Washminster

Washminster
Washminster
Showing posts with label US v Windsor. Show all posts
Showing posts with label US v Windsor. Show all posts

Thursday, 9 January 2014

APG Conference


I have returned from an excellent conference held in Oxford. The American Politics Group has its annual conference early in January each year. Last year we met in Leicester; and in 2012 in Manchester. (Previous posts here, here, and here.)

This year's conference theme was " The 50th Anniversary of Lyndon B Johnson's 'Great Society'". Professor Richard Blackett got the conference to a great start on Sunday with a lecture on "The Long Struggle". It give a fascinating insight to the 19th Century struggles for racial equality.

Many papers dealt with LBJ, but there were also papers on other areas of American politics and political history. I gave a paper on the 1974 Election at which the Democrats made sizeable gains in the wake of the Watergate Affair. While I dealt with the short term context and the details of the results - I also looked at how the policies of LBJ had set in train events which has had an effect on the election 10 years later.

There was a host of excellent papers. The trouble with conference like that, is that there is so much that it is impossible to get to hear all the papers and the following discussion. Hence I was at another session when Ursula Hackett delivered her paper, which won the Neustadt Postgraduate Paper Prize. I have subsequently read the paper - and it provides an excellent analysis of the different meanings which have been attached to LBJ's phrase.

There were for me many highlights. As a law lecturer I enjoyed the panel on law issues - which ranged from a discussion of the approach taken by Supreme Court Justice Kennedy in the recent ruling on the Defense of Marriage Act in US v Windsor (Helen Knowles); though the thwarted Bork nomination to the Supreme Court (Joe Ryan-Hume, who is doing a Ph.D. at Glasgow University and who will soon be taking up a Library of Congress research fellowship)) and the idea of the "lost constitution" in the philosophy of the Tea Party in the USA and Britain's UKIP (Jamie Fletcher).

Kevin Baron presented a very good paper on Presidential vetoes - which has prompted me to think about the issue for my own research. Patrick Andelic also gave a paper on the Watergate Babies - and I look forward to attending the conference at the Rothermere American Institute which he is organising about Watergate. Tom Packer gave a fascinating presentation about Jesse Helms and his response to the Great Society measures.

...and there was so much more! A great way to start the year!!!!

Thursday, 4 July 2013

Independence Day



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

My great fear is that this sacred day has become, for some, a day of mindless flag waving - the celebration of a secular cult of "America". As the famous words quoted above make clear - it should be about the revolutionary ideas which led to the establishment of the United States.

"All men are created equal" - an idea which was revolutionary. The Romans had their slaves. In the Middle Ages feudalism was based on a hierarchy with Monarchs at the top and unfree people at the base. The British Parliament was divided into two Chambers - one for the Lords and one for the representatives of the "Commons" - but only a tiny proportion of the people had a vote.


Of course, the implications of this revolutionary idea were resisted. The USA retained slaves - and the last few days have just seen the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg - afterwards on the site of the battle, Lincoln spoke of "the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.". Today, slavery continues to exist. Inequality has increased - while a very rich, very powerful elite grow ever richer and are able to "buy" political influence (and avoid contributing to the 'common wealth') - the rest of us have to work harder, for longer (if we can get a job in the mess that has been left after the (predictable) failure of neo-liberal economic theories). There are unforgiveable disparities between the life expectancies of the rich and the poor - even within the "wealthy" countries. It is time to renew again the fight for "equality".

I have to admit to being angered by those who boast of their 'conservatism' and claim to be the inheritors of the spirit (and Constitution) of the Founding Fathers. They mouth the words, but deny its application. America was founded on the principle of "Equality". I was so pleased to hear the rationale given in US v Windsor.

"DOMA seeks to injure the very class New York seeks to protect. By doing so it violates basic due process and equal protection principles applicable to the Federal Government. See U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U. S. 497 (1954).  The Constitution’s guarantee of equality “must at the very least mean that a bare congressional desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot” justify disparate treatment of that group. Depart­ment of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528, 534–535 (1973). In determining whether a law is motived by an improper animus or purpose, “‘[d]iscriminations of an unusual character’” especially require careful consideration. Supra, at 19 (quoting Romer, supra, at 633).  DOMA cannot survive under these principles."

We need to face down those who claim to be constitutionalists, who actually reject the principles which motivated the founding fathers.

The other principle central to the Founding Fathers' thought (also rejected by these people) is the idea of the positive value of 'government'.  The Declaration of Independence puts at the heart of its argument the idea that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men" - and the Constitution's preamble states "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America"

Happy Independence Day!