Anarchy in the Supreme Court
Today we listened to conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas speak. During question and answer period, I went all anarchist on his ass. I alluded to the fact that he is a strict constructionist (one who thinks we should only go by what the Constitution says exactly) and asked if perhaps it wasn't absurd for an industrialized nation of over 350 million people to stick to a document that was drafted multiple centuries ago in a small, agrarian group of colonies. Perhaps, I said, the document needed to be updated substantially to insure the Framer's true intent. Naturally, he was confused and appalled by this, so I continued to interject and add to my line of thought, thereby making my contemporaries very nervous (as many of them later told me). He asked if I could give a specific example of something that requires such drastic change that an Amendment would not suffice. Yes, many, but I only gave one.
I pointed out that the Senate, which was meant to be non-proportionate in its representation, has become disproportionate beyond what the framers could have imagined with the rise of urbanization. TJ and the boys could scarcely have foreseen cities of millions or tens of millions, which give California two votes to certain Red States' thirty something for the same population (whereas before, one state might be matched by five or so less-populous states at most). I noted that Jefferson in particular held a vision of America that was agrarian and decentralized, in which local control insured democracy and played a larger role than a huge federal system (which the Federalists like Hamilton wanted and we now have beyond anything they could have conceived). To act as though our great system has been trudging along just fine is to ignore the hundreds of millions of citizens who have been added, half of whom see no reason to vote in the monolith that is the modern state.
Granted, I wasn't really suggesting that the the Supreme Court do anything about it (as Thomas seemed to think I meant--understandable given that I was asking him), but mostly just pointing out what I see as the absurdity of his conservative judicial philosophy. What I also thought, but didn't say, was that our nation, which began as a small republic seeking "entangling alliances with none" (Jefferson), now pisses away over half a trillion dollars a year to maintain what is now an empire. In my view, truly preserving the Framers' intent involves decentralization to the point that it is probably unconstitutional. If it would be anything like the Civil War, fragmenting the Union into smaller bits would probably not go over well.
I am not sure how I will feel as time goes on about having pressed Thomas. Admittedly, my question was not very effective at making him rethink much of anything. Then again, I am just some young radical and he is an old Justice, known for his ideology (a term they deplore at the Supreme Court, we learned). For now, I am pleased enough. Judging by the reactions I got later from the other Truman Scholars, I may have at least set an example showing that as we are shown around D.C., we don't have to kiss the ass of every prominent public figure we meet.
I pointed out that the Senate, which was meant to be non-proportionate in its representation, has become disproportionate beyond what the framers could have imagined with the rise of urbanization. TJ and the boys could scarcely have foreseen cities of millions or tens of millions, which give California two votes to certain Red States' thirty something for the same population (whereas before, one state might be matched by five or so less-populous states at most). I noted that Jefferson in particular held a vision of America that was agrarian and decentralized, in which local control insured democracy and played a larger role than a huge federal system (which the Federalists like Hamilton wanted and we now have beyond anything they could have conceived). To act as though our great system has been trudging along just fine is to ignore the hundreds of millions of citizens who have been added, half of whom see no reason to vote in the monolith that is the modern state.
Granted, I wasn't really suggesting that the the Supreme Court do anything about it (as Thomas seemed to think I meant--understandable given that I was asking him), but mostly just pointing out what I see as the absurdity of his conservative judicial philosophy. What I also thought, but didn't say, was that our nation, which began as a small republic seeking "entangling alliances with none" (Jefferson), now pisses away over half a trillion dollars a year to maintain what is now an empire. In my view, truly preserving the Framers' intent involves decentralization to the point that it is probably unconstitutional. If it would be anything like the Civil War, fragmenting the Union into smaller bits would probably not go over well.
I am not sure how I will feel as time goes on about having pressed Thomas. Admittedly, my question was not very effective at making him rethink much of anything. Then again, I am just some young radical and he is an old Justice, known for his ideology (a term they deplore at the Supreme Court, we learned). For now, I am pleased enough. Judging by the reactions I got later from the other Truman Scholars, I may have at least set an example showing that as we are shown around D.C., we don't have to kiss the ass of every prominent public figure we meet.