Barbara Mezeske: We need to accept in this country that change happens, and was meant to happen

Where to begin?

Let’s start with “originalism,” the idea that judicial interpretation of the American Constitution must be consistent with how the Constitution would have been understood when it was written. This point of view is supported by Justices Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett.

Originalism attempts to shoehorn the modern world into a box crafted in the late 18th century. Back then, slavery was practiced in the colonies, women could neither own property nor vote, media consisted of printed broadsheets or newspapers circulated by hand or by telegraph in Morse code. Firearms were almost exclusively muskets and flintlock pistols. Indigenous people were savages to be displaced by settlers. Most of the North American continent was unpolluted wilderness. Medical practice was primitive by today’s standards. So was science.

Change has happened during the 250 years since the founding of this nation. Benjamin Franklin once wrote: “Our new Constitution is now established, and has an appearance that promises permanency; but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” One might add to that “change.” Were he alive today, Franklin might add it to his list of certainties. He might also have something to say about the way the Constitution is being interpreted by our current Supreme Court.

Given the abolition of slavery, how ridiculous would it be today to count a Black American as three-fifths of a person? The Constitution needed the 19th Amendment to grant women the right to vote. The Constitution did not foresee anything like Facebook or Twitter, or cable channels dedicated to promoting a single political position. The framers could not have conceived of a weapon able to fire 45 bullets or more a minute. They could not have imagined school shootings becoming so commonplace that educators had to invent a drill to prepare students for them.

All of these developments have prompted political activity, legislation and subsequent litigation to control and regulate 20th century facts of life that demand action by government. After all, the whole intent of the founders, as expressed in the Preamble to the Constitution was “to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Justice, domestic tranquility and the general welfare look different today than they did in 1787 when the Constitution was ratified.

We face a climate crisis, and yet the Supreme Court has restricted the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency to regulate emissions from existing power plants. This flies in the face of science and of public will: Note that Holland recently replaced its coal-fired power plant with one powered by cleaner natural gas.

We have a crisis of gun violence, yet the court has struck down a 108-year-old New York law restricting the right to carry a concealed weapon.

And for Justice Clarence Thomas to take a swipe at access to contraception, same-sex marriage and same-sex relationships in such a very public way — it was part of his concurring opinion in the decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade — is extraordinarily out of touch with today’s world. Despite what he (and perhaps the 18th century founders as well) believes about sexual activity being restricted to married heterosexual people intending to produce babies, the truth is that sexual freedom is out of that 18th century box.

People have sex. Frequently. Birth control is essential to responsible sexual activity. Having the “birth control/protection” talk with our sons and daughters gives many parents peace of mind. Why threaten something that has shaped everyone’s lives for half a century, that has opened possibilities for women in business and sports, that has freed both men and women from facing unwanted pregnancy?

The same is true for same-sex marriage. Seven years after its legalization, how could you even begin to put that back into the 18th century box? Married couples are on each other’s insurance; they own homes and bank accounts jointly; they file taxes together; their lives are intertwined in all the ways that legal marriage allows. What disruption and grief would result from undoing all of that? Moreover, Thomas’ casual threat fuels anti-LGBTQ violence and legislation.

And yet five justices, three of them appointed by a president who subsequently resisted the peaceful transition of power, have made sweeping changes to American life, and threaten to make more.

Change is inevitable. If a conservative, nationalistic, Christian minority continues to pluck at the threads of American life, that change may come sooner than we like. If some of us persist in putting progress and inclusiveness back into that 18th century box, every one of us will have a stake in the outcome, and will face danger in the process.

— Community Columnist Barbara Mezeske is a retired teacher and resident of Park Township. She can be reached at bamezeske@gmail.com. 

This article originally appeared on The Holland Sentinel: Barbara Mezeske: We need to accept in this country that change happens, and was meant to happen