how Republicans are handling the verdict in the DJT "hush money" case. 

Trump is now a convicted felon. Of course we already knew he was a total bad apple because of the E.J. Carroll judgment. But now there's another reckoning. Let's just say it ought to be a reckoning. But GOP leaders don't want to reckon with it. More than that, they just want to keep waving the flag for the orange Jesus. I only observe. 

And so Heitkamp's GOP heavy-hitter guest had this to say on the fresh Trump verdict: "The judge gave jury instructions that were unconstitutional." 

So here it is again: the guy demurs because of a constitution somewhere. I'd like to ask a learned lawyer: Does this really carry any weight? And if it does, wouldn't a higher court sweep in immediately to take care of the matter? The U.S. Supreme Court with its almost caricature-like "conservative" justices? Three of them appointed by Trump himself? Couldn't they rectify the matter if a "constitution" was violated? 

Don't you all think Judge Merchan is a professional who knows what he's doing? And how can you take seriously this parade of Republican leaders who went to New York literally dressed like Donald Trump, down to the red tie? Isn't it plain as the nose on your face this is a cult? No, you will not see this if you are a member. 

For the time being, Republicans definitely have their "talking points" on Trump verdicts. Find something in the wording of a "constitution" somewhere, then you can go on the air with Joel Heitkamp. 

Maybe someday the responsible and healthy conservatism like that of Buckley and George Will can re-assert itself. Assert itself to insist on less spending for the public education monster. Then I'll be in agreement sometimes.

Public education can "never get enough $."

  

- Brian Williams - morris mn minnesota - bwilly73@yahoo.com