Hey! I got Constitutional rights, too, ya know.

By Joseph Walther

All Harry did was voice his agreement with those States that ban smoking in public places, including businesses such as bars and restaurants. It took no time at all for Rick, his friend—though I wouldn’t bet on it, now—to admonish him for his wicked, typically liberal, and politically felonious tendencies.

I swear… It was embarrassing. Rick’s wife of twenty plus years just wanted to disappear! Get a grip, Rick. Have a Valium… try to relax, for heaven’s sake.

Harry, sticking his face right square into Rick’s, loudly exclaimed his right NOT to be exposed to second hand smoke and his right of NOT having his and his family’s meal ruined by the appalling, revolting stench of burning cigarettes.

Rick, of course, retorted, “Be fruitful and multiply (well, OK, he didn’t use those exact words)! I live under the same fornicating Constitution as you do, you intellectually unremarkable person. (Rick used “moron” and he didn’t say, “fornicating,” either.) Loudly, he asked, “How come only your Constitutional rights count and mine don’t?”

I’ve known Rick and his wife, Joan, for close to twenty-five-years. I like Rick, but I wonder how the two of them have remained married all of these years. The only logical reason, at least in my mind, for their marital longevity is her enormous capacity for kindness when it comes to the lesser intellectually endowed.

Or, I guess I shouldn’t forget the fact that we’re all REALLY good at something and maybe Joan would rather keep it to herself. Could be, ya know!

Anyway, as soon as the fireworks started, she bolted up from the table and asked, “Joe (that’s me), can we go somewhere for a nice, quiet cup of coffee while these two imbeciles iron this out?” We left, had the coffee, and I dropped her off at her house a little later. As I drove off, I knew that I had my column for this week.

Before going on, I want you readers to understand that this is NOT about the ills or virtues of smoking. I have not smoked since 1983. It was my choice to stop. If any of you want to smoke, knock yourselves out. I don’t care one way or another. However, people who claim rights NOT guaranteed by the Constitution are getting on my nerves. I’m going to address it… RIGHT NOW.

First, let’s do away with all of the frilly semantics. Rights, constitutional or not, are only guaranteed by a collective willingness AND ability to defend them. If either of these is missing, “rights” become meaningless words, bouncing off the inside walls of people’s brains or useless writings on pieces of paper.

Second, while it is a nice thought for people to believe that God saw fit to endow us with these unalienable rights, we should be careful. Maybe that’s where they came from, but so far, no one has ever been able to locate a signed contract to that effect.

For the doubters, I can put you in touch with several people throughout this planet who have ample reason to believe that God (Christian or otherwise) has nothing to do with rights, human or otherwise. Just click on the link at the end of this piece and I’ll send you the list. Many of them are dead, but their next of kin can speak on their behalf.

Third, and perhaps a surprise to some, the Constitution is whatever five of the nine currently sitting justices say that it is—absolutists, Antonin Scalia and his associate, Clarence (Sir Echo) Thomas, notwithstanding.

And, these Justices (all of them) do not live in vacuums. They read newspapers, watch TV, listen to radio news and radio talk shows, have bowel movements, become cranky (especially if they miss too many bowel movements), and fart under the covers, just like the rest of us mortals.

Just as we all have our bad hair-days, they do, too. The difference is that, if a couple of them happen to be having a bad judicial hair-day at the time of a crucial ruling, we all pay the price.

They try to gauge the social impact of their rulings and it affects the way that they rule, even though we go to great lengths to pretend that it doesn’t. Sometimes the prevailing winds are conservative and sometimes they are liberal. Other times the winds just seem to swirl around the center. Still, at other times, the Court’s majority just screws up.

I’ve studied the United States Constitution for close to 33-years. I believe it to be a dynamic, fluid document; designed by its originators to address the concerns of their time, but with the ability to adapt to social changes over the centuries. They did make it possible to change it, you know. They made it difficult to do, but nonetheless, doable.

As many times as I’ve read this fantastic document, I have yet to read anything about a constitutional right to smoke. Another “alleged” right that I can’t seem to find in there is a constitutional right to assisted suicide. Also among the missing rights, are references to sexual rights: heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or asexual.

This last group couldn’t care less about having sex. You have my sympathies if you happen to be in a married relationship with one of these! Oh, yes, FAIR… you won’t find this word in the Constitution, either.

If a State, through the infinite wisdom of its duly elected legislative assembly, decides to prohibit smoking in public places or ban it altogether, so be it. If the State, likewise, bans assisted suicides, doctor assisted or otherwise, so be it. Ditto for anything else not specifically mentioned by the Constitution.

People who disagree have the right to petition their elected officials and have things changed back to the way they were. Good luck! For those who think the whole thing is just so, um… unfair, see the paragraph above this one.

For information purposes, though, four Justices must vote to hear a case before the Supreme Court will agree to deal with the issue. If this happens, they’ll place the matter on the Court’s docket. The Justices will have their respective law clerks research the legal stuff, concentrating on reasons for a “yea” or “nay,” depending on whether the boss winked with the left eye, right eye, or both eyes.

No matter how the vote ultimately goes, all nine of the Judges will look stern and concerned, even Clarence, assuming one of the other Justices reminds him. And, after having checked with their respective social focus groups for social impact, they’ll issue a ruling in accordance with the prevailing political winds as reported by FOX, MSNBC, CNN, Larry King, Oprah, and Dr. Phil. With any luck, this will all happen during a single lifetime.

At times, most of the time, in fact, they’d rather not touch some issues, even with a ten-foot pole—for whichever reason. This is when the Justices take their sick days. They simply can’t find the four Justices necessary to get the case on the Court’s docket (wink… wink). They can refuse to hear cases and they don’t have to give a reason, either.

I’ve had the privilege of meeting and speaking with Justices Scalia—a few months ago at a lecture—and Breyer, in 1995 during a lecture at Boston College. I recall meeting a much younger looking Samuel Alito when he joined the U. S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, in 1990. He joined the Supreme Court in 2006.

I don’t care much for Justice Scalia. He struck me as a dyed-in-the-wool “originalist” thug who seems not to understand that we cannot permit declarations of yesteryear, forever frozen in the past, to control circumstances arising out of a constantly evolving future. I think this view of his probably explains his lower back pains and the scrape marks on the knuckles of both his hands.

What scares me even more about Justice Scalia is that his opinions, practically speaking, represent two votes on the Supreme Court. His buddy, Clarence (Yeah, what he said!) Thomas, has voted with him on every issue since he (Clarence) arrived on the Court in 1991.

Have you ever noticed that Clarence Thomas has that perpetual, dummy-like facial expression… you know, like he just fell off of Edgar Bergen’s lap? Then again, maybe it’s just me, but sometimes I think he’d sit right up and yip for one of those treats.

The diametric opposite of Antonin Scalia is Justice Stephen Breyer. He explains his logic flawlessly. He’s eloquent in his delivery, and he can disagree with people without condescending. Sometimes I disagree with his interpretations… well, actually, I almost never… Oh, alright! I NEVER agree with his interpretations, but I admire and respect him immensely.

When you are in a room with Justice Scalia, he often tends to make you feel—I’m sure it’s intentional on his part—as though he’s the most important person in the room. When you are in a room with Justice Breyer, he tends to make you feel—quite naturally, on his part—as though YOU are the most important person in the room.

As for Justice Alito, I’m indifferent. He’s a nice enough person and a competent legal mind. He’ll be good for the Supreme Court. But, my God, is he ever boring. If he were a staff shrink at a mental hospital, the suicide rate would increase. They’d ask him to leave for depressing the staff.

I’ve been a bit hard on the Supremes, so let me end this with a quote. Maybe you’ll understand why.

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated. . .by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of this oppression upon us.”—Abraham Lincoln

Even though there’s still nothing in there about smoking or assisted suicide, the question that we all should be asking ourselves, the United States Congress, the President of the United States, and the United States Supreme Court is, “What in the hell’s happened over the past twenty-years?”

Joseph Walther is a freelance writer and publisher of The True Facts. Copyright laws apply to all material on this site. Send your comments. Just click here.