Costello: Accused? Guilty As Charged

Said it before, I'll say it again: Feminism's ultimate goal vis-a-vis higher ed (and eventually, lower ed, too) is the elimination of males from collegiate life, as much as possible, excepting *maybe* only those they deem to be 1000% on their "side". Even then, the number of men they'll be able to tolerate will be limited. Demonizing and pathologizing maleness is merely a means to this end. And it seems they have willingly complicit friends in high places ready to go along in an effort to make political hay from it. Somehow, I have a feeling it will all backfire on them in the end, but not until how many reputations have been trampled on, and in the more serious cases, lives ruined?

It all has a very McCarthy Era feel about it. And the vast majority of people hauled in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee, be it known by whatever names, were... men, of course. But back then, it was men accusing mostly other men of wrongdoing and summarily trying them in the court of public opinion without benefit of legal protection against slander, libel, etc. Relatedly, many don't seem aware that the vast majority of people brought before ecclesiastical courts in the 17th century accused of witchcraft were men who were being accused by neighbors (other men, typically) in an effort to get their land from them, since if a prosecution was successful, the accused was rewarded by him receiving the "guilty" party's land. The Salem Witch Scare, roughly 250 years prior to McCarthy, was a notable exception to this pattern, as those executed for witchcraft during that era were mostly female. However many more of both sexes were accused and by confessing (and the entailed loss of land), spared themselves death by hanging, but were imprisoned in terrible and sometimes fatal conditions.

At least it's something of a relief to know that in terms of consequences of various kinds of mass hysteria, this one doesn't entail execution, though it may feel like it to those being steam-rollered by the local campus feminist patrol and the appropriately cowed administration. But just like McCarthyism and the years of witch trials, this one also comes with the government's condoning.

Isn't this just the sort of thing we have a government to protect us from? At least that's my understanding of what the intent was back in 1787 when all those evil, awful males (white ones, no less!) sat down and cobbled together that, ummm, what is it called, ummm... Constitution... yeah, that's it, that's what it's called.

Too bad it doesn't get taken out for a spin much anymore. Oh well. But it's fun to talk about, isn't it? Speaking of which, some have asked themselves how is it that POTUS is a US Constitutional scholar but he seems fine with coloring outside the Constitutional lines whenever he wants to? Well, to be fair, virtually every other US president has colored outside the lines before him, pretty much at will. It's just that as time goes on, the distance they stray from the lines gets ever-greater. As a Con'l law scholar, undoubtedly Mr. O. knows what every other US Con'l law scholar also knows: that shortly after the US Con'n was inked, it was openly abrogated by none other than SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison in 1803. "How??", you say? Simply because the Con'n says no role or duty specifically enumerated as the gov't's is reserved to the states and/or the people at large (see Tenth amendment). Despite the Con's's mandating that SCOTUS is the highest court of the land, it does not say it has the right to interpret the Con'n merely by that virtue. The Con'n just says SCOTUS is the final *court* of appeal in most cases (exceptions involve ambassadors from other countries, etc.) and can manage/regulate the lower courts. Not surprisingly, after determining that it was the interpreter of the Con'n, it later ruled that the Tenth amendment was all but irrelevant (see here).

So, how could this mess have been avoided in the first place? If the founding fathers had tackled it head-on, there would not be any question of whether the Marshall court was justified in its self-exaltation. Or, an amendment could have been added to the Con'n two centuries ago declaring some other body to be the interpreter of the Con'n, or could have specifically given that role to SCOTUS. Instead, since 1803, what have we done to deal with this rather obvious clobbering of the US Con'n? Zilch.

Another blatant way to take the legal freedom from men (i.e., those not already held in slavery) without actually saying so was by declaring all men between certain ages to be members of the "federal militia" (see here). Relatedly, in 1903, an act was passed that finalized the matter of who ultimately would be in command of the state militias when he decided to be. Since presidents have used these laws already and not declared an end to their exercise of the authority granted them under these laws, the state of "activation" for men fitting the legal description of being members of state or the federal unorganized/reserve militias is still extant. And during the US Civil War, another law was passed making it clear than men formerly held in bondage were now also subject to these laws. Frying pan, fire.

To the best of my knowledge, these laws have not been challenged in recent courts, nor ever overturned by any court in the past at any level. I suspect this is why attempting to get the Military Selective Service Act (see here) nullified or changed to include women in a draft have not succeeded. The enabling legislation that the MSSA rides on (i.e., these various militia acts) has never itself been declared unconstitutional (and as I said above, in actuality, no court in the US ought to have this right until or unless the states and Congress amend the Con'n to make it "official" -- or to implement a different idea). So if that is the case, legislation that implements the provisions of the underlying acts are of course hunky-dory. As to why this fact may not have been mentioned in SCOTUS' decisions declaring the MSSA valid? Simply put, they don't have to explain themselves to anyone, or exhaustively render their reasoning and leave it open to scrutiny. SCOTUS can return decisions without comment if they so choose to, or write their opinions any way they feel like. "It's good to be king!"

Which now leads us back to the question of how can POTUS get away with all the stuff he does? The answer is that the US has been operating under a Con'n that was abrogated by one of its branches over 200 years ago, which is to say, we haven't been operating under one at all. Oh, SCOTUS goes through the motions, and POTUS and COTUS (Congress) give it lip service. But anyone paying attention already knows it. US men have been living in a state of constant conscription for over 200 years, and I'll bet over 99.9999% of us don't know it. (Until now, maybe...)

So, what degree of rights do men in military service have?

Explains a lot of stuff, once you are aware of these facts. One of those questions is "How is it men can get accused of crimes, slandered and libeled, receive no actual legal hearing or trial, and there seems so little they can do about it, nor does the gov't seem to care?" Suddenly, it becomes clear.