history is the precedent

  The city states attorney for Baltimore is a man named Ivan Bates. I rather like his policies and his thinking. He is a Democrat. He does rub his fellow Democrats in the city leadership the wrong way at times. That's because of his policies. He tends to have those more conservative values associated with the Republicans, including myself. He is often seen on television in the local news for his activism in the community. He is out and about in the community quite frequently. I believe he is sticking true to his background. He served in the Army following in his father's footsteps. He became an attorney and established a mid-sized law firm in Baltimore. All in all, quite successful. Oh, I forgot to mention that he is a black man because that doesn't concern me, but it's supposed to be important to mention that these days. So, I'll raise my virtue signaling flag! 

  Now I've seen Mr. Bates on television many times. In his latest appearance he was taking a walk through the city's neighborhoods where the crime rates are highest. He was accompanied by a host of individuals. What struck me about that was when he stopped to talk to the news reporters. He was telling them how he saw "quality of life" violations just about every forty or fifty feet. He was concerned about that as he stated how can you expect the people to care about their neighborhoods when this is allowed to continue. He explained just what violations he was talking about. Many are what we once called crimes of moral turpitude. Those crimes are defined as, "an act or behavior that gravely violates the sentiment or accepted standard of the community." Not my words, a legal definition taught in law schools. The state of California defines those as, "an act of baseless, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes to his fellowman, or to the society in general, contrary to the accepted and customary rule of right and duty between man and man." That passage from the state of California judicial system. 

  As I was reading those passages, doing my research as it where, I was warned to not confuse that with "social morality." Social morality was defined as, "a set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups." They are the things that Ivan Bates was describing as "quality of life issues." Social morality is an everchanging set of standards. That was an explanation I read concerning why you can't confuse the two. Well, I just have to say, you can't call something a standard if you keep changing it. Social morality has always had a standard and that standard is the reason for establishing moral turpitude laws. Laws that we change according to what is acceptable in the society. 

  The establishment of justice is the goal of law. What is justice? On the surface justice simply is being treated fairly. The political philosopher John Locke was perhaps the greatest inspiration for the establishment of our republic as anyone else in history. His theories and ideas are quite evident throughout all our founding documents. He wasn't the first to have these thoughts however as others inspired him. John Locke spoke of natural rights. They were the obvious ones we have all heard many times. Life, liberty and the pursuit of (happiness) although he said, property. Yes, property brings happiness. John Locke knew we all want stuff; we need stuff and stuff makes us happy. Another way to say that is, money. The right to life, the right to live freely. 

  Locke goes on to explain that in order to achieve these things we have to surrender a certain degree of our "rights" to government. Those rights involve morality. Morality must be established within the society in order for that society to function in an equitable fashion for everyone. John Locke stated that the establishment of a religion as a moral basis wasn't a necessity. Morality can be based solely on our natural rights. He argued that God's rights and laws are only discoverable through God. Natural rights are discoverable through reason alone. Many scholars have debated all of this for centuries. I contend the debate will continue for an infinite period of time. Only when man is no more will that debate end. 

  The question becomes what "moral" issues should the government have the final say upon? If the government can only legislate what is acceptable to the public in general, how do we determine that?  What I find completely acceptable may be totally repulsive to others. How do we determine who is right, who has that right, or if it qualifies as a right? Do I have the right to do as I please as long as that behavior doesn't cause any physical harm to others? We certainly have thousands of laws that indicate otherwise. Crimes of moral turpitude not to be confused social morality. Ivan Bates calls them "quality of life" issues. Those issues that affect others enjoyment of the environment in which they live. You can't smoke cigarettes inside buildings because of the health issue. That is the official government explanation. I'd suggest it came about as a result of a "quality of life" issue. Your smoke is bothering me. 

  Some nations, most notably Muslim nations, use their religious texts as the basis for law. The whole quality of life issue is easily settled in a court of law. This is what the book says! These laws come from a divine power higher than any man-made laws. They are enforced by divine power! The government is simply acting on behalf of that deity. You have no right whatsoever to disagree or violate those laws in any way, shape or form. Although not a part of the original constitution the first amendment to that document was the establishment clause. It was to address the concerns of minority religious groups in the United States. To that end it was written that the federal government shall not establish a state religion. " Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion" is the wording. It's important to understand that that law only applies to the federal government, to the congress. It does not apply to the individual states. A precept that went unchallenged for about 150 years. That's why individual states had laws that we called "blue laws" and other holidays and observances that were related to Christianity.  There were in keeping with custom and traditions generally accepted in society. 

  And that is what Ivan Bates calls "quality of life." Is it an individua thing or a societal thing? Is it a governmental issue as well? Yes, they are all interrelated. We are currently preparing for and deciding upon our next president. That decision will come down to those "quality of life" issues that are most important to us as individuals. That is who we will ultimately vote for. The president and by extension the controlling party in congress will establish our social morality. Once a precedent is set it takes the Supreme Court to overrule that. Between 1798 and 2020 the court issued 25,544 opinions and judgements. They overruled precedents one hundred and forty-five times, just about 1/2 of one percent.    So, yeah, rarely does that happen. It's important to note that the majority of those overturned have been done since 1954. When we change precedence, we change social morality. The most famous of these changes would be Plessy v Ferguson (separate but equal) and Roe V Wade (abortion). There are a number of others concerning labor, homosexual intercourse and interracial marriages. All being moral issues. 

  Are moral issues and quality of life issues the same thing? Yes, in my opinion they are indeed the same thing. The morality of our nation, the United States of America has generally been established based on Judeo-Christian teachings and values. Yes, we have the establishment clause to prevent those teachings and texts from creating civil and criminal law. Still, the majority of the people adhere to those basic principles and precepts regarding what is moral and what is not. We are seeing a shift in that today. The court must stay in line with that shifting morality. But how are we then to establish social morality? The only recourse is through the vote. What political parties call their platform. Do we completely abandon the old? Rewrite that constitution for a new day? That is exactly what some propose, an establishment of a new social morality. Are we going to end the greatest experiment in government altogether. Is it the end of the Republic? If history is the precedent, that is what the future holds.