26 The following "freedoms" and "rights" are, among others, created or expanded by the Constitution: (1) Freedom from "historic group discrimination, public or private" (Article I, Section 3); (2) "Right" to "[privacy," including the "right of the individual to decide whether to procreate or to bear a child" (Id., Section 4); (3) Freedom from "[p]olitical surveillance" (Id.); (4) The "right...to fair and just treatment in... legislative and executive investigations" (Article I, Section 5); (5) The "right to alter, reform, or abolish" the form of government established by the Constitution (Id., Section 22); (6) "The State shall guarantee equality of educational opportunity in public educational institutions," in default of which the State may be sued (Article VI, Section 1(B)); (7) "Each person has the right to a clean and healthful environment" and may "enforce these rights and duties against any party, public or private, through appropriate legal proceedings... (Article IX, Section 2(C)); (8) The "right to strike" by private or public workers (Article XII, Section 1); and (9) The "right to employment or, "if unable to work, an income sufficient to meet basic human needs" (Article I, Section 20). 27 All Sections of this Article [Bill of Rights] shall be self-executing" (Article I, Section 24). July/August 1982 Volume 6 Number 6 STEF YOUR STUFF ALL OVER TOWN! "E.g., Transcript, April 27, 1982, p. 89: "DELEGATE:...I think that we are still speaking of lawyers as though they are from outer space. SPEAKER: They are, they are." Transcript, April 29, 1982, pp. 128-29: "DELEGATE:...I just don't happen to be one of those who worships at the shrine of the legalistic mind. I would hate to see use move into worshipping at that shrine....I think that would be reprehensible." Transcript, April 30, 1982, p. 196: "DELE GATE:... It appears to me that all of our government employees, whether they be judges or governors or legislators, if we cannot afford to pay them the salaries that we have been giving them, then they should take a salary cut. And frankly, I think that given what is happening. they get richer and we get poorer, that is the very reason that I opposed having more judges and I want fewer judges...." Transcript, April 30, 1982, p. 197: "DELEGATE: If you are going to protect the judges, why aren't you going to protect the street sweepers and say the same thing about them? Who is first among equals?" 29The State with its institutions belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever a government fails to serve its people, they may exercise their inalienable right to alter, reform, or abol ish it." (Article I, Section 22). "The "right to change," according to the Bill of Rights Committee, may be exercised "by any expedient means" (Committee Report, May 22, 1982, unnumbered page 23). The language is taken from the Maryland Declaration of Rights, Article I (1867). It appears to stem initially from the Declaration of Independence ("the right of the People to alter or to abolish [any form of Government])." That document, of course, was supplanted by the U.S. Constitution. 31The "right to change" clause clearly violates Article IV of the Federal Constitution ("The United States shall guarantee to every State in the, Union a Republican Form of Government....") (Section 4). The latter is the "supreme law of the land" (Id., Section 2). There is no "inalienable right" to revolution, e.g., Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700, 729 (1969). The "sudden impulses of mere majorities" cannot change a democratic form of gov. ernment. Duncan v. McCall, 139 U.S. 449, 456 (1890). Further, the Maryland Court of Appeals has held unenforcable and invalid the Article in its 1867 Declaration of Rights on which the Committee based Section 22 in the proposed Bill of Rights. Braverman v. Bar Ass'n, 209 Md. 326, 121 A.2d 472, 482 (1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 830 (1956). BAR BUSINESS 1232 36th ST.. NW RESERVATIONS: 965-1789 Division Steering Committee The following candidates were certified as duly elected members of the Division Steering Committees as designated below. Each new steering committee member will serve a two-year term. The term of office commences on July 1, 1982, and terminates on June 30, 1984. NEW COLUMBIA CONSTITUTION: COURTS OULAHAN* Citizens of the District of Columbia have taken significant steps toward achieving statehood for the District of Columbia. In early 1982 a proposed constitution for the state of "New Columbia" was drafted. In November of that year voters in the District by a narrow margin adopted the proposed constitution, leaving but one major obstacle to the achievement of statehood: congressional and presidential acceptance of the New Columbia Constitution. In this Article, the author, an elected Constitutional Convention delegate, examines the preamble and Bill of Rights of the New Columbia Constitution. He argues that the proposed Bill of Rights represents an unwarranted and ill-advised expansion of the individual rights now protected by the United States Constitution and that this expansion fatally restricts state powers necessary for modern governance. Enactment of this Bill of Rights, according to the author, would preclude the new state from being politically or economically viable. The author concludes, therefore, that the Bill of Rights alone may well persuade Congress that the New Columbia Constitution as drafted does not meet the needs of good government or even of statehood. Introduction TABLE OF CONTENTS 636 Member, District of Columbia and Ohio Bars. B.S., 1942, Haverford College; J.D., 1948, Yale Law School. The author, a native Washingtonian, has practiced law in the District of Columbia since his graduation from law school. In 1981, he was elected as a delegate to the District of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention. Subsequently he participated in the drafting of the proposed New Columbia Constitution, and served as a member of the Judiciary Committee. He was one of two Convention delegates who voted against the document as drafted, while four abstained. The author was assisted in the preparation of this Article by Bernard J. Sussman, Esq., a 1979 graduate of the Washington College of Law, The American University, and by Worth C. Hicks, a paralegal assistant. Appreciation is expressed for the assistance rendered by the staff of The American University Law Review. 635 |