One Nation Under Money PDF

Preview

Summary

one nation under money podcast discussion...

Description

The podcast “One Nation Under Money” from More Perfect explains just that, that today’s society and culture is more or less dictated by one thing: money. The human hunger for money can be traced all the way back to when monetary systems started to form in society, but it wasn’t until 1964 that the use of the commerce clause, or that of the exploitation of money in government and law began. In 1887, Congress passed what is known as the commerce clause or Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 that states that the United States Congress shall have the power “to regulate commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” In 1964, it had its more famous uses in the case Katzenbach v. McClung, where the Supreme Court ruled that “Congress was within its power to use the commerce clause to forbid racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce.” It was interesting to note that Mr. McClung didn’t necessarily “support” segregation and he said that “the end of segregation was a higher right than that of the commerce clause…”, but he concluded with the phrase of a “zero sum” in reference to the fact that desegregating his restaurant also made him give up some of his rights as a restaurant owner. I disagree with this statement, as so did Jad Abumrad, in that the earning of rights in any case is a “net win” for everyone. It does bring up the question though; why didn’t the government just use the fourteenth amendment? The 14th amendment clearly states that all citizens have equal protection of the laws. The fact that the Supreme Court used the commerce clause to settle this case had a large domino affect there on after. In 1994, President Clinton passed the Violence Against Woman Act which increased investigation and therefore protection of any violent crimes against woman and allowed woman to sue their attackers in court. Christy Brzonkala was assaulted and raped in 1994 within her first couple weeks at college and after repeatedly telling superiors of these violent crimes against her, she dropped out. After dropping out Christy tried suing her attackers in court under the VAWA, and her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. Christy and her lawyer made the case that violence against woman has a huge negative affect on the economy. Eventually the court came to a decision did not rule in favor of Christy and said that the government was exceeding its powers under the commerce clause. My opinion here is simple: under no circumstance is it okay to abuse, assault, and rape any person and violators of this matter should be have extensive legal consequences. But this is not a matter of the economy and money, this is a matter of essential personal rights and safety. Assault and rape, in the Morrison case, is equal if not worse than segregation in the McClung case. I think that the commerce clause shouldn’t have been used in either situation, because using it then sets precedent for future cases like Christy’s where clearly there should have been legal consequences for the football players. This use or “misuse” of the commerce clause now is up for question with any future case that is brought to court. The gay cupcake wars, starting with the Klein family & Sweet Cakes and more recently Masterpiece Cakeshop is a good example of this. In both instances, a same-sex couple was denied a wedding cake based on the religious beliefs of the cake shop. This is similar, if not the same, as the McClung case where discrimination was occurring in a place of “commerce”. I think that using the commerce clause to dispute cases where civil rights are in play is a bad idea. Making justice about money isn’t always the best answer and the gay cupcake wars are a good example of this. In both instances, the couple could’ve gone to another cake shop and purchased

a wedding cake. But it’s more than money, it’s that these couples, who have the same rights as everyone else, were discriminated against and were put in severe danger. This isn’t something money can fix or should fix and if we make everything about money then there will be infinite questioning on what the commerce clause could and would apply to. Overall, I thought the podcast was very interesting and to hear from all sides and different opinions on the commerce clause was very educative. The commerce clause is part of the law and I think it’s use in most cases can be justified, but when disputing cases that are fundamental to history involving civil rights and discrimination, money and the commerce clause shouldn’t play a role as there are amendments and constitutional rights that everyone has that should come into play first....