Just For Fun Concerts EP 2016-45 (Episode 49)


Episode 49 of Tales From The Drop Box skews a little older. This episode marks the return of several 2nd generation UK punk bands long thought dead. Anti-Pasti, Anti Nowhere League, and Chron Gen have new records as does LA punk rawk stalwarts NOFX. These records are all “dropbox” worthy. The fact that they all are so worthy is a surprise because each of these efforts easily could be dismissed as efforts to revisit a time long past relevance by people older than even myself. Also interesting by these new efforts is that all of these releases cover socio-political issues relevant to this time and this generation. The views on these records represent a mature political punk view and each album contributes something slightly different to the discussion, and in several cases through humor. Good stuff all around!

N.B. If you are not into political-social opinion, then stop reading and just enjoy the show! No worries, at Tales From The Dropbox – we still respect your right to be left alone and your choices! I’m just glad you still choose to listen to some awesome music not likely to be experienced on radio or found on your Spotify feed!

As there is much discussion of Trump’s projected Supreme Court appointments and his campaign “promise” to reverse Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) the issue of concern in these episode notes is three-fold:

(a) What does Roe v. Wade actually say?;

(b) What the impact of a reversal of that important piece of legislation will mean to the average citizen?; and

(c) WHY IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXERCISE THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THE POTENTIAL HARM ARISING FROM ANY REVERSAL?

The most important portion of the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade is that the Court found a personal right of privacy in the Constitution. While the common perception is that this is the court case guaranteed the right to an abortion, this is in fact not the case. The case merely holds that a woman has a right to choose to terminate a pregnancy but it does not restrict a State’s ability to regulate that process to the extent that it does not interfere with the right to privacy. Although the Supreme Court noted that “[t]he Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy, it did not stop them from constructing an artifice from prior decisions which opened the door for not only a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy but altered the direction of personal rights in a number of areas:

In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution. In varying contexts, the Court or individual Justices have, indeed, found at least the roots of that right in the First Amendment, Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 564 (1969); in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 8-9 (1968), Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 350 (1967), Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616 (1886), see Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); in the penumbras of the Bill of Rights, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. at 484-485; in the Ninth Amendment, id. at 486 (Goldberg, J., concurring); or in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U. S. 390, 399 (1923). These decisions make it clear that only personal rights that can be deemed “fundamental” or “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325 (1937), are included in this guarantee of personal privacy. They also make it clear that the right has some extension to activities relating to marriage, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1, 12 (1967); procreation, Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U. S. 535, 541-542 (1942); contraception, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. at 453-454; id. at 460, 463-465 (WHITE, J., concurring in result); family relationships, Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U. S. 158, 166 (1944); and childrearing and education, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U. S. 510, 535 (1925), Meyer v. Nebraska, supra.

This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy.

(Id. 410 U.S. 152-53.)

This is truly vague reasoning but, for now, it is the law of the land.

Reversing Roe v. Wade not only would eliminate a woman’s right to choose but also would significantly alter a number of rights flowing from the right of privacy. A good summary of the court cases regarding the evolution of the right to privacy and reproductive rights is here. These privacy rights would then be left to be decided at the state level. This will be very bad. ( Can you hear Trumps voice? Not that he would express the same sentiment here.) Without the federal right to privacy individual states would be left to determine what rights would be embodied in the right of privacy – and this would portend a huge problem as different states would be able to enact different legislation. This would effectively create states where abortion is legal, illegal, or somewhere in between with a shift in position with each successive change of power.

This concept of the states choosing what privacy rights to permit their citizens to exercise is important, because as this presidential election demonstrated, America is not a patch work of various political viewpoints. Rather, people tend to live with people like themselves because they share the same ideals, color, and viewpoints. If the decisions regarding personal privacy are left to the states, then the majority viewpoint will prevail by enacting legislation that does not respect the viewpoint of the minority while still respecting the desires of the majority. Our nation’s divisions will widen as people are forced to seek rights afforded to citizens available in other states but not their own by crossing state lines.

Lastly, while the U.S. Constitution still has some relevance to the freedoms afforded by the Bill of Rights to that Constitution it is important to note that the people DO NOT have to sit and watch President Trump wreck havoc on those personal rights and freedoms. There must be an active dissent.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Congress from enacting legislation that would abridge the right of the people to assemble peaceably. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution makes this prohibition applicable to state governments. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that the First Amendment protects the right to conduct a peaceful public assembly. The right to assemble is not, however, absolute.  Government officials cannot simply prohibit a public assembly in their own discretion, but the government can impose restrictions on the time, place, and manner of peaceful assembly, provided that constitutional safeguards are met. Time, place, and manner restrictions are permissible so long as they “are justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech, . . . are narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and . . . leave open ample alternative channels for communication of the information.”

(see Right to Peaceful Assembly)

            This right of peaceful assembly gives the minority viewpoint the opportunity to demonstrate their opposition to government acts that interfere with individual rights. The protest march is the Constitution in action. Without the right to challenge the government’s acts there is no Constitution. It is merely a piece of paper and there is no democracy. The only limitation on the potential tyranny of the majority is the willingness of the minority to act against the imposition of laws that interfere with the legitimate rights afforded by the Constitution. Do your part. We don’t need any more “conversations” to “heal” our divided nation. We need action. Do your part.

Talk – Action = 0.

Here is what you’ll find in Episode #49:

  1. Bad Sleep  “Bad Rep” (Bad Sleep EP)
  2. Imperial State Electric – “Would You Lie” (All Through The Night)
  3. Waterparks – “Stupid For You” (Double Dare)
  4. LVL UP – “I” (Return To Love)
  5. Civilian – “Reasons” (You Wouldn’t Believe What Privilege Costs)
  6. Night Riots – “Breaking Free” (Love Gloom)
  7. Duotang – “Quite Content In A Rut” (New Occupation)
  8. Kurt Baker combo – “Jerkin’ Back ‘n’ Forth (In Orbit)
  9. Third Eye Blind – “Weightless” (We Are Drugs EP)
  10. Dumb Numbers – “Essence//Existence (Dumb Numbers II)
  11. NOFX – “Six Years on Dope” (First Ditch Effort)
  12. Anti-Pasti – “Gatecrasher” (Rise Up)
  13. Angelic Upstarts – “King of the Rats” (Bullingdon Bastards)
  14. Chron Gen – “Love This City” (This Is The Age)
  15. Casper Skulls – “ Love Brain” (Lips & Skulls)

Would you lie to my face of the facts just in case . . . hey tell me what you want me to say you know I’m stupid for you.

KFR

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s