There apparently were some decisions released by a court in Washington this week. Reports on the early and late news- the times management does not attempt to regulate what material we have access for viewing- was that there were some emotional responses to them.

You can imagine the reaction in the Writers Section at Refuge Farm. By turns in this year, our panel of women, men, veterans, registered voters and those who have given up on that- have had to polish their individual credentials on Public Health Emergencies, Modern Mass Violence Prevention, Linguistic Interpretation and Constitutional Law & Practice. In order to avoid four-year courses of study in each, which would have involved familiarity with Federal Lending Practice and the countervailing virtues of for-profit Educational Institutions, we decided to talk instead about the social impact of court decisions and the practice of Day Imbibing.

Splash was the only member of the Section prepared to address all aspects of these disparate matters. “I think we ought to try it in English, since many of us attempt to use that language as a primary manner of respectful discourse.” His version of that language had a slight slur.

“That framing of the issue implies that the conversational aspect is conducted with an intent to convey information in a truthful manner,” said Melissa.

Loma laughed. “The words ‘conveying accuracy’ do not appear,” he said. “So we can’t get to the initial discussion without some preliminary validation that we are of good will and seeking some sort of agreement through discussion based on a shared concept of accuracy. Or truth.”

‘See? We can’t even get started on a discussion about how things are supposed to conclude if we can’t agree on what it is we are talking about.” Loma seemed ready to surrender already.

Buck, our emeritus Economist scowled. “That is why the first remark is the most important. We have several decisions made in accordance with traditional practice in the Supreme Court. Some of them have distinct interest to citizens whose individual interests are directly impacted. That is why the framing of the decisions is vital to constructive discussion. For example, one of the more significant rulings was about a state law that permitted public funds to be allocated to non-public schools only if the educational entities were secular in nature. Not religiously affiliated.”

“None of us have kids in that system, and unless the grandkids have been moved there, we have no skin in that game. Instead, there is a lingual debate on the definition of the word “secular.” It used to mean one thing but now seems to include several things over which there are fundamental disagreement. General words, like ‘history,” “economic strata,” and “social organization.” We get caught up in a generational change, too. For older folks, the word “equality” has changed definition. In today’s reference, some sorts of inequality are now considered necessary to be imposed in order to rectify previous unequal practice.”

“They used to say that about the unequal treatment we fought all our lives. So, you are saying that Court decision made unequal treatment of religious education unconstitutional?”

“No, I am trying to understand what it was the High Court decided for the parents of kids in the State of Maine.”

There was a mixed response of heads that moved vertically and horizontally. “What about the other decisions that have people marching and carrying signs?”

“Both have enormous practical impact but neither seem to mean what people without law degrees claim they mean.”

“You mean about women’s rights and gun violence?”

“Exactly. Neither of those decisions were directly about either subject. There is enough confusion about relatively simple terms. Ones that are patently obvious to either of the two known varieties of the human species even if you spell them with “x’s” in them. The other issue is not about violence, but rather whether something that is already legal can be removed from the home and carried around for legal purposes.”

“You are clearly trying to make all this look a little nuts. Didn’t they overturn the Law of the Land in one of those and the law of the State of New York in the other?”

Buck shook his head slowly. “Not exactly, and a Court decision in 1973 isn’t a Law, exactly. It was a judgement that generated a new Constitutional right. Which leads to a discussion about the role and function of the Supreme Court.” He turned his ballcap around so the emblem of Constitutional Expert was in front. “The gun thing first. When the Constitution was drafted, the new nation was largely rural and a significant component of the nation’s foodstuffs were procured by hunting. The men who drafted the language…” He ducked when Melissa threw a wadded ball of paper at his head, causing his hat to fly off. “Rather, the people who drafted the Constitution had just fielded a well-organized militia to defeat the forces of the world’s most powerful Colonial Power. They also hunted and wished to protect their families and property. The felt those rights were fundamental and predated the formation of the Republic.”

Melissa was wadding up other pieces of paper in case the discussion became unruly. She placed them in front of her sitting rock at the ready. “Let me try to explain it. Some people think the Constitution is a living document, the provisions of which grow and change along with society and emerging social norms. The idea that a document written in 1787 could cover all the social developments in the coming centuries was known to be a challenge to the people (she glared at Buck) who wrote it. That is why they included the Amendment process that has been exercised 11,700 times, or approximately 200 times per Congressional session. Few of them get very far, but 33 of them have been forwarded to the States for Ratification. There is even a provision for another Constitutional Convention if there is enough support for it. Hasn’t been tried, though it is right there in the founding document, just in case.”

Splash looked like he might be in favor of additional liquid fortitude. “Exactly. The Second Amendment says what it says. I can keep firearms and carry them without requesting special permission from the Government. If times have changed, and the 400 million guns floating around are too many, then let’s amend the Amendment to something a clear majority of us can agree on. But of course, the people who are shooting up schools have already demonstrated an inability to follow written laws.”

“Fine. Maybe it is time to talk about that one. What about the health issue?”

“We are arguing about who gets to decide the moment at which life is protected. Some folks think that is at conception. Others think that it is later, and even up to a period after life birth. What the Supremes said is that the people of the states ought to sort out what a majority of them believe and live with it.”

There was silence around the Fire Ring. The sound of the screen door opening drew attention to our attorney Amanda, who was emerging from the Bunk House. She had a smile on her face as she advanced toward the Ring. “Alrighty! Anyone ready to talk about legal stuff this morning?”

Melissa picked up a couple wads of paper just in case anyone agreed.

Copyright 2022 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com