Court of Fools: Episode 3

Episode 3: Felix Montes-Rodriguez v. People of the State of CO

Colorado Supreme Court

Year: 2010
Majority: Michael L. Bender
Joined by: Gregory J. Hobbs, Jr.
                Mary Mullarkey
                Alex J. Martinez
Dissent: Nathan B. Coats
Joined by: Nancy E. Rice
                Allison Eid




This case came about when Felix Montes-Rodriguez applied for a vehicle loan using his name and address, but a social security number belonging to someone else. He was originally convicted under Colorado's criminal impersonation statute and the case was appealed, eventually reaching the state's supreme court.

The conviction was overturned because the court held that Montes-Rodriguez did not "assume a false or fictitious identity or capacity". The court goes on to say, "we hold that one assumes a false or fictitious capacity in violation of the statute when he or she assumes a false legal qualification, power, fitness, or role," and that "the prosecution failed to present evidence that a social security number gives one the legal qualification, fitness, or power to receive a loan." Essentially their argument is that the SSN was required by the bank and not the law in order to receive the loan. This is utterly ridiculous. Not every qualification, power, fitness or role is issued by or required by the government. The bank might also require that you show proof of continuous employment. If you submit a resume belonging to someone else, is that not assuming a false role? Apparently not in Colorado since the government doesn't require employment verification for a loan.

This is an extremely bad decision in that it limits the ways in which identity theft and impersonation can be prosecuted. Now as long as someone uses their own name and address, they can steal whatever other information they need to get what they want.

~ Another Guy

Court of Fools: Episode 2

Episode 2: Everson v. Board of Education

Year: 1947
Majority: Hugo Black

Vinson Court in 1953*

Joined by: Fred M. Vinson
                 Stanley F. Reed
                 William O. Douglas
                 Frank Murphy
Dissent: Robert H. Jackson
Joined by: Felix Frankfurter
Additional Dissent: Wiley B. Rutledge
Joined by: Felix Frankfurter
                 Robert H. Jackson
                 Harold H. Burton

This is an interesting case in that all of the Justices seemed to agree on a poor interpretation of the Constitution. Not only was their interpretation poor in that it goes beyond what the document actually contains, but the impacts of the interpretation were muddied enough that they couldn't even agree on how to apply it.

The case centered around a New Jersey school district that used tax money to reimburse parents for the cost of sending their children to school via public transportation. This reimbursement went to parents of children who attended both public schools and private religious schools. A taxpayer in the district sued arguing that this violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The Court ruled 5-4 that the New Jersey program did not violate the Constitution, which is the right call. However, the opinions issued in the case set an unfortunate precedent regarding the establishment clause.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to the Danbury Baptist associate in Connecticut in which he sought to assure them that even though the First Amendment only mentioned Congress, they should not fear religious repression in their state. In that letter he first wrote about the now famous "wall of separation between Church & State". In 1947, Black functionally wrote that line into the Constitution in the majority opinion. Interestingly enough, all of the dissenters also agreed with his assessment of the establishment clause.

Yet, the Constitution did not create this wall, America was a religious nation from the beginning and in fact Jefferson himself mentions our "Creator" and "Nature's God". The idea was to eliminate the religious turmoil and oppression that had caused many of the original colonists to leave Europe. It is a fine line between establishing a national religion and merely supporting the religious foundations that have been with this country since its birth. It would seem that the idea of a "wall" would be a way of removing the need to walk that line and minimize the chances that the government would cross into establishment territory by cordoning off religion entirely. That "wall" was erected by all nine members of the Court.

The disagreement was over how that wall should be applied with regards to the New Jersey program. The majority felt that the program was not an establishment of religion and merely support for citizens who were engaged in their own religious practices. However, the dissenters pointed out that a "wall" between Church and State should surely prohibit New Jersey from using government money to aid students in getting "the very thing which they are sent to the particular school to secure, namely, religious training and teaching." It is amazing that the majority would make up a new component to the Constitution and then ignore it in the very same opinion. While all of the Justices were mistaken in their zeal to erect the "wall", at least the dissenters had the right idea about what a wall actually is.

~ Another Guy

*This picture was taken after two of the Justices had been replaced. I apologize to Justices Tom Clark and Sherman Minton but they will just have to stand in for Rutledge and Murphy.

Court of Fools: Episode 1

In this new series, I will be highlighting examples of ridiculousness from our court system.

Episode 1: Wickard v. Filburn

Robert H. Jackson authored the majority opinion

Year: 1942 
Majority: Robert H. Jackson 
Joined By: Harlan F. Stone
                 Owen J. Roberts
                 Hugo Black
                 Stanley F. Reed
                 Felix Frankfurter
                 William O. Douglass
                 Frank Murphy
                 James F. Byrnes 
Concurrence: None 
Dissent: None

During the Great Depression, the government imposed a limit on the number of acres that a farmer could use to grow wheat in order to prop up the market price. A farmer by the name of Roscoe Filburn was growing more than the allowed acreage. He argued that since he was only using the wheat for consumption on his farm as chicken feed, it never entered the market and could not be regulated as interstate commerce.

The Supreme Court disagreed and argued that if he did not grow that wheat himself, he would have to purchase it on the open market. As such, his non-action in the market had an effect on interstate commerce and was subject to regulation. The Court held that the action itself was not the determining factor in what constituted interstate commerce, but whether the activity "exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce".

The next time that you decide to plant a vegetable garden in the back yard, remember that the government has legal precedent to pass a law prohibiting it. If grow your own vegetables anyway and don't buy them at the supermarket, the government just might fine you and make you burn your garden. Thanks fools!

Note: While all of the justices signed on to this opinion, as the author of record, Jackson gets the jester's cap in this installment. It is also worth noting that all but two of the Justices in this case were nominated by F.D.R.

~Another Guy