Legal Training, Legal Mind When I was in law school, professors always
extolled the virtues of “thinking like a lawyer.” What they meant by that,
in the abstract, was that one develops the capacity to be able
to argue either side of an issue. As part of a mere academic
exercise, designed to prepare one to operate in an adversarial
system, supposedly we need people who, given sufficient facility
with the rules of evidence, law, and so forth, can act as advocates
for others. But in a practical and real world sense, the idea
of “thinking like a lawyer” is usually about dogma
and unthinking – sheer obedience.
A brilliant legal mind is not one of rigor – instead it
is one fully trained in double-think. Double-think is not just
some fantasy of Orwell, but a process that occurs everyday within
the Kafka-like world of American courts. Like any altar boy who
can tell you that God changed his mind about eating meat on Fridays,
or sex lives of priests, or a Mormon who knows that God has seen
the light so NOW those children of Cain (you know, they have
that dark skin so they can be more easily identified as children
of the first murderer), may enter the temple in Salt Lake – but
they still cannot head the church, a good law student, and consequently
the best federal judges, tolerate and ignore contradictions that
do not serve the master (either the professor, the President
or Congress).
Joys and Ills of Dogma
One day in my Constitutional law class (on
civil rights and liberties), the topic of abortion came up.
One student said something
like, “since when can judges invent rights?” Given
my limited knowledge about the history of the Constitution and
its annotations called the Federalist Papers, though I believe
that abortion should be legal and accessible, I found myself
agreeing with the criticism. Similarly, when I read cases about
poll taxes, I thought, “if the state is providing a service,
what is the matter with imposing a tax to pay for the service?”
The answer to both questions was basically
the same. Our highly respected and oft cited professor said,
well at least five justices
think that abortion and free [sic] voting, are part of “ordered
liberty” or “fundamental rights,” blah, blah,
blah. When I asked if there were anyway to determine what other
type of human behavior fits into this category of fundamental
rights, or how we might recognize what type of governmental action
infringes upon ordered liberty, I was told, in effect: “sit
down and shut up – that is the rule, just remember it!”
Through the teachings of my professors and
via their evaluations of my papers and tests, I learned that
in American jurisprudence,
especially Constitutional law in the area in what I now call
civil liberties, there is little pattern, but a lot of dogma.
While I was flustered, my classmates who were very good at being
obedient – usually the church-going crowd – had no
problem ignoring contradictions or the inconsistency of judicial
opinions.
Still Reading the Constitution Upside Down
It would be another year until I was turned on to Federalist
#84, whereby I came to understand that American jurisprudence
about civil rights and liberties has developed in a manner that
completely contradicts both the plain meaning of the Constitution
and the desires of the men who drafted and adopted our most fundamental
source of law. While all the textbooks used in American law schools
talk about what individuals can or cannot do, and emphasize the
justifications for same-sex marriage, physician assisted suicide,
or immigrant rights to remain in the country, the focus should
be on what powers are granted to the government.
Unlike other European nations of the time,
where the people accepted and the monarchs presumed that they
somehow were God’s
choice to lead the Danes, Spanish, English, etc., the drafters
of the Constitution declared both that the people of the United
States were sovereign and that any and all powers granted to
the federal government, were only bequeathed via the rational
and explicit intent of the people – as represented via
the States and their respective state legislatures. Hence, the
primary thought or recognition about the powers and rights of
the federal government is that the federal government only has
those powers that are explicitly named in the Constitution. Read
Federalist #84 again. Hamilton specifically says that there is
no need for a bill of rights because such will encourage people
to think that the list is exhaustive – i.e. “if it
ain’t written down, you can’t do it.” As Hamilton
intended, the rule is the converse: “if the Constitution
does not grant the federal government said authority, it cannot
do it.”
The question about how to interpret the
meaning of the Constitution is particularly relevant in the
area of civil liberties. For
example, when it comes to the question of a woman’s freedom
to control her body, there are no provisions in the Constitution
that explicitly declare that the federal government can try to
prevent abortions or punish one for electing to terminate a pregnancy – by
any means. Similarly, the federal government is not granted any
power to deny one from using their choice of medicine in treating
a medical condition.
To return to the questions of my classmates,
the question should have been, “where does it say that government can restrict
voting?” Or abortion, group marriage, etc. The Supreme
Court did not need to create a “right to abortion” in
Roe v. Wade (even though that is what the court said), rather,
in concert with the way that the Constitution was written and
in the spirit of limited government, the Court only had to announce
that reproduction, as a liberty, is not subject to regulation
by the government (either State or Federal). Reproduction is
a liberty.
Why do I harp on the point? How is this
discussion significant today? My argument is that just as reproduction
is essential
to life, and the individual choice is private and part of one’s
liberty, similarly, treating one’s illness, i.e. trying
to live, is also a liberty. That means that as written, the Constitution
grants no power to either the federal or state governments to
restrict one's decisions to ingest a medicine, herb, or drug.
Raich and Backwards Thinking
The case of Angel Raich has been years long.
Already going through the federal courts all the way to the
U.S. Supreme Court twice,
in 2001, 2004, and now ready to return, Ms. Raich and others
in her stead were told, once again, that the Constitution does
not allow one to use marijuana period, and there is no Constitutional
language that permits any one to use marijuana due to a medical
necessity. Such was the ruling of the Ninth Circuit Court of
Appeals. Though oft decried as a liberal court, a majority here,
sided with Imperial and Monarchical power – what we call
being conservative and on the right. In deferring, obediently,
to a previous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court, and hence the
Bush administration and others before, who since 1937 have said,
without any evidence, that marijuana has no medical applications
(though it does), this court once again affirmed the notion that
government can declare a plant delicto per se – a crime
in an of itself.
Angel Raich suffers from having an inoperable brain tumor, chronic
nausea, scoliosis, and other ailments. Rather than buy pot on
the black market, she joined with others in California who, under
California law, formed cannabis clubs strictly for the purpose
of using marijuana for medicinal purposes. Instead of being protected
by the law, Raich and others have been hounded, jailed, and even
killed by the federal government (and those state and local police
working in league under the name of a Drug Task Force), via inane
and backwards legal reasoning.
Stuck with pre-18th Century Thinking and or Gladly Serving
the Emperor?
Recall the ideas of Federalist #84 and how
the Constitution is supposed to be read, and then look at the
language of the
opinion of Federal Appeals Court Judge, Harry Pregerson. Pregerson’s
opinion followed the arguments of federal prosecutors who said
that: “there’s no constitutionally protected fundamental
right to obtain and use marijuana in defiance of the federal
ban on [marijuana] (see 21 §§ USC 841(a), 844(a)),
and that the Supreme Court decision in the Oakland Cannabis Buyers
Cooperative case of 2001 already had ruled out a medical-necessity
argument. So in the majority opinion he wrote:
“[there is no] right to use medical
marijuana [for such is not] fundamental and implicit in the
concept of ordered liberty.”
“Nothing in the common law or [federal]
cases suggests that the existence of a necessity defense empowers
[federal courts]
to enjoin the [executive branch from enforcing] the Controlled
Substances Act as [it is applied to Ms. Raich].”
All I can say is, “of course.” Of course the Constitution
does not imply using marijuana for any purpose, is fundamental
and or implicit within the concept of ordered liberty. The idea
of ordered liberty highlights the power of the state to impose
order – not of people to live free, respecting the property
of others and the commons, but enjoying autonomy over the choice
to worship, associate, share ideas, speak to one’s children
in any language, and use drugs. The government does not need
anyone to use marijuana, nor does the government need people
to alleviate pain that the state might impose order. Of course
there is no language in the Constitution about common law or
individual claims for a medical necessity defense – that
is not how or why the Constitution was written.
To review, in 2001, Clarence Thomas, writing
for the majority, said that the Constitution does not grant
a defense of medical
necessity to shield one from prosecution for marijuana possession.
In 2005, in a vote of 6-3 (ironically Thomas joining the dissent),
the court held that the Congressional ban on homegrown marijuana
was authorized by the Constitution because if people could grow
their own, the price of black market weed would lower, and increase
the likelihood that others could buy marijuana. (Note the parallel,
as prostitution is banned, consensual, non-commercial sex can
be criminalized, because the more often that people have sex
for free – especially if they are married, the lower the
price that prostitutes will charge).
But nowhere in these cases did the courts
start with the question demanded by Alexander Hamilton, and
the question that my law
professor should have known, “does the Constitution explicitly
authorize the government to deny said individual activity?” If
we pose the questions this way, the answer is obvious – Congress
cannot authorize and the executive cannot enforce bans on marijuana
use, especially when used as a medicinal aid to improve one’s
life. What is the purpose of government but to improve the quality
of our lives? Thus Pregerson’s determination that nothing
allows the court to enjoin the feds from harassing and arresting
people like Raich is WRONG. Courts can always declare laws and
or their enforcement as unconstitutional and issue a cease and
desist order. What he is really saying is that he does not want
to do so. After all, it is hard to advance in government if you
are not a kiss up, just ask former federal prosecutor Carol Lam
or Alberto Gonzalez.
Turning the Legal World Right Side Up
Karl Marx (a materialist) declared that
he took the ideas of Hegel (the idealist) and turned them right
side-up. Marx believed
that one’s material existence informs our ideas about right
and wrong, thoughts on physics, religion, the value of labor
and so forth. When we look at the state of American jurisprudence,
for nearly 200 years, the legal community has ignored the material
reality of the Constitution and the Federalist papers, but instead
pushed false ideals. So we need a revolution in American legal
thinking. We must retrain law students, professors, lawyers and
judges to read the Constitution right side up and acknowledge
that our government is supposed to be that of a sovereign people,
coupled with a government of express and limited powers. In application,
this means that there is no grant for the government to punish
people like Angel Raich – they cannot take her stash, arrest
her, issue fines or keep her in prison. It even means that all
laws banning adults from possessing or growing marijuana are
unconstitutional as well.
John Calvin Jones has a law degree and a PhD in Political
Science. He can be contacted at www.virtualcitizens.com. |