hair fixing
In response to a comment thread on another blog, these are my Constitutional reasons why the courts shouldn't make lawyers (such as myself) fix their hair. I didn't want to post such a long a boring comment on P-Man's blog since his readers likely don't expect the boring crap you see here.
1st Amendment: By freedom of expression allows me to decide how I wish to be viewed by the public.
6th Amendment: Barring counsel for hair or stylistic reasons furthers no state interest and unreasonably interferes with my client’s right to effective representation.
9th Amendment: God only knows what my unremunerated rights are, so not fixing my hair could be one of them. (Personally, I think it would have been a better argument to say that the right to privacy (which I actually support) is in the 9th Amendment. It just seems like overreaching to talk about the penumbras of everything.)
13th Amendment: The state’s compulsion that I, against my will and for no legitimate state purpose, fix my hair would constitute involuntary servitude.
14th Amendment: Bald people don’t have to fix their hair, so I’m being denied equal protection. Furthermore, my bad hair makes me dissimilarly situated with those with easy-to-fix hair, thus leading to an "as applied" challenge.
5th Amendment: The combination of all of these rights and the penumbras of the penumbras of the Amendments make clear a right to make my own choices about my hair style or lack thereof. In college, having crappy hair certainly helped my right to non-procreation. Furthermore, the original intent of the framers was for lawyers to wear wigs and not fix their hair (that one’s for you, Scalia). It would deny me a fundamental liberty to take away my hair choice. Keep you rules of procedure off my body!
I think I know what article I want to write: The Constitutionality of Courtroom Decorum Rules. If that's not publishable, nothing is.
posted by Sam @ 10:30 AM
6 comments
6 Comments:
Sam, I agree with you in the proposition that the right to privacy should be found as one of those not enumerated, and thus should be covered by the 9th Amendment. It seems to make much more sense that way than it does to try to create some right connected to a connection that's connected to the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, or 14th amendments.
sometimes i really think lauren is a saint! "doing the dishes would be an infringement of my constitutional rights..."
regarding the issue of having bad hair, i don't think that's an immutable characteristic, but more a need for a really good haircut & a little metrosexual styling education. i have a good friend in austin who can do miracles with men's hair & does great things with my incredibly difficult hair. (granted, the way it looks lately would seem to contradict this, but that's because i haven't been to see him since december) calling queer eye!
regardless, i support your right to bad hair. just as i support my own right to have no fashion sense.
Steve: I think the reason they used the penumbra argument was to give a reason beyond "I think it's there." This is like all of the extra stuff in Brown about the importance of education and the stigma; they felt bad saying "look at the equal protection clause." They knew both decisions would be controversial, and they over compensated.
RHM: I've washed the dishes (about) three times since moved to Pasadena; of those three times, I've had two fairly serious cuts from knives in the dish-washer. For my own safety, I can't wash the dishes.
On immutability, I feel that my half-dozen cowlicks are present from birth and irrelevant to any classification. Furthermore, even if such characteristics are mutable, the state still cannot form a rational basis for the discrimination.
on the contrary, sam. i feel the courts would defer to the legislature's judgment on this one. unless you can establish hair freedom as a fundamental right and get strict scrutiny as a standard of review. then it may be harder for congress to narrowly tailor a statute to the compelling governmental interest in controlling your hair. but you never know, those hair product manufacturers have a pretty strong lobby. and they're clever!
i could be studying for con law (or a cornucopia of other classes) but i think i'm learning more from your blog than i would from studying. thanks, sam. you and your cowlicks have my blessing.
and for the record, i think your hair looks better without the gel. go "au nautral." just be sure to comb your hair after you shower and don't wear a hat. i know, that would also violate the same rights you mention above, but we're making a presumption of voluntariness here.
Very interesting.
Post a Comment
<< Home