‘Ignorance in High Places’

Earlier this month, in an address before the American Bar Assn., Atty. Gen. Meese criticized the Supreme Court for being too political and failing to rely solely on the Constitution in reaching its decisions.

A couple of days later The Times commented on Meese’s talk via an editorial titled, “Ignorance in High Places.” This incredibly biased commentary concluded, without any evidence whatever, that Meese was grossly ignorant concerning the historical developments following the Civil War that led to the enactment of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, and why various Supreme Court decisions were made over the years as a consequence of these amendments.

After sketchily reviewing some of this history, The Times editorial superciliously asked, “Shouldn’t the attorney general of the United States know this?” The suggestion that Ed Meese, our nation’s chief law enforcement officer--who for years was a university professor of constitutional law--has no knowledge of this widely known aspect of America’s constitutional history is patently absurd.

Anyone who heard or read the major part of his ABA talk would recognize that Meese is not ignorant of these historical developments but critical of them, and for good reason--as are hundreds of highly respected constitutional authorities. As constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead points out, “The 14th Amendment in particular has been a focal point in transferring power to the federal government. And through Supreme Court interpretations, this amendment has transformed the basic nature of the American system,” continually depriving individuals and the states of rights that the Constitution’s framers clearly intended them to have.

The Times editorial was at least partially right on one point, “Meese is angry because in the term just completed the U.S. Supreme Court decided four major religion cases on the side of a strict separation of church and state.” All that the Constitution says on this matter is that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Both the Constitution’s framers and early Supreme Court justices plainly observed that this amendment was intended solely to prevent the federal government from establishing a national church (like the Church of England), and that it gave no authority whatever to the federal government to interfere with religious activities within the states. In fact, many of the states, at the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, which begins with the First Amendment, had established state churches--actually supported by taxation--and for generations nobody suggested that the First Amendment had any bearing on such practices, since the Constitution left them strictly under the control of the individual states!

Only a gross distortion of the Constitution could result in such recent Supreme Court decisions. Many, if not most, constitutional authorities would agree with Meese when he said, “It seems fair to conclude that far too many of the court’s opinions were, on the whole, more policy choices than articulation of constitutional principles. The voting blocs, the arguments, all reveal a greater allegiance to what the court thinks constitutes sound policy than a deference to what the Constitution--its text and intention--demand.”

ROB SCRIBNER

Pacific Palisades