Oh, this is embarrassing! The right to gather and eat dinner is indeed Not It can be found anywhere in the constitution. I have been studying the Constitution very carefully, including the emanations of the suspiciousness of darkness, and I can understand why people might think that there is an inherent right to dinner. Eating seems very basic: whether or not you want a steak inside yourself seems to be something you should be able to decide for you. Eating and chewing, alone or in the company of others, feels as though it should be up to the person most affected, and protected from abbreviation of any kind, even by states.
But in fact, there is a higher authority to which we must answer this question. The Bible (not technically the Constitution, but there are people out there working to fix that!) indicates that Adam and Eve dined, once, in public, and it was such a serious offense that they were promptly evicted from their home and disturbed. flaming swords. Then mankind was forced to develop agriculture and wear pants.
God has been very clear on this subject: dinner is a sin. How could there be any right in that? Jesus had a nice dinner with 12 friends in a restaurant once upstairs and was sent to die in a horrific way. Whoever eats dinner will get deserts afterwards.
Some argue that even if this had any theological meaning, theology should not dominate the governance of our country, where there is (or at any rate, it was) a so-called foundation clause separating church and state. To this, the Supreme Court replies, “You have come of age, and you still believe in the Articles of Incorporation?”
Moreover, it is not only the Bible that suggests that you have no right to dinner and that you are naive and mistaken in thinking that you do. Why did the philosopher Pythagoras not believe that beans contain spirits, and therefore avoided eating them at all costs? And where are beans served except for dinner? (I suppose lunches and dinners if you’re creative – but that’s not very original.)
Can we update our way of thinking on this point at all, given that Pythagoras was working in the sixth century B.C. and bean sounds were formed? no. Tradition is the basis of all jurisprudence. To those who suggest that we evolve, or that we do not impose our religious or leguminous beliefs on others, I say, “Heretical! Heretic! Burners, quickly!”
I understand that all of this may seem counterintuitive to Judge Kavanaugh, as someone who lives in the present and is accustomed to thinking of himself as an entity entitled to respect and empowered to make choices for himself and his family.
Ruth Marcus: Even conservative judges have a right to privacy
He might want to get his old freedom back, or ask someone to escort him through the group of protesters who want him to feel bad about his choices, which in the end affect no one other than the millions of people whose lives it will essentially be. It is altered and transferred to a status lower than that of a complete person with bodily autonomy and the right to conduct their own lives as this entails.
He might say, “This is a terrible limitation that I must impose on me! I am just trying to live my life, with my family, according to my own lights! I just want to have dinner, like everyone else!” And I sympathize! I would like to find that this was right. But no right, no matter how basic it seems, cannot vanish like a ghostly mist, while the second person remembers that there may be a medieval text, somewhere, there that differs. And the Bible. and beans. I am sorry! My hands are tied.