US Supreme Court decisions created irony of positions
Whether one is born to wealth or of lesser means, all can agree there are many elements of life we commonly desire and enjoy. Most will acknowledge the core of our happiness is freedom. Freedom to do what we want, when we want and how we want.
It’s well-known that this independence does not exist in all parts of the world. Additionally, for a large segment of our history, it did not exist in the United States for all people.
Some may still argue that a balanced administration of rights in the United States remains wanting or imperfect. This argument may be valid if for no other reason than that all freedoms are inhibited for a variety of purposes.
Such as, safety to oneself or others; the need for public order; national security; or at the very least, an understanding or appreciation of freedoms shared with others. Thus, with the probable exception of freedom of thought which is restricted only by our conscience, all liberties have limitations.
In the United States, the outlines of these limitations are typically drafted by our federal and state legislatures or the courts, quite often the United States Supreme Court.
While we hope that these laws are advanced and interpreted evenhandedly and in a way that helps recognize, explain and protect everyone. We know, as a matter of fact, these legal guide posts and confines may create conflict and an irony of positions.
To illustrate, let’s look at the language of our Constitution and a couple of decisions recently decided by our U.S. Supreme Court.
Let’s begin with the Preamble of the United States Constitution. The opening phrase states “We the People of the United States.” We understood then and know now that this phrase did not include everyone. Despite this deficiency, it appears the founding fathers intent was “to form a more perfect Union” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”
Given this purpose, perhaps the founders understood and may have even planned that through the passage of time “perfection” would mean that someday everyone would enjoy the “blessings,” such as freedom, fairness and equality.
If this was the plan, the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be the ideal instrument to set in motion this desired outcome that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State 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.”
There’s no dispute that for generations in our history, race formed a basis for exclusion from colleges and other public and private institutions. As a result of this obvious discrimination, our government created legislation that required public and private institutions to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, veteran status, sexual orientation, or genetic information.
In Students for Fair Admission, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, the Supreme Court overturned 40 years of precedent related to affirmative action legislation, and found that race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the equal protection clause of the United States.
College admission decisions should be color blind. Race, therefore, cannot be considered in the college admissions process unless the college is a military academy. It is hoped the outcome of this decision allows us to become a “more perfect union” and will not paradoxically lead us back to the segregations of the past.
In 303 Creative, LLC v. Elenis, the Supreme Court determined Colorado’s equal protection law did not safeguard same-sex couples from a web designer’s First Amendment right to refuse to create websites for same-sex weddings, despite a law that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation.
It leaves one to wonder, in our attempt at perfection, if freedom of religion can make this law unenforceable, would a perfect world be gender neutral, gender blind or non-discriminatory to sexual orientation?
Since the creation of our democracy, many lines have been drawn and redrawn, interpretations made and remade.
Presumably, with advancements in science, medicine, and, with hopeful optimism, human behavior, whatsoever judgements may ascend will help us to form a better union.
Until then, and for the moment, if you will, can you imagine living in a perfect world? Would that place include an understanding that everyone, “We the People,” have a right to enjoy freedom, fairness and equality?