« Cass Sunstein: The Harvard Lampoon Years | Main | The No-Longer Reluctant Blogger Says Good-Bye »
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Silent Constitutional Crisis?
I recently wrapped up my Con Law II (civil liberties) course here at Georgia. We ended the semester by spending a couple of days discussing the religion in schools cases including Lee v. Weisman (prohibiting clergy-led prayer at public school graduations) and Santa Fe Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Doe (holding that a system providing for student-led prayer at school football games was unconstitutional).
This was my third time teaching this material and each time the classes have ended with a swarm of students meeting me at the podium. Student after student tells me that they went to a public high school (usually in the South) and they had a minister lead a prayer at their graduation or they had a school-sponsored baccalaureate with sermons and prayers. Just as many of them had prayers before school football games. The students are confused. They want to know how their school could do this after the Supreme Court found such actions to be unconstitutional. They often assume that there is some subtle distinction between what their school did and what the Court held violated the Constitution, and they're eager for me to explain. I can think of no other topic where my answers are so direct and unqualified. "That was very likely unconstitutional," I tell them, and your school officials are simply waiting for someone to formally complain or even to sue before changing their ways.
I've found this to be an interesting teaching moment -- one that is not about the Establishment Clause but about the sometimes questionable influence of the Court's words. When my class read Brown v. Board of Education earlier in the semester, we talked about the ten-year saga that followed before the Court's decision was put into action. The story of the power struggle between the states and the federal government during desegregation is riveting, and we're all familiar with the incredible show of force that was ultimately necessary to maintain the integrity of the Court's role as final interpreter of the Constitution. Today, however, there are repeated acts of defiance quietly going on in public schools all across the country when it comes to these school prayer cases. I'm wondering if there are more examples in other areas of the law where there has been such a broad and sustained rejection of the Court's rulings. It can make you question exactly what it means when the Court declares: "It is so ordered."
Posted by Sonja West on December 2, 2008 at 10:18 AM in Constitutional thoughts | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef0105362fb9bd970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Silent Constitutional Crisis?:
» Unconstitutional Confusion: An Explanation for Children and Others from Simple Justice
One of the conversations that criminal defense lawyers have with some regularity, falling far behind the "how can you represent those people" one and the "do you represent anyone famous" one, is the one where a thoughtful person with a single malt S... [Read More]
Tracked on Dec 3, 2008 6:36:56 AM
Comments
The most blatant example I can think of is the Marshall Trilogy, in which Chief Justice Marshall shaped much of Federal Indian Law. The Court held that tribes are sovereign, and specifically that Georgia law was not applicable within the Cherokee nation.
Georgia ignored the ruling, and President Jackson reportedly said "John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!"
Posted by: JP | Dec 2, 2008 12:02:53 PM
"It is so ordered." Hm. I might be mistaken, but doesn't the order as such only refer to the specific case at hand?
Also, there is defiance and defiance. Continuing prayers at school as long as nobody complains doesn't strike me to be on the same level as the desegragation cases. Volenti non fit inuria ...
(yes, I know, people might be too afraid to speak out, but parents often "love" to fight with schools and my guess is that blacks speaking out against segregation needed a lot more courage back then (KKK etc) ...)
BTW, the German Constitutional Court decided that crucifixes in Bavarian state schools were unconstitutional(small crosses could remain). To this day, they often are only taken down in the classes where a student (or rather his parents) does object ... Constitutional crisis in law abiding Germany ?!
Posted by: Positroll | Dec 2, 2008 1:20:13 PM
Most schools still have the daily recitation of the pledge of allegiance, at least all the schools did that I went to. That pretty blatantly ignores Barnette does it not?
Posted by: Student | Dec 2, 2008 1:47:10 PM
Barnette did not prohibit the recitation of the Pledge. It held only that students could not be compelled to participate and had to be permitted to opt-out. Although every so often you hear a story about a teacher who not only does not allow the opt-out, but calls out the objecting student and does things such as making her stand in front of the room to lead the Pledge (this actually happened about 10 years ago, somewhere in California).
Posted by: Howard Wasserman | Dec 2, 2008 2:01:24 PM
The Bavarians not only continue to hang crucifixes in public schools, but also continue group chants of "Sieg Heil!" and other Nazi repression.
Why not? The Allies after WWII not only tolerated, but coddled and rewarded surviving Nazi officials, from mayors and schoolmasters to physicists, throughout the world.
Posted by: jimbino | Dec 2, 2008 2:41:17 PM
There is no defiance. The Supreme Court only decides the cases and controversies before it. Until someone does in fact sue, the schools in question aren't doing anything illegal.[
Posted by: BD | Dec 2, 2008 10:19:43 PM
I am confused about this, but are some of the comments implying that if I did something that the supreme court say is illegal but no one reports me or take action against me, I didn't break the law?
Or are they saying since individual cases are different in terms of specifics from the one that the supreme court decided, it's still unknown if I did break the law?
Or is it a matter of both?
Posted by: Henry | Dec 3, 2008 9:13:01 AM
Granholm - the interstate shipment of wine case - seems to be widely disregarded by states that continue to prohibit it. Although, in these cases, it seems that each state has a slightly different system, so they are probably arguing that their system doesn't fall under that case's holding.
Posted by: David S. Cohen | Dec 3, 2008 12:08:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.