Skip to main content

 Within days of the Roberts-Trump Court releasing the Alito Manifesto, Texas governor Gregg Abbott announced that the State of Texas would renew its fight to end public education. In past efforts, Texas claimed that it only wanted to deny public education to immigrant (non-white) children. But the renewed effort will be based on the Alito Manifesto’s claim that no person, including any child, has any rights that are not specifically enumerated in the Constitution. Education is not enumerated, and therefore, Texas will argue that it is up to each state to decide whether to publicly educate its children, and Texas has decided not to.

Some readers may recall that decades ago the Texas Republican Party adopted a campaign plank calling for an end to teaching students to think analytically. Under the Alito Manifesto, this is perfectly alright, despite Supreme Court precedent requiring students to be taught, at least to some basic level.

Texas isn’t alone. Even before publication of the Alito Manifesto, governor DeSantis of Florida moved to eliminate even the most basic arithmetic teaching from Florida public schools. And in states around the nation, organized efforts have been made, and are continuing to eliminate the teaching of accurate history in public schools. Because the Alito Manifesto says that public education of any sort is not a right, and should be controlled by the state, these efforts to destroy public education will be held to be perfectly legal.

During the 2020 presidential campaign, a Republican Party leader from North Carolina said that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote. 2020 - not 1820. Women are too emotional and not smart enough to participate in something as important as voting, she said. The comment was good for a bunch of mentions on late night TV, and some critical comments by Democrats.

Of course, she didn’t mean the restriction to bar HER from voting, nor her wealthy, white friends and neighbors. She meant the lower class and non-white women whom her Party has spent the last 18 months trying to gerrymander and disqualify from voting in every Red state.

How does the Alito Manifesto and the Republican Party effort to strip rights from women relate to that woman’s statement? If even trying to procure an abortion is a felony, and felons lose the franchise, then state efforts to criminalize abortions serve as well to disenfranchise every woman who tries to get an abortion. In the natural course of life, this will mean the disenfranchisement of the most educated, future-oriented women.

It has been formal Republican Party policy for years to attack public schools. During the Reagan administration, school districts brought an advertising channel, called Chanel One, into Home Rooms and classrooms, to deliver corporate-speak indoctrination messages to students who had no right not to watch. Many people objected that such forced indoctrination was essentially the state using school facilities to provide an advertising subsidy to the corporations that could afford to participate.

This is the environment into which the United States Supreme Court introduced its Alito Manifesto. It is an environment of extreme disparagement of even basic learning by any caste beneath the ruling caste, which is able to afford quality private schools. It is an environment in which the most powerful Republican jurists in the nation say that women should be made the involuntary carriers of rapists’ and child abusive parents’ fetuses.

The Alito Manifesto is the legal affirmation of some Republican politicians’ instruction that if she is going to be subject to rape or incest “anyway,” a woman (or a little girl) “should just lie back and enjoy the experience.”

Scroll to Continue

Recommended Articles

We don’t need that in the United States. The Taliban gives such “freedoms” to women in Afghanistan. Al Shabab gives that treatment to women in Africa. And Russian soldiers and mercenaries are treating women with that same ‘respect’ and dignity that the Roberts-Trump Court wishes to visit on American women.

We have just “celebrated” Mothers’ Day with the announcement that motherhood will be mandated on millions more women, without giving them any say in the matter. Motherhood mandated by “justices” who have also made clear that things like medical (pre- and post-natal) care, and public education, and welfare benefits are not enumerated in the Constitution, and are therefore, beyond the power of the Federal government to provide.

Disability benefits, like Social Security, Obamacare and even minimum wage laws are not enumerated among the powers delegated to the Federal government by the Constitution. There is no basis at all for any “conservative” to pretend that these programs are not on the chopping block under the Alito Manifesto.

It isn’t simply pregnancy that is going to change under the Roberts Court. Everything that improved our nation as it dealt with the Great Depression - caused entirely by unregulated capitalist excess - is on an economic target list clearly defined by groups like the Heritage Foundation, and families like the Koch brothers, Foster Freis and Elon Musk, with his bold plan to make Twitter the profitable home of every corporate lie and fascist wannabe politician.

It might be legal for the Federal Communications Commission to regulate broadcasting. After all, the airwaves are defined as public property. So use of them might be something the Feds can regulate. But how about Internet Service Providers? The internet is full of private businesses. The Constitution doesn’t mention the internet.

So can the Federal government regulate who sells what on the internet? There is an increasingly strident movement by Republicans to force private, capitalist businesses that provide internet services to give up their rights as private businesses to enforce rules on customer behaviors, like lying while using their internet services. Republicans want to force private businesses to adopt rules allowing users to spew hate messages and run profitable scams on people. They don’t want the government to have the power to educate children. But they do want the government to have the power to force private business to lie to their customers.

The Constitution explicitly requires the Federal government to provide postal services. Now, many Republican states are trying to legislate prohibitions on women receiving “day after” pills. Can a state prohibit the Federal Postal Service from delivering such pills through the mail? Can a state prohibit mail delivery of birth control pills? Republicans already regulate whether votes can be delivered by mail. Is that legal, if the Constitution assigns the duty of running the Postal Service to the Federal government?

This column hasn’t addressed questions about interracial or same-sex marriage, or birth control or whether the government can regulate private sexual behavior at home. Those aren’t really even questions anymore. The Alito Manifesto is clear about the “proper” analysis.

But the focus on sex-related issues in the Manifesto and in the public discussions about it, reflects the Republican Party’s mastery of messaging. By directing everyone’s attention to sex and women’s right to control their own sexuality, the Alito Manifesto diverts attention away from its revolutionary, activist modification of traditional legal interpretation of our Constitution, and the implementation of a legal regime designed to concentrate more political power and social control in the corporations who were first identified as “citizens” in the Citizens’ United and Hobby Lobby cases.

The Roberts-Trump Court is empowering corporations that own politicians while disenfranchising increasing numbers of voters. For-profit corporations with no purpose other than maximizing profits now have religious rights greater than the individuals who work for them. The Alito Manifesto is another step in this process. It is designed to distract some while providing others a clear explanation of the roadmap planned for creating a more docile, subservient, and more exploitable population.