ORIGINALISM – SAY WHAT!

By Ruth A. Sheets

I don’t remember when I first heard the term “originalism” but I believe it was AROUND 2000.  The Supreme Court was arguing cases and some justices were claiming that their positions on issues were totally determined by “originalism.”

Justice Antonin Scalia was asked what it meant and said the Constitution should be read the way the founders intended it.  Even then, I was sure that was nonsense, but that supposed learned justice was spouting it as though it actually meant something and We the People should swallow something the founders didn’t even believe. 

Over the years, I have been paying attention to cases and how the “conservative” justices argued their positions.  I read summaries of several cases and noticed a few, rather obvious things about what the justices really meant by “originalism,” and the realities of 1787.

1. First, they ignored the variety of opinions and positions held by the members of the Constitutional Convention.  There was a lot of compromise going on to try to accommodate that range of opinions.  The originalists act as though the founders spoke in one voice.  They didn’t. 

2. At the time our Constitution was written, the only people who had any power at all were rich/propertied white men.  The members were very well educated for the time, but most of the population was not. 

3. Science was rather “limited” back then.  Only a few of the elements that were not useful metals had been identified and some of their properties known.  Observers were just beginning to get a sense of how weather happens.  They knew little of how the earth works or how diseases were spread.  Beyond what they needed to know to travel on the water and catch fish and whales, the oceans were a total mystery.  

4. Some of the founders were Christian, but several considered themselves deists who believed God had created the world and stepped back to let it develop as it would.  Members like George Washington believed religion was personal and not to be established in any way.  Most of the founders believed there must be freedom of religion included in the Constitution.  It was done through the Bill of Rights in 1791. 

5. Education beyond basic reading, writing, and arithmetic was reserved for the privileged white men of the time.  It would be decades before any women or people of color would be able to attend schools providing higher education.  A couple of indigenous men had attended Harvard briefly before the American Revolution, but that’s it for non-white-male persons.  Education emphasis now is very different from what the founders received.  They studied philosophy, religion (Christianity), Greek, Latin, the classics, some mathematics, rhetoric, and writing/composition.  Even conservatives now would not see that as the education they would want for themselves or their children 

6. Women provided most of the medical care at the time of the founding.  They were midwives who knew the use of herbs and other things used to provide care.  Women delivered babies, helped with abortions, cared for injuries, etc.  This woman-centered medicine was overtaken and dismissed as men wanted power in a medical “profession,” beginning in the mid-1800s.  Those men pushed for laws to make abortion illegal in some places to diminish the role of midwives, not because they had any religious objections. 

7. The founders only wanted propertied white men to vote because they thought no one else had the integrity, intelligence, or ability to understand the Constitution (or anything else). 

8. Technology was basic.  The Industrial Revolution was getting wound up.  Large scale manufacturing was just starting in Britain.  Here most production was on a small scale, often home industries by families.  The vast majority of the people lived on farms, working the land.  The economy was rather limited. 

9. In short any honest comparison between life 236 years ago and now is interesting, but nearly irrelevant.  Even the founders’ thinking about the world was quite different.  I suspect the average 12-year-old today has more awareness of the world than most of the founders.  That is not an insult on the founders, but the fact that so much more is known now.  Through technology and public education, children are exposed to and astounding amount of information.  

Justice Scalia claimed he could understand the founders and knew what they wanted for this nation.  However, he voted for Citizens United which said money is speech and corporations or practically anyone else could give as much money to candidates or their campaigns as they chose.  There is no way any of the founders would have said money is speech or would have publicly approved of buying elections.

 When writing to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Alito didn’t know or care that abortion was legal nearly everywhere in America at the time the Constitution was written.  He had to turn to a 17^th Century misogynistic English witch-hunter to find someone who was extremely opposed to abortion to cite.  So much for originalism.  Chief Justice Roberts should have sent Alito back to do his homework, or rather the Chief could have done his, to see that the justices had no grounds to allow abortion to be made illegal anywhere in this country on originalist grounds.

 There was no “affirmative action” in 1787 so it must not be acceptable in 2023.  Of course there was no affirmative action back then because only rich white men and their proteges went to college.  They were already affirmed and didn’t need action on their behalf.

 There are a lot of cases this year coming before the SC.  With at least Alito, Thomas, and possibly Roberts claiming to be originalists, it will be interesting to see which rights they are willing to take away from Americans and what kinds of arguments they will claim for the founders so they can use them to justify their positions.  What I have noticed, the claim of originalism in reality is the excuse given to make one’s own personal selfish beliefs law or overturn a properly passed law. 

Hey, now, the SC can take on cases that aren’t even real cases, but made up by someone with some kind of hypothetical situation the justices can rule on as they did this year related to a website owner who didn’t want to make wedding sites for same-sex couples when no such couples had ever even approached the person to make one, in fact the plaintiff didn’t even have a website business up and operating.  The founders would never have thought such cheating to impose one’s own religious beliefs acceptable.  Our Supreme Court 6 thought it just fine.  

 Six of the current justices have a deep belief that their interpretation of the law permits them to overturn precedent, ignore the desire of the American people, and ignore the critical elements of our democracy, even our Constitution.  They have said for example, that gerrymandering is OK if it is political.  What!  Gerrymandering started after the Constitution was ratified and most of the founders would not have permitted that kind of cheating, but our current court thinks it’s OK.  The SC has permitted people or other entities with no standing to bring cases to the Court, that is if the 6 justices want to make changes to the law the case would allow.  The 6 want to rule in America when they have not been elected, have no term limits, and can act illegally with impunity because Republicans would never impeach one of the guys needed to undermine our democracy, no matter what that justice has done, ala Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and the other justices who have received “rewards” from folks with cases before the court.  I want to know which founder would have approved that.

 We don’t live as the people of 1787 lived.  We mostly don’t use outhouses, don’t take a full day to travel 20 miles or a month to travel to Europe, and now have technology the founders could not possibly have dreamed of.  Since we don’t live as the founders did, don’t have their world view, have expanded rights to all citizens, even who is a citizen, why would anyone think pretending we can know what the founders intended  236 years ago could matter legally today?  It shouldn’t, and we must call them out on it when they claim that is what they are doing!  They’re not!

FOR THE LOVE OF CHILDREN

By Ruth A. Sheets

For decades, I have heard people say “children are our greatest resource” or “Children are our greatest treasure” or “Our children are our legacy.”  Statements like these or ones like them often seem to flow from the mouths of people whose actions don’t seem to match their words, making it appear they don’t really value children very highly.  Are the speakers lying?  I suspect sometimes they are deliberately lying or misleading others.  However, I also think many believe they are telling the truth, do believe they love children, but are rarely challenged on their statement-action mismatch.

What does the love of children look like today in our modern world?  Obviously that depends on who is being asked, but for many children, it is not looking too good.  I suspect there are some basic things every person could or should agree upon as critical elements of life for every child, not only for one’s own.

These are a few I think are a good start.

1. Loved children are wanted and have adults who care for them providing for basic needs as well as all the love and care needed for the child/children to survive.  This includes appropriate food, clothing, shelter, communication, medical care, etc.
2. Loved children are respected and supported for who they are and not forced to be like their parents, siblings, friends, or anyone else.  They are given the right amount of attention for their age and level of development. 
3. Loved children are taught to think of others, not just themselves and their wants.  They are taught manners that help them function in society when around other people and personal integrity is regularly modeled for them.
4. Education is critical for loved children, education that includes their story as well as the stories of others.  The education should be broad and exploratory as much as possible, taught by strong, well-trained teachers in well-maintained and resourced settings as well as in their homes by caring informed parents.
5. Positive moral, social-emotional education is part of the child’s upbringing at all levels. 
6. Loved children are not abused, hit, beaten, starved, imprisoned, tried as adults, left homeless or abandoned.
7. Efforts are made for loved children to discover their gifts and talents and intentionally develop them.
8. Positive critique is owed loved children and negative criticism should be specific, appropriate,  and infrequent.
9. Loved children are seen and heard and appreciated.

After reading this list, one might think it is impossible for parents and teachers to do all these things with and for children.  That is true.  Perfection is not possible, but children don’t need perfection, they need love and the knowledge that they are valued and worthy of parents’ and society’s best efforts on their behalf.  And that’s the other element in the process, community, society.  We the People have a joint responsibility to see that to the best of our ability, we provide for the children of our society and help provide for the children of the world. 

We know parents and teachers can’t do the work by themselves, but both should be given the resources they can’t themselves provide, like funds for decent housing, food, clothing, shelter, transportation, medical care, and the rest.  Children and teachers also need a school building that is not infested with animals and mold that don’t belong there for health reasons.  They need curricula and books of all kinds where children can see people like themselves and a wide range of others represented. 

A significant percentage of our society has decided they can force women to give birth whether they want to, are financially capable, or are sufficiently healthy  to have a child.  They have fetishized fetuses and claim the needs of children when they are born are the total responsibility of the parents no matter their health or economic status.  In fact, they don’t actually care about the woman while pregnant with the “precious” fetus, just that she must give birth to it.  They care nothing for the mother after the birth happens either, unless, of course it is they or someone they care about who is involved.  Despite their “love” language, it seems there is little or nothing behind the talk.  Maybe they can bestow that “love” on their own children, but have nothing left over for anyone else’s child.  That would mean only my child deserves my love.  Those other kids can get the love of their parents and if they have enough love, it won’t matter that they have no home, no food, no appropriate clothing, no heat, no funds, inferior schools. 

What happens when those forced-birth children begin to grow up and despite their parents’ love, don’t have the resources they need and develop chronic illnesses, but have no money to cover the medical costs?  Are they to just suffer and die?  Do the conservatives who control most of our state legislatures even care?  My answer is “naturally, they don’t.”  I do wish they would prove me wrong about this. 

I am not a parent, so I don’t have the direct knowledge of the day to day struggles of parents, trying to do their best for their children, often on a very limited budget.  I do have extensive experience with children, though.  I began babysitting from age 8 (parents can’t leave kids with 8-year-old babysitters anymore, but I was a good one, only sticking my little sister with a diaper pin once).  I was a nanny for 2 years and volunteered in a kindergarten during college breaks and when unemployed.  I have marvelous nieces and nephews whom I care deeply for.  Then, there are my students.  For 26 years I taught the most amazing children and young adults, grades kindergarten through 12.  My experiences taught me the value, challenge, joy, and wonder of children. 

I learned that at various times in the past, up to 50% of children died before reaching age 5.  That was due to diseases, terrible living conditions, lack of food, racism, neglect, and other factors.  There are people who want to take this country (not themselves) back to those times.   That is simply insane when we have terrific medical procedures available so we don’t have to lose the lives of mothers and children in pregnancy and birth.  Girls and women don’t have to carry the fetus of their rapist or incestor now, but many white men and some women in power want them to, even 10-year-olds!  Where is the love?  I am just not feeling it, probably because it isn’t there.  It is easy to say “I just love children so much.”  It is much harder to show it.  

We need to elect more people to office who actually do care about children, who don’t assume every challenge a child has is due to parents’ behavior or neglect.  Leaders need to believe women should have the right to bodily autonomy without state interference, and want all children to succeed, not just the rich white ones.  Such candidates would stand for

Excellent, well-maintained  schools with curricula based on critical thinking, problem-solving, and exploration rather than test scores.

• Families that have a place to live, good food to eat, clothing appropriate to the season and situation, books of all kinds to read and extra help if that reading does not come easily,
• Opportunities for good jobs that pay well for parents as well as for the young people as they come of age. 
• Guns should be taken off the streets because guns are the primary cause of death for children in this country. 
• Positive stories about children should regularly be in the media. 
• Regular voluntary classes should be offered for parents on various topics related to parenting with no stigma attached to parents who choose to attend.

• There is a lot we could do and not all of it extremely expensive.  Some will be costly:  housing for families, money for food, clothing, and utilities.  We could take about 10% of the current Pentagon budget to help with those programs.  The Pentagon can’t even account for what it spends now and would never miss it. 

In short, how much do we love our children.  The answer to that will  come down to how much we are willing to support families with children and stay out of women’s decisions about family planning.  Fathers, and men in general can stand up for women’s right to make her own reproductive decisions as men already have the right to make their own.  It’s time we actually prove we love children, all of them, not just our own or ones like us.  If we say we love children, our actions on behalf of children must match our words.

WHO OR WHAT IS WORKING IN US – OR WHO OPERATES OUR MORAL COMPASS?

By Ruth A. Sheets

Recently, a New Testament scripture reading was mine to consider for a sermon I was preparing.  As supply pastor, I use the Common Lectionary for developing worship services and sermons for the churches where I substitute. 

In this particular reading from Philippians, there is a note implying that God is at work in the members of the church at Philippi.  It occurred to me to wonder, how does the writer know that?  Christians believe that God is ever-present, but that does not necessarily mean that such presence guarantees that what is at work in a person, one’s motivation is what one says it is. 

Whether one professes a formal faith or not, there should be some kind of guiding essence that lets one know what is the right thing to do in a given situation, one’s inspiration.  I like to think of it as our moral compass.  There should always be a “needle” pointing “North” so it is possible to get direction and perhaps some clarity as to why we have made the decision we chose. 

It seems to me we all should be checking out our moral compass or code of ethics to see what is guiding our lives, regular check-ups.  Certainly, something is doing the guiding so it is a good idea to know just what that is.  Our actions are probably the best indicators of our guiding forces, so it behooves us to pay attention to what we say we stand for and what we do about it. 

Are there words that give us pause and if used in connection with particular actions could help us know if we need to step away from an action or decision, offer an apology, or work to make amends?  Some that come to my mind include:  selfishness, anger, fear, resentment, hatred, unkindness, greed, dismissal, pain.  Those words can be innocuous in certain situations.  For example, sometimes we need to be selfish if we are being overworked, if we are ill, or if our family needs us.  However if we are doing things that could harm others because we think we have a right to do it or because it feels good to us, it might not be an action that matches our ethics.  Anger can do damage, but can also be a motivator pushing us to act on behalf of ourselves and others to right wrongs, to change an abusive situation, to secure rights for those who have been denied them.  I suspect resentment, greed, and hatred have few if any positive outcomes.

Other words can let us know something positive is involved in our ethical considerations.  They may be pointing us in the way our moral compass would direct.   A few of my favorites are love, joy, respect, care, peace, gratitude, honesty, kindness, integrity, listening, understanding, knowledge, and generosity.  If I think, is peace somewhere in my action and the answer comes back “yes,” I am pretty sure I am at least moving in the right direction.  Then I need to ask, is this a positive peace or an imposed peace?

A number of things that have arisen lately in our politics and community life have led me to look at what it is that motivates our actions and that this is a critical issue.  Every day, decisions are being made that impact one to millions of people and the judgement used in considering each decision is often shaped by news media, social media, religious pronouncements, money, power, and numerous other factors which can do damage and are often not challenged. 

We the People of the United States are now dealing with a political party, Republican, that does not seem to have our Constitution, our people, or anything else recognizable guiding its significant decisions.  It is unclear what they stand for and they don’t seem to be in any hurry to let anyone in on the “secret.”  Shutting down our government if they don’t get what they want seems to be a go-to attempt at motivating themselves and their supporters, but the end game is unclear. 

The Supreme Court’s 2023-24 term opened yesterday and it has agreed to take on many cases that could do tremendous damage to our democracy.  The feeding court is the 5^th Circuit, an extreme collection of judges who think they have the right to take away people’s rights just because they are judges and for life.  One of the judges declared a safe abortion and miscarriage drug illegal.  He has no medical background, will never be pregnant, yet he thinks he has the right to make such a decision over ruling our FDA which does have medical experience and approved the drug more than 20 years ago knowing it had another 10+ years of high safety around the world.  Now, the SC gets to decide the legality of an extremely safe FDA-approved drug, also with no medical knowledge.  Because a bunch of conservatives don’t want women to be able to obtain abortions, the SC can outlaw a very safe drug?  How did anyone have standing to bring such a case in the first place?  The misogynists who brought the case, judge-shopped to find someone ignorant and misogynistic enough to be used?  What is the guiding force, the magnet that draws the moral compass needle?  It is probably a hatred or fear of women, but who will admit that.  What happens if the Supreme Court agrees with the ignorant Texas judge and outlaws Mifepristone?  What drugs will other folks want banned and for what reason?  Should anyone go along with such a decision by the SC that has at best, no honest reason?  Those of us who have a moral compass that says women have the right to make their own reproductive decisions will say, “no” the SC has overstepped.  The decision has not yet been made, but it is coming.

A case the SC will hear this week is whether the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is legal.  What!  Congress passed this protection agency to help consumers who were taken advantage of by predatory banks and other financial institutions like credit card corporations and payday lenders.  Those payday landers who have an extreme history of cheating and overcharging desperate, mostly poor customers brought the case.  How can the CFPB be illegal when the payday lender reverse Robin Hood actions in poor communities are considered legal?  The excuse for getting rid of the agency is that it is funded by financial institutions and should be paid for by annual congressional appropriations.  What a bunch of nonsense, but the SC conservatives have proven over and over they care nothing for what the American people want or need.  Only rich white folks and corporations’ desires count.  We get the motivation of the payday lenders:  greed, power, and more greed.  What is the motivation of the SC conservative justices?  Is it also greed, power, bribes, and more greed with a lifetime appointment power cherry on top? 

Nearly all the actors in these cases and in the Republican party in general claim to be Christian, but it is not clear Christian principles are involved in the functioning of their decision-making.  Lying is one of the “Thou shalt nots” included in the Ten Commandments, but despite Republican professed love for the Ten Commandments and the desire by many to post them in courthouses, schools, and other public buildings, lying is a major item in the Republican toolbox and is wielded daily, often, hourly with little or no challenge by their fellow conservative Christians.  When lying is a “coin of the Republican realm,” what is the Party’s inspiration?  

Perhaps it will help if We the People start demanding that our candidates identify at least some of the factors that are guiding their current actions and what they are likely to do when in office.  However, just saying “I’m Christian” or Jewish or something else is not sufficient.  Ask for their 5 top principles for living.  Then, when they do not even try to live those principles they claimed to hold dear, call them out on it.  We have come to expect so little of our representatives at all levels they don’t seem to feel they need to even have a moral compass that they follow, they go with whatever way the wind is blowing.  Lying, misdirecting, and gaslighting   are just what they do. 

We must demand more of ourselves and more of those people we elect to represent us.  Things will not improve by themselves because when no moral compass is functioning for an entire major political party, we all suffer.  We must expect better and demand it.