| Some interesting tidbits from the Missoulian report of Rob Natelson's talk to Missoula's "Conservative Patriots" group on Monday.
First off, a shot over the bows of Constitutional "originalists":
The problem with the U.S. Constitution in general is that it is not a "rigid" set of guidelines on government power, nor is it a "living, breathing organism" that liberals pretend it is.
"The answer, as often in life, is somewhere in the middle," said Natelson.
An opponent of abortion, Natelson said one day, people will see the termination of a pregnancy with the same repugnancy that they see slavery now.
"It took 100 years to end slavery," he said. "And we're not going to end abortion constitutionally. We're going to end it when people change their hearts."
The "living, breathing organism" that liberals worship is, of course, hyperbole, the kind of misrepresented and exaggerated view of liberal legal thought promulgated by conservatives, and a typical rhetorical salvo we've come to expect from the Perfesser. But...then he says the Constitution is a changing document, and that the judiciary - rightly - reacts to the values and demands of the populace. Which, you know, is pretty much...rational, not something you'd expect the Perfesser to say in front of Tea Baggers.
And it's also nice to see Natelson acknowledge that anti-abortion views are not widely reflected by most Americans, and that, to change our laws on abortion, anti-abortion activists need to change Americans' views. Which, you know, is probably something his audience didn't want to hear.
Another:
One question was steered toward the local anti-discrimation ordinance passed last week by the Missoula City Council.
Can't that law be challenged as violation of the due process provision of the 14th Amendment?
Again, said Natelson, not since the U.S. Constitution has been so radically reinterpreted.
"If the state government can point to any conceivable governmental interest in supporting its law, in this case promoting the acceptance of a certain group of people, generally the law will be upheld," he said.
(Here's the Fourteenth Amendment, by the way. I assume the questioner was assuming those who want to discriminate against gays have the right to do so under the idea that no state "shall...deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
But, funny enough, proponents of discrimination forget that gays are also protected under the same amendment.)
Essentially, Natelson is openly acknowledging that opposition to Missoula's anti-discrimination isn't based on safety issues in public bathrooms, but in not wanting to "accept" gays into civil society. And they mean by "acceptance," is gays' rights to live, work, and enjoy "...mutuality, companionship, intimacy, fidelity, and family." In short, as Montana Justice James Nelson wrote, "...homosexuals are entitled to enjoy precisely the same civil and natural rights as heterosexuals, as a matter of constitutional law."
Too bad the constitution doesn't protect people from singling out law-abiding citizens and denying their basic "civil and natural rights." |
