By Laura Barron-Lopez
Daily Titan News Director
Published: September 16, 2009

By Laura Barron-Lopez

Daily Titan Staff Writer

September 17, 1787, is the day 35 revolutionary men signed the U.S. Constitution, a historical text that many Americans today take for granted. In honor of the Constitution and in the hopes that students will take notice of the document that this country is built upon, Cal State Fullerton holds an annual Constitution week. Within this week, political scientists, journalists and elected officials give discussions on topics all related to constitutional law, some specifically addressing California.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the new UCI Law School, gave a lecture Monday on the issue of the Robert’s Court, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor and the future of constitutional law. Chemerinsky received his B.S. from Northwestern University, has written 6 books and over 100 law reviews, and has argued numerous appellate cases including in the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Chemerinsky’s lecture was clear and intellectually stimulating. Although I am aware of the Robert’s Courts actions, I hadn’t thought about it on those terms. It all seemed to be a wake-up call,” Scott Spitzer, assistant professor of political science said.

The way in which Chemerinsky laid before his audience the Robert’s Court and the future of the constitution was intriguing and somewhat raw.

“Don’t think about it in legal abstractions but about how it affects people. How it affects you,” Chemerinsky said, regarding the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

Within this court resides four conservative justices: John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito and four liberal justices: John Stevens, Ruth Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. This leaves one justice left, Anthony Kennedy, who is the swing vote. He, however, “sides more with the conservative justices and votes in the majority more than any justice on the court,” Chemerinsky said.

Given these facts, Chemerinsky explained it “honestly should be called the Kennedy Court.”

In order to communicate how significant an impact the Supreme Court’s decisions have on every American, Chemerinsky discussed five central issues that will change the course of this country and its Constitution. These five issues are: abortion, affirmative action, campaign finance, the Second Amendment and separation of church and state.

When explaining the court’s stance on abortion and what the ruling would be if it were brought before them, Chemerinsky used facts.

“In the 1992 case Planned Parenthood v. Casey, there was a 5-4 margin to overturn Roe v. Wade. Kennedy changed his mind at the last minute, however, due to Blackmun, a justice on the minority side, who showed him letters from nuns in favor of Roe v. Wade. After this, Kennedy switched sides and Roe v. Wade was upheld.”

Now, however, justices have come and gone, Blackmun being one, and when the case of abortion reaches the Supreme Court, which is predicted will be soon and with Kennedy voting on the conservative side more often than not, Chemerinsky feels that “Roe v. Wade will be overturned.”

The next issue addressed was affirmative action, which many minority students can thank for being the reason for their acceptance to a university. Already two cases have recently been brought forward to the Supreme Court regarding affirmative action. They were similar cases one from Seattle, Wash. and another from Louisville, Ky. brought forth in 2007. They argued that a student should not be distributed among schools based on ethnicity. They won.

“The Supreme Court again voted a 5-4 margin that it was unconstitutional to distribute students based on race,” Chemerinsky said. In response to the public who felt that this ruling went against the constitutional law of affirmative action, Robert’s response was, “Diversity is not a compelling government interest.”

Now, for the campaign finance law Chemerinsky first explained the background, “In 1907, Congress passed a law prohibiting corporations and unions from giving money to candidates running for election. In 1974 another law passed prohibiting corporations and unions from taking out ads against those running in elections. Ads can’t be shown 30 days before a primary and 60 days before the general election.”

However, Chemerinsky went on to explain, “Corporations exist to make money for the shareholders who own them,” and now a case has been brought before the Supreme Court against a corporation who violated the Campaign finance law by showing a degrading ad against Hilary Clinton when she was running. The result in all likelihood will result in favor of the corporations Chemerinsky confirmed due to the argument that, “Corporations have the First Amendment right to give as much money to candidates as they want to. This will dramatically change elections in the U.S.”

“The language of the Second Amendment is an enigma,” Chemerinsky explained, that applies only to state and national militia. In 2008, the Supreme Court reached a decision on the case District of Columbia v. Heller that these citizen’s Second Amendment rights were being violated by legislation passed by Washington, D.C. enforcing gun control. The court sided in favor of the citizens.

“Over the last decade there are now more justices that feel we shouldn’t separate church and state,” Chemerinsky stated.

Yet, the First Amendment states, “Congress cannot pass any law making any religion the religion of the United States.”

In 2005, Chemerinsky argued a case before the Supreme Court, Van Orden v. Perry, on the side of Van Orden who argued that a Ten Commandments monument on the Texas state capitol building’s grounds was unconstitutional. Having the monument on the capitol grounds would imply endorsement of a specific religion.

Chemerinsky stated that during the hearings, Justice Samuel Alita said to him, “If your client doesn’t like it, he can look the other way.”

Furthermore, Chemerinsky said, “Obama and Sonia Sotomayor are unlikely to change the ideology of the Supreme Court … The Constitution is often not representative of the mood of the country, (but) that’s why we have the Supreme Court to uphold it.”

The majority of the audience were adults, but the few students who attended gave mixed reactions.

Rene Fortini, an undeclared sophmore at CSUF, expressed her view of the lecture, “I don’t think those laws will be changed by the Supreme Court because our generation and generations to come are more liberal than conservative.”

Ashley Mcgee, a CSUF freshman entertainment studies major said, “It’s going to be scary if the issues he discussed come before the Court, given the conservative majority.”

Spitzer said, “The two issues that concerned me the most were the church and state and the campaign finance ones. I really believe as an American-Jew that there should be a separation of church and state, and no one has the right to tell me or my kids what religion to practice. I realized listening to this lecture that the court won’t be where I look to make headway.”

“The Constitution has played the role of a civil religion in our country. It was a brilliant choice to write it as a constitution rather than a statute for it was meant to endure for ages to come,” said Chemerinsky.