Constitutional Injustice

In a recent newspaper article, Jeff Powell, a professor of constitutional law from Duke University, is quoted as saying, "The thing that really armors the judge's opinion against Constitutional criticism is that he expressly recognizes that the parties have the right to communicate their religion to the children."

Well, of course, Judge Mangum does state in his Temporary Order that both parents have the right to communicate and practice their religion. But then he's hardly going to say, "Hey, I know the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, but I'm just going to ignore that and make an unconstitutional ruling here." After all, when was the last time any judge owned up to making a bad judgment while he was making it?

In the Civil War, both sides believed strongly that their cause was constitutional. Even before the issue of "state's rights," the South argued for years that slavery was protected by the Constitution. It took a tragic war and a bold amendment to the Constitution before justice prevailed. Many of the atrocities committed by the Nazis in Germany were done under the cover of being "legal" - and, again, it took a full-scale war and international outcry for justice to prevail.

What judges and professors often forget is that there can be a huge difference between the law and justice.

The problem here is that the rest of Judge Mangum's Order doesn't match up with his Constitutional "towing of the line." He removes three "thriving" children from Christian homeschool education, he orders a mental health evaluation on the mother with conservative Christian values (but not the liberal father), he prejudicially chooses to restrict the mother's financial support to a level intended to limit her ability to practice her religion, and on top of all that he fills his written Order with slanderous gossip specifically designed to demonize and invoke condemnation on the mother and her church. And these are just a few examples of the horrendous injustice of this case.

Professor Powell is also reported as saying that "the First Amendment does not relieve a citizen of having to comply with a law that 'incidentally' affects a religious practice." But which law states that a judge must send children to public school? Which law states that a judge must side with a liberal, adulterous husband against a conservative Christian mother? Which law states that a judge can drag an entire church through the mud in order to protect his own inconsistent and contradictory conclusions?

Make no mistake, it is not the "law" that is being applied in this case, but Judge Mangum's opinion. It is not any "law" that is affecting Venessa Mills' - or her children's - religious practice, but Judge Mangum's opinion. It is not justice that is at work here, but Judge Mangum's opinions. And, apparently, a judge's opinion in a divorce case is untouchable by the Constitution - and, apparently, also by the facts.

For everyone who wants to dismiss the wider implications of this case under cover of the argument that "it's just a divorce" - remember the words of a man who, at the time, was also attacked and villified by many people. "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." -- Martin Luther King, Jr.

Under the cover of upholding the Constitution, Judge Mangum has, in fact, committed massive injustice. Professor Powell describes Judge Mangum's statement very accurately when he calls it "armor" that protects his "opinion." The armor may be good and solid, but all it does is protect a bad opinion - and that was never the intent of the Constitution.

One of the purposes of the Constitution, as directly stated in the Preamble, is to "establish justice." For Judge Mangum - or anyone else - to use the letter of the Constitution in a direct attack against the spirit of the Constitution is, by very definition, unconstitutional.