814 Born for Happiness: The Process of Pursuing Equal Rights in the Legal Order｜Liu Zongkun

Beast Note: Today I listened to the 86th episode of the "Don't Understand Podcast" hosted by Yuan Li . Wang Lixiong: How can China avoid collapse? In it, Wang Lixiong mentioned a book by his friend Liu Zongkun, "Born for Happiness: The Process of Pursuing Equal Rights in the Legal Order". He was very interested in it, so he picked it up and read it. I also discovered that the book had been published in a simplified Chinese version before, produced by Han and Tang Sunshine, and was called "The Pursuit of Happiness: The Journey of Little People's Struggle for Equal Rights in the American Legal Order."

Editor’s recommendation: On the scales of Lady Justice, everyone should be equal

Justitia, the goddess of justice from ancient Rome, holds a sword in one hand and a scale in the other. She is blindfolded, symbolizing the spirit of equality and objective rule of law. In front of her, everyone is equal. The goddess stands in front of law enforcement agencies across the United States, as if walking beside her can be warmly cared for by the light of justice. But, is reality really so beautiful? This book faithfully presents classic American jurisprudence and archives over the past century in front of readers. The author uses real life stories to support a full human universe. Despite the differences in time, space and region, when reading this book, my arms There is always a sense of inability to control ourselves and a trembling feeling of empathy, which also makes us recall the past of this island reaching the same destination through different paths. The process of obtaining happiness is arduous and cruel, but, "Looking back at history is not about nostalgia, nor is it to 'find fossils, but to study the social development that unfolded over time.'" Only by looking back and ruminating can we not go in vain. .

Book Title: Born for Happiness: The Pursuit of Equal Rights in the Legal Order

English: The Pursuit of Happiness

Author: Liu Zongkun

Publisher: Eight Banners Culture

Publication date: 2024/01/04

Language: Traditional Chinese

Pricing: 520 yuan

It is the story of a group of small people pursuing happiness in the American legal order. Their happiness and sorrow, complacency and resistance, comfort and struggle,
All are written in their pursuit of happiness: equality before the law, voting in elections, free love, reading and going to school.
These seemingly ordinary, everyday little things to modern people are, to them, the right to happiness that they have fought hard for over two hundred years.

All human beings are created equal and have been endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, including the right to survival, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. ──"American Declaration of Independence"

When the United States was founded, the Declaration of Independence promised that everyone has the right to "the pursuit of happiness," and this concept is also regarded as the core value of modern civilization. If we examine the development history of the United States over the past two hundred years since its founding, we will find the tortuous process of realizing this promise, especially reflected in every critical and landmark court case.

Dr. Liu Zongkun's "Born for Happiness" profiles the stories of all living beings seeking happiness in the American legal system, such as the mixed-race girl Morrison who wants to get rid of the shackles of slavery, the Chinese Lin sisters who want to have the right to go to school, and the Mr. and Mrs. Laon who have the right to love each other, and Ms. Roy who wants to have female body autonomy. The above-mentioned detailed story fragments reflect the changes of the times. Some people think it is a step forward in progress, while others think it is a collapse of etiquette and music. But no matter what, these little-known "little people" in history just want to pursue their own happiness. Their lives of survival and resistance, comfort and struggle are deeply intertwined with the history of the American civil rights movement. Since then, rights such as voting rights, free marriage and love, female abortion, and children's schooling have been extended to everyone. Only then can the words promised by the Declaration of Independence be realized, rather than just an illusory political utopia.

Dr. Liu Zongkun used a large number of court judgments and files, selected important precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and sensational trials in grassroots courts in recent years, and uncovered the ins and outs of the cases. Why did the judge make such a decision? Why does the lawyer want to fight this lawsuit? The quantum entanglement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and how those involved, ranging from intellectual elites to ordinary people, evaluate each important judgment that changes history.

Each case in this book is a wonderful story, some are heart-wrenching, some are lamentable, and some are exciting. Thurgood, the first black justice in the United States. Marshall once said: "Do what you think is right and let the law catch up." Basic rights guaranteed by law form the pillars of modern civilization, but these legislations are based more on ordinary people's pursuit of happiness and are also the pursuit of happiness by every free person. Lifestyle persistence.

Features of this book

★Starting from court precedents, the law is not a cold and difficult article. Behind each case is a life story with ups and downs. Judges, lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, and juries all work together to interpret the turning point that changes history.

★Just as the pioneers of democracy in Taiwan struggled for many years to win political rights and freedom of speech, the United States also went through many efforts in many aspects such as race and gender to win the "happiness" that modern people take for granted.

★The author, Mr. Liu Zongkun, holds doctorates in law and philosophy and is currently a practicing lawyer and research scholar in Texas, USA. This book also has prefaces recommended by Mr. Qian Yongxiang, Mr. Zhou Baosong, and Mr. Chen Yuzhong.

Recommended articles

Qian Yongxiang | Adjunct researcher at the Center for Humanities and Social Sciences Research, Academia Sinica, and Chief Editor of the Quarterly Magazine Zhou Baosong | Associate Professor Chen Yuzhong, Department of Politics and Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong | Assistant researcher at the Center for Humanities and Social Sciences Research, Academia Sinica

Highly recommended

Mr. Liu Zongkun wrote the book "Born for Happiness", using multiple cases from the American courts to explain how little people can overcome countless obstacles set by society, politics, law, and prejudice through legal channels, and pursue their dreams in marriage and education. , abortion, the use of mother tongue, etc. are individuals’ equal rights to make choices, which have vividly demonstrated that "happiness" actually resides in daily, realistic little things. Each case arises from real life and is a lawsuit driven by the personal pain of ordinary people. ...When reading this book, my emotions fluctuated with the changes in the plot, just like reading a wonderful historical work or novel. The book describes many specific cases and traces the details of the parties involved in the case. Not only is the book not as boring as ordinary law books, but it is full of the joys and sorrows of human nature. ──Qian Yongxiang

The readers of this book are not Americans, but us. Mr. Zong Kun hopes that the historical experience of the United States can provide important reference for our social reform. What is particularly rare is that, in the face of vast historical materials and boring regulations, Mr. Zong Kun can actually use a light and easy pen with clear and concise words to let us understand through vivid stories that no matter how difficult the system reform is, it is worth it. Our efforts are worthy of our perseverance, because legal justice is related to the well-being of millions of people. This is indeed true! ──Zhou Baosong

About the Author

Liu Zongkun

A native of Jinan, Shandong Province, he studied at Peking University and received a doctorate in philosophy. He has published works such as "Original Sin and Justice" and translations of "The Concept of Politics" and "Political Theology". Later, he went to China and the United States, where he studied law, obtained a doctorate in law, and obtained attorney licenses in Illinois and Texas. After twenty years of practice, the author has had the opportunity to understand American law, society and history through a large number of cases, and has constantly corrected the bias of theoretical knowledge obtained from books in the past. Books impart knowledge as well as prejudices. Most of the factual evidence presented in the court's judgment has gone through cross-examination by lawyers on both sides and deliberation by the jury. It is more reliable than many book knowledge and is closer to the real history and unfolding reality.

In recent years, the author has devoted himself to writing American history and society based on court decisions and archival records, and has written articles for journals such as Thought Quarterly, Dushu, Caixin Weekly, and Southern Weekend. In writing, the author strives to follow the common sense of the world of life, and strictly avoids what Mr. Lin Yutang criticized: "Learning without understanding, friendship without understanding... etiquette without benevolence." There are many wise and fair judges among judges. Occasionally, there are masters of writing, and the judgments they write are not only beautiful in prose, but also clear in narrating facts and legal arguments, and their understanding of worldly affairs and human warmth also overflows between the lines. He is a role model that authors admire both as a person and as a writer.

Recommended Preface 1 (Qian Yongxiang)
Recommended sequence two (Zhou Baosong)
Recommended Preface 3 (Chen Yuzhong)
preface

Chapter 1 The Past in New Orleans <br class="smart">1857/"Necessary Evil" and "Positive Good"/Tender Patriarchy/"Separate but Equal"/The past is not the past yet

Chapter 2 The Southernmost South <br class="smart">Sisters Lin/Desperate Governor/Unusual Judge/The Distance between the Court and the Constitution/The Dark Ages

Chapter 3 Problems and Creed <br class="smart">Gunner. Myrdal/North-South Divide/Frog Perspective/Cautious Optimism/Political Labels/Unwritten Rules

Chapter 4 Educational Equality <br class="smart">Thurgood. Marshall/"Our Nation's Creed"/The Eve of Great Change/Turning Point/Unanimous Verdict/Hannah. Oran

Chapter 5 The Right to Love <br class="smart">Virginia/Conviction and Banishment/Appeal/"It's So Unfair"/The Freedom to Pursue Happiness/Truth and Reconciliation

Chapter 6 Fair correction of the law <br class="smart">Court before sunrise/Innocent children/Equal protection/"Illiteracy is a lifelong disability"/Creating a "lower class"/"Platonic protector"/Two kinds of justice

Chapter 7 History and Myth <br class="smart">The Slave of Phrases/Samuel. Huntington/Many to One/Nativism/Anglo-Saxon Mythology/Conservatism and Cultural Intolerance

Chapter 8 The Unfinished Redemption <br class="smart">Strong． Thurmon/Southern Lifestyle/"I'll Never Understand Him"/Forgiveness and Reconciliation

Chapter 9 Courage is the best protection <br class="smart">The other half of citizens/Jane. Roy/"You'll Never Win"/The Youngest Lawyer/A Separated Family/Confession and Confusion

Chapter 10 Trial <br class="smart">George. Freud/Nine minutes and twenty-nine seconds/The color of life/In the name of law/Trial outside the court

Chapter 11 Legal Shootout <br class="smart">Second Amendment/Twisted Mirror/End of 2021/Unfortunate Children/When Freedom is Abused/The Best and the Worst Cradle

Chapter 12 Disputes and Consensus <br class="smart">Fifty Years of Affirmative Action/Ideal Plaintiffs and Defendants/Era Node/Greater Injustice/Reality and Vision

Conclusion: Common Sense Reason/Counter-Enlightenment/Enlightenment and Revolution/Conservatism and Radical/Law and Justice

Appendix: Judicial Review Power of U.S. Federal Courts Judicial Review Power/"Midnight Judge"/"Laws that violate the Constitution are not laws"/Judges, Presidents, Parties

Recommended order

■The Pursuit of Happiness: Personal and Public Literature | Qian Yongxiang (Adjunct Researcher, Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica)

The United States' Declaration of Independence proposes "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as human beings' "inherent and unalienable rights." It seems reasonable to compare the "pursuit of happiness" with lofty values ​​such as life and freedom. If compared with the three "natural rights" of life, liberty and property proposed by the British philosopher Locke less than a hundred years ago, the scope of "the pursuit of happiness" is obviously broader than that of "property", and it also reflects the human nature better. of initiative. But isn’t “happiness” a bit routine, mediocre, trivial, or even tacky? Both Marx and Nietzsche ridiculed that "happiness" was held up as the ultimate standard of morality by utilitarianism, but it only reflected the morality of the British small grocery store owner. Why does "the pursuit of happiness" constitute the highest value that must be emphasized in the Founding Declaration?

In fact, looking at it from another perspective, life, freedom, and the pursuit of happiness are not so much the "highest values" as they are the lowest and most basic rights. Everyone, regardless of identity, status, ability, or achievements, has these rights. The founders of the United States described them as "inherent and inalienable." This should be the meaning. The problem is that the rights to life and liberty are serious matters, often taken seriously, and have been regarded by thinkers and founders throughout history. As for the "pursuit of happiness", it is often classified as an individual's rights and responsibilities, and is not something that politics can—or needs—to interfere with.

On the other hand, there is also Hannah. Thinkers like Oran who advocate public life emphasize that true happiness is "public happiness", that is, the sense of creativity achieved when cooperating with others in the political field and engaging in the common pursuit of the social collective; as for private satisfaction, satisfaction and pursuit The reason why personal goals seem small and fragile is precisely because this kind of "luck" can only be placed under the status quo and hopes to be accepted by the status quo. But human "happiness" should have richer content anyway! She believes that this key principle is exactly what the founders of the United States advocated.

Here, I do not intend to discuss the various philosophical issues involved in "happiness". I think the book "Born for Happiness" written by Mr. Liu Zongkun uses multiple cases from the American courts to explain how little people can overcome countless obstacles set by society, politics, law, and prejudice through legal channels and pursue their dreams in marriage. , schooling, abortion, using mother tongue, etc. are individuals’ equal right to choose, which has vividly demonstrated that "happiness" actually resides in daily, realistic little things. Each case arises from real life and is a lawsuit driven by the personal pain of ordinary people. The stories themselves do not directly involve so-called public happiness, but they are of great importance to the people involved. It must be admitted that if a society or a legal system is indifferent to these trivial matters, or does not leave a channel for parties to complain and protest, then it will be a public failure and shame.

This also shows that although happiness resides in personal life, the "pursuit of happiness" is usually an undertaking that has to enter the public domain. The cases described in this book have more or less affected a large amount of public debate, and even triggered waves of social movements before and after the incident, which lasted for a long time. After all, even the daily happiness of small people usually has huge public energy. The way the American legal system combines personal happiness with public happiness certainly has its problems. However, this is a system that is unique in the world and can often achieve historic breakthroughs; pointing out this is the contribution of Mr. Liu Zongkun's book.

Finally, I will talk about my own experience. When reading this book, my emotions fluctuated with the plot, just like reading a wonderful historical work or novel. The book describes many specific cases and traces the details of the parties involved in the case. Not only is the book not as boring as ordinary law books, but it is full of the joys and sorrows of human nature. And amid the tragedies and comedies of human nature, in terms of consequences, these lawsuits always seem to bring about some measurable social progress. This book has brought me—and other readers—some hope and confidence.

■The pursuit of happiness and legal justice | Zhou Baosong (Associate Professor of the Department of Politics and Administration, The Chinese University of Hong Kong)

When Mr. Liu Zongkun's book came out in mainland China, the author gave me a copy. I read it in one sitting and thought it was a rare book, so I highly recommended it to my friends in the publishing industry. Now that a more complete traditional Chinese version is published by Eight Banners, I am very pleased and hereby solemnly recommend it to readers.

The theme of this book is that everyone has the right to pursue happiness. This right, together with the right to life and liberty, constitutes the three basic inalienable rights stated at the outset of the United States' Declaration of Independence. The government's primary responsibility is to ensure that all citizens enjoy these rights equally. If the government is responsible for this, the people have the right to resist. Mr. Zong Kun believes that this is the founding spirit of the United States, the core of modern civilization, and an important driving force for social reform and moral progress in the United States.

Mr. Zong Kun then pointed out that an important feature of American democratic politics is the separation of the three powers and checks and balances, which allows the federal courts to use the "judicial review" mechanism to supervise whether laws passed by the legislative body and policies implemented by the executive branch violate the Constitution. . Once ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, the original laws and policies become invalid. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to protect the equal rights of citizens, and the courts are the interpreters and guardians of the Constitution. Under this system, in order to promote social reform, in addition to large-scale party politics and social movements, ordinary citizens can also pass judicial review and correct or even overturn various unjust system practices in the name of the Constitution.

The reason why this book is named "Born for Happiness" is because the author takes "the right to pursue happiness" as the main line of the book, and then through a series of far-reaching cases in the history of American justice, we can see it as if we were there in person. Over the past two hundred years, how have many powerless "little people" who have been oppressed by the system, with the assistance of lawyers with a sense of justice, challenged various unjust laws through judicial struggles, and gradually achieved this? Goal: Every citizen of the United States, regardless of race, color, creed, sex, or class, shall have equal rights to the pursuit of personal happiness.

These cases include: the abolition of apartheid policies, equal educational rights for blacks and whites, the right to intermarry between whites and people of color, equal voting rights in elections, female abortion rights, and the right of illegal immigrants to receive due legal process protection, etc. Many of these judicial controversies stem from discrimination based on race, gender, and class, as well as from profound differences in beliefs and moral differences. This has led to heated debates among judges, political parties, and citizens. For example, whether citizens should have the right to own firearms, whether universities should continue to implement affirmative action in recruiting students, and whether the Supreme Court should overturn women's right to abortion, etc. have all caused great controversy. The valuable thing about this book is that it does not avoid these controversies, but puts them back into the specific historical context, presents the limitations of the times and the conservatism of concepts, reveals the different considerations behind the controversies, and thus allows us to understand the complexity and complexity of institutional evolution. Difficult, but without falling into the quagmire of relativism and realism, because Mr. Zong Kun always believes that freedom and equality are the basic values ​​of the founding of the United States, justice and dignity are people’s universal aspirations, and through people’s continuous struggle, change is always possible occur. I think what Mr. Zong Kun believes in is a kind of gradual judicial progressivism based on the Enlightenment.

Readers may ask, the so-called right to pursue happiness sounds quite ordinary, but why does it play such a big role in the history of judicial struggles in the United States? To answer this question, we need to know more about the political implications of this view of rights.

First of all, considering the pursuit of happiness as an individual right and constituting legal constraints on the behavior of the state means that we recognize that living happily is the fundamental interest of everyone and has great moral weight. As beings with a sense of reflection and value, humans not only want to live, but also want to live well. Living well is not only about living happily, nor is it only about the satisfaction of current desires, but also about living a life recognized by oneself in a reasonable social environment and living out human value and dignity.

Secondly, the Declaration of Independence emphasizes that the state has the responsibility to protect everyone's right to "pursue" happiness, not the right to "realize" happiness. Who is pursuing it? Nature is an independent individual. In this case, individuals must take responsibility for their own choices. This reflects the belief that we are born free and independent, and that our happiness is not given by others, but must be pursued by ourselves. Whether happiness can be achieved in the end depends on personal choice and dedication. This also means that the country should not implement paternalistic governance and force everyone to accept the same view of happiness in the name of people's happiness. The reason is simple: since everyone has free will and a vision for a better life, the state should respect people's choices.

Secondly, the rights to survival, liberty and the pursuit of happiness mentioned in the Declaration of Independence are not separate and irrelevant to each other. In fact, the first two are necessary conditions for the pursuit of happiness. The right to survival is easy to understand. The importance of the right to freedom lies in giving each of us the opportunity to choose. The prerequisite for living happily is that everyone is an autonomous person and can choose beliefs, careers, marriages, friends, as well as lifestyles and political connections according to his own wishes. Without freedom, people can only live in a state of submission and slavery, unable to become the master of their own lives.

Finally, to live happily, we need not only life and freedom, but also security, food, shelter, education, medical care and work. We also need fair opportunities and equal respect, and we also need friendly social relations and a rich public life. Without these conditions, it will be difficult for individuals to develop their abilities and achieve their goals through various activities, thereby affirming their own value. The pursuit of happiness is neither abstract nor complex. It means that individuals can develop necessary abilities in a fair institutional environment and independently pursue the life they want while respecting the same rights of others.

The above is the proper meaning of "pursuit of happiness". Knowing this, we can understand that fighting for political equality and gender equality, opposing apartheid and color discrimination, and demanding equal rights in education and social welfare can all be regarded as a kind of "Politics of Pursuing Happiness". . Since the pursuit of happiness is a basic human right, this kind of politics has its universality and urgency. It matters not just to Americans, but to everyone in the world. We are therefore justified in asking all governments to respect and implement this right.

From this perspective, we should be able to understand Mr. Zong Kun’s efforts in writing this book. His readers are not Americans, but us. He hopes that the historical experience of the United States can provide important reference for our social reform. What is particularly rare is that, in the face of vast historical materials and boring regulations, Mr. Zong Kun can actually use a light and easy pen with clear and concise words to let us understand through vivid stories that no matter how difficult the system reform is, it is worth it. Our efforts are worthy of our perseverance, because legal justice is related to the well-being of millions of people. This is indeed true!

Recommended Preface to "Born for Happiness": Is the democratic politics that Americans are proud of, actually just a province in the legal empire?

Text: Chen Yuzhong (Assistant Researcher, Center for Humanities and Social Sciences, Academia Sinica)

[Recommended Preface] The tribulations and pursuits of activists

2019 is the year the UK is expected to leave the EU. In May of that year, "The Reith Lectures" (The Reith Lectures), one of the annual public academic events in the UK, organized by BBC TV, invited Johnson, who had just retired as a judge of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. Lord Sumption (Jonathan Sumption, Lord Sumption) gave the lecture. Lord Sampson served as a senior judge of the Supreme Court from 2012 to 2018, and personally participated in the most important Supreme Court decision in the history of British constitutionalism in 2017: "R v. Cabinet Secretary" Case" (R[Miller] v. Secretary of State for Existing the European Union).

The core dispute in this case is whether the Brexit process should be led by parliamentary sovereignty or by royal prerogative? In the end, the Supreme Court ruled by an 8-3 majority that cabinet ministers did not have royal dispensation to carry out Brexit negotiations. In other words, Brexit negotiations are within the sovereign jurisdiction of Parliament. Lord Sampton cast the final majority vote in the motion. However, the topic of his lecture in Reese vaguely revealed his uneasiness about the Supreme Court's decision.

The topic of Lord Sampton's lecture was "Law and the Decline of Politics". There were five lectures in total, and the theme of the last lecture highlighted the gist of Lord Sampton’s annual lecture and also pointed out his concerns. The topic of his lecture was "Law's Expanding Empire." Broadly speaking, Lord Sampton is concerned about how the Supreme Court's ruling on "Brexit", a political matter decided by a referendum, should be conducted procedurally, and that it may potentially affect the British constitutional order.

Although required by his duties, he must make appropriate judgments in accordance with legal interpretations of cases brought before him, and cast a resolution denying royal prerogatives in this case. But in his view, just the fact that people decided to resort to the process of constitutional interpretation for a political matter involving citizens' resolution and leave it to a few supreme judges to make a ruling shows that the people They do not trust the political system to solve political issues, and hope to take disputes over political issues to the law to obtain a clear and glaring ruling.

To Lord Sumpton, this symbolized two things. First, people’s understanding of politics is no longer the same as civil society’s understanding of democratic politics in the past. They believe that the essence of politics is that there are many differences of opinion and ideas. Therefore, politics must be rich in conflicts, and rich in conflicts. It means that politics must be a plurality of opinions.

Lord Sampton worries that people may be tired of the "pluralistic/conflictual" nature of politics, leading them to seek anchor solutions to resolve disputes once and for all. Second, the clear arbitration results of the law have become a solution for people to seek to avoid the "plurality/conflict" of politics, which has caused the law to invade the political field, causing the political field to gradually decline and become the territory of the empire of the law. A corner of.

Lord Sampton's worries have historical and cultural context. People may have heard that the UK adheres to the so-called "unwritten constitution". This does not mean that there are no specific written laws in the UK to regulate the division of government powers and citizens' obligations. This simply means that the UK does not have an expressly written constitutional code like countries with a statutory legal system.

However, precisely because of the characteristics of the "unwritten constitution", the United Kingdom has traditionally resorted to political debates in the legislative branch (the House of Commons) under the British political system to resolve issues and issues involving the constitutional level. In other words, constitutional issues involve the political life of citizens, so they should belong to the political field, and therefore should allow diverse opinions to be fully expressed, and then dealt with through political procedures after debate.

In academic terms, this is the tradition of the so-called "Political Constitutionalism". In Lord Sampton's view, the case of R v. Cabinet Secretary marked the decline of traditional British "political constitutionalism" and the beginning of the subordination of the political field to the legal field. At the end of his speech, Lord Sampton pointed out by name that the subordination of the political field to the legal field would lead to an empire of law dominating politics. The clearest and most concrete form of this empire is exactly what happened on the other side of the Atlantic. The United States of America became independent from Britain more than a year ago.

Since the "Marbury v. Madison" case in 1803 gave the federal Supreme Court the power to review unconstitutionality, the U.S. constitutional order has been generally considered to be a country where the justices of the federal Supreme Court enjoy the final judicial authority. The justices of the Supreme Court can rely on their judicial independence and constitutional review power to determine the legality of bills passed by Congress, and even define and limit the boundaries of the president's executive power.

This also constitutes the paradox of American political life. This is a country of constitutional democracy, but when facing disputes on constitutional issues involving fundamental civil rights, this country often relies on nine non-elected justices, who in practice often have lifelong tenure, to make decisions.

Regardless of the intentions of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution who designed judicial independence (some of them indeed hoped to use the elite-monopolized Supreme Court to check and balance a political system that may degenerate into democratic tyranny), looking at it from today's perspective Well, perhaps as some critics say, American "politics" is nothing more than activities within the realm of "law." To borrow Lord Sampton's terminology, the democratic politics that Americans are proud of is actually just a province in the legal empire.

But is it really so?

In the modern world, the existence of political activities must have its institutional context. Registering to run for president must meet specific legal conditions. Even in the United Kingdom, which pursues political constitutionalism, political debates in the lower parliament, which belong to the political field, must comply with the procedures and regulations of parliamentary proceedings. In fact, politics operates on the structure of law, sometimes supporting each other, sometimes conflicting and struggling. This is because the essence of political action is ultimately the actions taken by individuals; and individual actions, at least in the modern world, inevitably occur within the system in which they live. This is true of British political constitutionalism, and it is true of the federal constitutional order in the United States.

"Born for Happiness" is a book that describes how individuals struggle in the system, take action, and then reshape the system. This book paints a picture of how politics is possible under what Lord Sumpton calls the "empire of law." In addition to the debates and actions of professional politicians, another more likely way for politics to happen is for individuals to take action against the problems of the system after facing the problems and struggles of the current system, thus promoting the reorganization of the system. Plastic.

In "Born for Happiness", what we see is not just a general understanding of American constitutionalism, not just a case being appealed to the Federal Supreme Court, and then the Federal Supreme Court making a ruling to promote civil rights; this is some criticism According to the author, the judges of the Federal Supreme Court make decisions on basic constitutional rights, which essentially constitute legal norms and define political categories.

Quite the opposite. What "Born for Happiness" shows is that before rising to the level of the Federal Supreme Court, individuals struggle with the problems of the current system, take political action, and try to fight for their political rights step by step inside and outside the courts at all levels. Defend the appeal and obtain results guaranteed by the constitutional order. The political categories guaranteed, defined and regulated by law ultimately come from the results of political activities in some respects.

But "Born for Happiness" is not just a book that praises the pursuit of American constitutional rights. In fact, what is contained in every story of individual actions is the indifference and violation of individual rights that exists in the American constitutional and legal order at all levels. It is this kind of indifference and violation that causes individuals to struggle and promote individual actions.

The law does not only have aspects of protection and goodness. What "Born for Happiness" shows is exactly how profound the suffering of life is when rights are ignored by the law and individuals are so troubled that they must take action. . This is a book full of vitality, reflecting how the living individuals involved and acting in the legal order and political action constitute the American constitutional government we are familiar with. I am honored to recommend such a moving and analytical book to every reader who is interested in American constitutionalism, civil rights, American history, and even biography writing.

"Born for Happiness": The Anglo-Saxon "racial-religious myth" is not so much a product of history as it is a product of politics

5. Anglo-Saxon Mythology

Contemporary historian Laura. Lora Burnett searched the Library of Congress's newspaper and periodical database from all eras and found that in more than half a century after American independence, very few people talked about "Anglo-Saxon". The frequency of "Anglo-Saxon" appearing in newspapers increased sharply after 1836, which coincided with the debate between slavery and abolition at that time and became the main reason for maintaining slavery in the South: white people, especially Anglo-Saxons , is a superior race capable of self-government, while black people have no ability to self-govern. It can be seen that the rise of "Anglo-Saxon" superiority in the United States is a product of history rather than a product of politics.

After the First World War, Frank. Frank Hankins observed that the ideological trends and movements pursuing racial purity in Europe and the United States are related to the political efforts of citizens to pursue unity during turbulent times. The basic logic is: one's own race is superior, and the superior race creates superior culture and religion, so the race must be kept pure and cannot be tainted by foreign races or penetrated by other religions: "We clearly saw this in Germany before and during the war. To this point. We saw this in the Ku Klux Klan movement in postwar America, which was essentially Anglo-Saxon America affirming its inherent superiority and telling people of all kinds in a combative way that this was. Our country must be ruled by us.”

This sentiment towards racial purity was also reflected in the racist fervent movements of some Protestant denominations. On July 2, 1925, a man named George. Pastor George McGuinnis called on all Anglo-Saxons to gather in Colorado in a newspaper, saying that "Anglo-Saxons are descendants of the missing ten tribes of Israel" and "a race chosen by God to rule the land and sea."

Hankens noticed that at that time, most of the propagandists of Anglo-Saxonism in the United States received higher education in Germany. In the German academic circles, the Germanic racial superiority theory of Fichte and Hegel was prevalent for a while, and the superiority and cultural superiority of civilization or culture were very popular. The extreme form of linkage to a specific race is the concept of a "single nation state". John, a heavyweight in American academic circles at that time. John Burgess, after returning to the United States from studying in Germany, published "Political Science and Comparative Constitutional Law" to spread the racial and cultural theories he accepted in Germany, but replaced the theory of Germanic racial superiority in German education with Anglo-Saxon Superiority in America.

In his view, a country is "the same race living in the same geographical area." By this standard, he considered Germany to be an unfinished country, since many Germans still lived outside the country, while many Slavs, Walloons, French and Lithuanians lived within Germany. As for the United States, in order to maintain national unity, immigration that affects the unity of the country must be restricted and excluded.

Hankens criticized Borghese's theory of a single-ethnic state, arguing that "racially speaking, to say that Germany is a Teutonic country is as contrary to fact as to say that Britain is an Anglo-Saxon country. If it is in the anthropological sense, rather than America is not, and has never been, an Anglo-Saxon nation in the poetic and romantic sense."

Frederick. A little later than Hankens. Frederick Detweiler also pointed out that the view that Anglo-Saxons love liberal democracy more than other races and cultures is inconsistent with history: "The foundation on which this country was built certainly has English soil. Maybe five Three-quarters are English and Welsh."

However, before American independence, John. John Adams estimated that about one-third of the people in the colonies opposed independence and supported the British king. Most of them were British immigrants and their descendants. However, Dutch, French and Nordic people do not have this royalist complex. This phenomenon does not mean that other ethnic groups prefer constitutional democracy without a monarch, but it does not mean that Anglo-Saxons are more naturally supportive of liberal democracy without a monarch than other ethnic groups.

In the United States, from before the Civil War to the apartheid era, some scholars believed that southern whites were racially and culturally superior to northern whites. Historian Hamilton. Hamilton Eckenrode published "Jefferson. In Davis: President of the South, he calls the southern whites during the slavery era "tropical Nordics" and are orthodox Anglo-Saxon descendants. He also compares the south to "Athens" and the north to "Spar." "Da".

James. James Adams found in "An American Tragedy" published in 1934 that Southerners popularized the romantic pastoralization of agricultural life. After receiving more criticism of slavery from the North, they used the Anglo-Saxon race to elevate them. Gao himself said that southern white people in the United States are a purer Nordic race and have stronger ruling capabilities than northern white people.

When Myrdal was doing research in the United States in the 1940s, he discovered that many southerners he came into contact with had this nostalgic mentality, believing that southerners were descendants of Anglo-Saxon aristocrats, while northerners were descendants of lower-class British people. Clearly, this belief is inconsistent with history. Scholars need to create theories that are more consistent with historical facts to support the theory of Southern racial superiority.

Before World War II, the prevailing Anglo-Saxon theory held that because the South received far fewer immigrants than the North, Southerners had purer Anglo-Saxon ancestry. At that time, people mainly referred to immigrants as Irish, Italians, Eastern Europeans, Jews, etc. A common mentality was that these immigrants from Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and Judaism threatened the Anglo-Protestant system and traditions of the United States and degraded them. Without American qualities, there is a danger of turning the United States into a country like Ireland, Italy, Poland, and Russia.

Anglo-Saxon ethno-religious mythology is a product of politics and has historically been subject to the needs of international and domestic politics. According to this myth, the Anglo-Saxon race originated from the Nordic tribes and is closely related to the Germanic people in northern Germany. In fact, from the independence of the United States to before World War I, German was the second most spoken language in the United States after English. Not only were many German schools opened in various places, but there were also German newspapers, German churches, and various German-speaking public welfare organizations. .

During World War I, the relationship between the United States and Germany deteriorated. German immigrants and German-Americans subsequently became the targets of exclusion, and German became a language that was attacked. There is even a proposal by members of Congress to require states that receive federal education funding to ban the teaching of languages ​​other than English, an apparent move against German. Before and after World War I, at least fourteen states in the United States enacted laws prohibiting the teaching of German in public and private schools.

In 1919, Nebraska passed the Siman Act, which prohibited the teaching of German in public schools, private schools, and churches. There was a German teacher at a Lutheran school named Robert. Robert Meyer, who taught a ten-year-old fourth grader to read the German Bible, was discovered by the county prosecutor who was patrolling the area and was prosecuted.

Meyer was found guilty in the county court and fined twenty-five dollars. Meyer appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. His attorney, a descendant of Irish immigrants, called the Seaman Act in court the product of "hatred, national bigotry and racial prejudice spurred by the world wars." The state government defended the bill as an attempt to make all residents "100 percent American."

The Supreme Court pointed out in its judgment that some basic rights are indispensable for free people to pursue happiness; the Constitution not only protects the people from arbitrary restrictions on personal freedom by the government, but also protects the people’s freedom to enter into contracts, choose a way to make a living, learn knowledge, start a family, and raise children. The rights and freedom of children and their religion. This is the great tradition of the common law.

The Supreme Court held that teachers teaching immigrants their mother tongue and parents allowing their children to learn their mother tongue are rights and freedoms that are indispensable to the pursuit of happiness. "It is unreasonable to think that the mastery of the German language is in itself harmful. On the contrary, it is generally believed that the mastery of the German language is beneficial. Teaching this language in schools is the plaintiff's occupation. His right to teach German and the right of parents to ask him to teach their children belong to freedoms protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.”

This Supreme Court decision is equivalent to saying that the Constitution protects the right of German Americans to dream of the American dream in German. Eighty years later, Huntington said that there was only an American dream founded by Anglo-Protestants in English, and there was no American dream in Spanish. Obviously, the Supreme Court in 1923 adhered to the "first tradition" of the United States, while Huntington returned to the "second tradition" of the United States in his later years.

6. Conservatism and cultural paranoia

In the 2020 election, after Trump lost the election, Republican Representative Marjorie. Marjorie Greene and several far-right colleagues want to form a decision-making group that promotes the Anglo-Saxon political tradition. After the media disclosure, House Republican leader Kevin. Kevin McCarthy called it a "nativist dog whistle." He made it clear: "The United States is built on the concept of equality for all and success through honesty and hard work, not on identity, race and religion. The Republican Party is the party of Lincoln and the party that strives for more opportunities for all Americans. , not a nativist dog whistle party.”

Plans by far-right groups in parliament to promote "Anglo-Saxon political tradition" have been scrapped after widespread condemnation. This failure showed that the highly exclusive racial-religious-cultural theory promoted by Huntington in his later years was difficult to gain support in practice, even among the right wing of the Republican Party, and could only be used as an expression of emotion. In this social and political atmosphere, some proponents of Anglo-Protestant theory prefer to use the more general concept of "conservatism" to express their cultural tendencies.

Both the "radical" and "conservative" forces in the United States are guided by the "American Creed" to stay on track. The "American Creed" is not only an ideal upheld by the people, but also a promise made by the country to its people. The core of this ideal and commitment is the equal rights of everyone to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence. Under the common "American Creed", the so-called "radical" means nothing more than fulfilling that promise as quickly as possible; the so-called "conservative" means nothing more than not making rash advances, but realizing that promise step by step in an orderly manner based on realistic conditions.

Historically, the influx of immigrants from other religions, races, and cultures has not destroyed that ideal and promise, but has made it more inclusive and stronger. This is America's first tradition.

According to this tradition, the founding ideals in the Declaration of Independence are the consensus of "conservatives" and "radicals." Although there is a large distance between reality and ideals, and right and wrong are intertwined with good and evil, this further demonstrates the need to adhere to the founding ideals embodied in the "American Creed." Myrdal once made a detailed observation about this:

"Sometimes, one can even feel the relationship between the persistence of uncompromising lofty ideals and the uneven reality. One realizes that perhaps it is in this still somewhat disorganized young country that reality changes. The difficulty of living up to an ideal, which is America's ubiquitous fault, makes it all the more salient by measuring perceived faults against the lofty standards of the nation's creed. America's constant struggle for the soul is to hammer these social and ethical principles into something simple and easy to remember. Formulas. All means of mental communication are used to stamp these creeds on the mind of every human being. They are taught in school lectures, and pronounced in legal terms in church decisions."

At the same time, the second tradition of the United States also fluctuates with the times. It is not about realizing the founding ideals in the Declaration of Independence step by step and fulfilling the founding promises in the Declaration of Independence, but it is against those ideals and promises; Instead of pursuing equality for all, it divides people into three, six or nine classes based on wealth, race, religion and first-come, first-served basis; instead of orderly improving the unreasonable status quo in accordance with the "American Creed", it solidifies various classes and inequalities; Instead of treating the pursuit of a good political order by people of different races, cultures, religions, and civilizations with an open mind, we advocate determinism of origin. Huntington promoted this tradition in his later years.

Fukuyama was very critical of Huntington's tendency to return to the second tradition in his later years. He points out: "It is undoubtedly true that modern democracy has its historical roots in Western Christianity. This is not a new idea; thinkers from Tocqueville to Hegel to Nietzsche have seen that in many ways modern Democracy is in fact a secular version of the universal teachings of Christianity. However, the fact that modern democracy originated in a specific historical context does not mean that it cannot be universal after its origin. Democracy spreads because it is a kind of letting. An effective method for rulers to take responsibility is not just because it has noble cultural origins.”

Fukuyama also observed that the reality in the United States did not match Huntington's description of his later years. For example, Huntington admires the work ethic of Anglo-Protestants, but in fact, the hardest-working people in the United States today are not Anglo-Protestants—at least not only them, but first-generation immigrants from Asia and Latin America. Where there are opportunities and there is hope that through hard work people can achieve their dreams, people will work hard.

There is still no shortage of hard-working Anglo-Protestants in the United States, but many people in this group do not work hard or even have the motivation to receive higher education, becoming the main force of xenophobia. They do not represent the "American Creed", but use ethno-religious nativism to block the inheritance of the "American Creed". Apparently, Huntington became the intellectual spokesman for this nativist sentiment in his later years. But this backward-looking sentiment cannot represent the future of America, nor the future of American national identity.

Books provide knowledge, but also biases. Huntington's writings also provide both. His theory has certain explanatory power for phenomena in today's world and the United States, but it contains many prejudices based on religion, race, and national origin. From a historical perspective, Huntington's thesis in his later years is a continuation of the conflict between two American traditions. Each generation feels that the challenges they encounter are unprecedented, but look at history - fortunately, the history of the United States is not very long, and the problems of each generation are not unprecedented. Some of the reactions stimulated by the problems also have similar patterns to those in the past. The so-called wearing new shoes and walking on the same old path. To borrow the language of Lozada and Keynes, in the Trump era, Huntington's "slaves" in American politics tried to implement his domestic and international political vision. The result was unprecedented confrontation in the world and unprecedented division in the United States.

In the foreseeable future, the historical and cultural core of "Anglo-Protestantism" will continue to maintain vitality, but the core in the United States is far from enough to allow people of different races, different cultural traditions, and different religious beliefs to unite into a strong country. The "American Creed" concluded by Myrdal is far more inclusive, broader, and more cohesive than the "Anglo-Protestant" culture that produced the "American Creed" advocated by Huntington.

Chapter 9 Courage is the best protection

Jane. Roy

One winter day in 2017, Norma. When Norma McCorvey was dying, with an oxygen tube inserted into her nostrils, she feebly said to the camera: "These are my last words..." She began to breathe heavily, laughed twice awkwardly, and slowly Put on your reading glasses and calm your breath. Not long ago, on a sunny afternoon, she was sitting in a wheelchair and was pushed to the park for a walk. Looking at the leisurely ducks by the pond, she lit a cigarette, was in high spirits, and began to recite without beginning or end: "Tomorrow" , Tomorrow, another tomorrow, crawling with insignificant steps until the end of time...getting on the stage and jumping around for a while, meaningless. "That is a broken line in Act 5, Scene 2 of "Macbeth". .

Norma. McCovey is a small figure in American society, but she is not an unknown figure; her other name─Jane. Roe became a household name due to the "Roe v. Wade" case. It was the most controversial case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in the twentieth century, Norma. McCovey is the plaintiff in that case. In order to protect her privacy, the lawyer used the pseudonym "Jane Roe" in the indictment. It was January 1970, and Norma was twenty-two years old. She found out she was pregnant, her third pregnancy. During the first pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, Melissa, who was adopted by her mother; during the second pregnancy, she gave birth to a daughter, Jennifer, through Dallas lawyer Henry. Henry McClusky gave it to a strange couple for adoption. When Norma became pregnant for the third time, she found attorney McCluskey again. At that time, she was working as a cleaner with a meager income. She told McCluskey that she could not afford to raise the child and wanted to find an abortion. McCluskey told Norma that he only handled adoption cases, not abortions.

At that time, Texas law prohibited abortion, and doctors were only allowed to terminate a pregnancy if the life of the pregnant woman was in danger. Pregnant women have three options if they want to have an abortion. One is to find an underground clinic run by an abortion doctor in Texas, which charges hundreds of dollars. Because this kind of clinic operates illegally and has poor conditions, medical accidents often occur. The second is to go to underground abortion clinics in Mexico, where the cost is roughly the same as in Texas. Although abortion is also prohibited in Mexico, abortion doctors can manage the local government well, and clinics can perform abortions semi-publicly, with better conditions than the underground clinics in Texas. The third is to go to a state that allows legal abortion, mainly California or New York. The doctor’s fees plus air tickets, accommodation and other expenses are relatively expensive. At that time, there were many pregnant women on the flights from major cities in Texas to Los Angeles every Friday. After having abortions in California, they flew back on Sunday.

Every option costs money. But Norma had no money. McCluskey is an enthusiastic lawyer. He introduced Norma to female lawyer Linda. Linda Coffee. He and Coffey were high school classmates and worked as lawyers in Dallas, so they knew each other well. McCluskey knew that Coffey was preparing to challenge Texas' abortion law in court and was looking for a suitable pregnant woman to serve as a plaintiff in the lawsuit. Coffey is a native of Texas and has been a top student since she was a child. When she was in high school in Houston, she was selected to join the American student delegation for an exchange trip to New Zealand. She was the only student from the southern United States in the delegation. When she graduated from high school, she was admitted to Rice University, the best private university in Texas. She majored in German literature and achieved excellent results. She received a Ford Scholarship to study in Germany. In 1965, when she graduated from college, there were not many jobs for women in Texas, only a few occupations such as secretaries, clerks, and primary and secondary school teachers. Kaufey was a slow typist, unable to make it as a secretary or clerk, and he didn't want to be a teacher. He ended up working odd jobs at a burger restaurant like some high school dropouts.

Kaufey was interested in law, but there were very few girls studying law at that time. There were two main reasons: First, teachers and students said that law was more difficult to learn than other subjects; second, law firms were unwilling to hire female lawyers as lawyers. The outlook is bleak. Kao Fei is not afraid of difficult majors and does not have many worries about career prospects, because any career is better than working part-time in a burger restaurant. She took the Law School Admission Test and was admitted to the University of Texas School of Law. It was the best law school in Texas. Because of her outstanding performance, she was selected as the editor of the Texas Law Review. At that time, the American bar was dominated by white men, and only a handful of women were admitted to the University of Texas Law School. There were 120 boys in Kaufey's class and only five girls, including Sarah. Sarah Weddington.

During the graduation season, well-known law firms from all over the country come to campus to recruit graduates. After passing the first round of interviews, the out-of-town firms will pay for air tickets and accommodation expenses, and invite boys to do the second round of interviews, but do not provide the same courtesy to girls. . The girls had to go out of town for the second round of interviews and had to pay for their own air tickets and accommodation. Several graduating female students reported the unfair treatment they received to the school. The law school informed the recruiting firms on campus that they must treat female students the same as male students, otherwise they would be prohibited from recruiting on campus. That year, Weddington became the first female student in the history of the University of Texas School of Law to receive a travel subsidy for recruitment interviews at an out-of-town firm, setting a precedent. During the second round of interviews, the senior partner of that firm asked her: "Lawyers often work late into the night, but women have to go home and cook dinner. How do you take care of both?...Young lawyers have to be scolded often to train them." "You are a woman, and we can't scold you. How can we train you to be a lawyer?" The result can be imagined. Unable to find work as a lawyer, Weddington stayed in Austin after graduation to work odd jobs for a law school professor.

Coffey faced the same fate as Weddington when he graduated. Although she had excellent grades and served as editor of the Texas Law Review, no law firm was willing to hire her. She found a temporary job on a legislative committee in the Texas Legislature, helping lawmakers draft bills. Coffey's mother worked as a secretary at the Dallas Baptist Convention Center. One day, she met a lawyer who talked about her daughter's job search after law school. The lawyer told her that Dallas U.S. District Court Judge Sarah. Sarah Hughes is looking to hire an assistant. Hughes is a big name in Texas. As early as 1935, she became the first female judge on a Texas court. In 1961, she was appointed by President Kennedy as a judge of the Federal District Court in Dallas, and became the first female judge of the Texas federal court. On November 22, 1963, President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. The next day, Vice President Johnson was sworn in as president. As is customary, the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court leads the president in reciting the oath contained in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution. But the situation was critical, and Johnson decided to find a judge on the spot. He sent someone to find Hughes, and he was sworn in by Judge Hughes on Air Force One. Photos documenting President Johnson's inauguration were published in newspapers across the country, and Hughes became one of the best-known federal court judges.

Coffey's mother told her daughter about Judge Hughes's hiring of a clerk. After Coffey submitted her application, she received a call from Judge Hughes inviting her to the court for an interview. Years later, Coffey recalled feeling like her voice was shaking. On the morning of the interview, the results of the Texas Bar Examination were announced, and Coffey's score ranked second in the state. She got a job as a clerk to Judge Hughes, and her legal practice improved by leaps and bounds. She enjoyed the work, but the position was only for one year. In April of the following year, she had to re-enter the workforce to find a job. The legal profession's view of female lawyers has not changed, and no firm is still willing to hire her. Kao Fei told her middle school classmate Henry. McCluskey. McCluskey had some connections in Dallas and helped Coffey find a job everywhere, but without success. Soon, the Dallas County Prosecutor's Office was recruiting assistant prosecutors, and Coffey submitted an application. McCluskey arranged a dinner and invited his parents over to entertain a friend. That friend knew Dallas County Attorney Henry. Henry Wade. After the dinner, McCluskey's friends approached Wade and asked him to give Coffey a chance. Wade interviewed Coffey and had a good impression, but he said the only job he could give the female lawyer was to collect debts from fathers in the county who were in arrears with child support payments. Coffey passed up the opportunity. Eventually, she found work processing documents at a small bankruptcy firm.

The second time Norma met Coffey was at a pizza parlor in the northern suburbs of Dallas. She was nervous when she saw Coffey, but that time with Weddington present, the atmosphere was different. Weddington was only three years older than her. Years later, Norma recalled her first impression of Waddington: "She was sunny, cheerful, and courageous. I fell in love with Sarah at first sight." Two lawyers asked her if she thought women should have the right to abortion. Norma wanted to have an abortion, and of course she supported a woman’s right to have an abortion. However, she was not interested in fighting for women's rights and only wanted to have an abortion herself, which was what she wanted but could not get from the two young lawyers. Coffey and Weddington needed a accuser, which they could get from Norma. They needed a Jane who wanted an abortion but couldn't. Roy.

To Sarah. For Weddington, as the plaintiff Jane. Roy also has her personal shadow. This is not only a proxy for Norma. McCovey's lawsuit was also a lawsuit she secretly fought for herself. During her final year of law school, Weddington found out she was pregnant. Neither she nor her boyfriend had a fixed income, so they worked several jobs to support their studies and did not want to drop out of school to raise their children. But Texas bans abortion. A friend suggested going to Mexico and introduced them to a Mexican abortion doctor who had studied in the United States. The fee was four hundred dollars, cash only. Weddington and her boyfriend scraped together the doctor's fees and travel expenses, got a pack of powerful painkillers from a friend whose father was a doctor, and got the phone number of a local surgeon who would be able to help him in the event of an abortion. Contact emergency services. One Friday morning, they drove from Austin to Eagle Pass on the Texas-Mexico border. After checking in at a motel, they crossed the border to Piedras on the Mexican side. Nicholas Town. The two met the contact person at the agreed place. Weddington recalled in her autobiography that she followed a man wearing a white shirt and brown trousers into a sandy alley and arrived in front of a low white house, which was an abortion clinic. Fortunately, everything went well.

"You will never win"

On March 3, 1970, three months before Norma's due date, Coffey filed a complaint in the Federal District Court in Dallas. She paid the $30 prosecution fee with two personal checks. At that time, her monthly salary was $450. The "Roe v. Wade" case officially entered the federal court process, and Dallas County Attorney Wade became the defendant. But it is the Texas attorney general and governor who should really be named as defendants. Coffey and Weddington had no litigation experience, and the court did not require them to make corrections after receiving the complaint. Wade is a prominent figure in Dallas and is known for impartiality in law enforcement. During his decades as a prosecutor, he has prosecuted countless major and important cases. He has requested the court to sentence the defendant to death in 30 cases, and only one case was unsuccessful. His brother was arrested for drunk driving. Wade prosecuted according to law and sentenced his brother to prison. He oversaw the prosecution of suspects after Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas. In Texas, from the state attorney general to the county attorneys general, everyone is elected by the people. In every election, Wade was elected with a high vote.

On a personal note, Wade is not anti-abortion. He sympathizes with the plight of some pregnant women and feels that for pregnant women who do not want to have children, it is better to have qualified doctors help them perform abortions than to have abortions done by people without medical qualifications. But as a prosecutor, he must stay in his position, pursue his own affairs, and try to maintain a certain balance between law and compassion. Texas law does not leave room for legal abortion, but when prosecutors raise the bar for prosecution when enforcing the law against abortion doctors, the fate of many pregnant women, especially poor pregnant women with financial constraints, will be less difficult. The Texas law prohibiting abortion mainly targets doctors who perform abortions and those who assist pregnant women with abortions. As Attorney General, he has never prosecuted a woman for an abortion, and has turned a blind eye to some safer underground abortion clinics, but he will bring to justice abortion doctors who disregard the lives of pregnant women.

After the Roy case entered the judicial process, Jane. Roy and Norma. McCovey parted ways. Jane. Roe, navigated by Coffey and Weddington, navigates the federal court circuit as a plaintiff, where her fate will be decided by judges at various levels of federal court. Norma returned to her daily life, and she was due to give birth in three months. In any case, she had missed the opportunity to have a legal abortion anywhere. The most urgent thing was to find a home to adopt the upcoming child. That's Attorney McCluskey's job.

The court scheduled a hearing on May 22, and Coffey and Weddington worked intensively to prepare for the court argument. Defendant Wade has two attorneys. One is John, a lawyer specially hired by the county prosecutor's office for this case. John Tolle is a devout Catholic who devotes his passion for faith to his career as a lawyer. He believes that he is defending the unborn "little Roy" and protecting a completely helpless individual life and the future. The life of all unborn fetuses. Wade's other lawyer is Jay. Jay, an assistant state attorney assigned by the Texas Attorney General. Jay Floyd. Before the trial, Coffey and Weddington needed Norma to sign a deposition, but she had no fixed address and it took several twists and turns to find out her whereabouts. By that time, Norma was approaching her due date. Years later, Kaufey's secretary recalled that when she saw Norma coming to the office to sign, she looked like she was in labor, "a thin woman who looked like she was holding a big watermelon in her arms."

At two o'clock in the afternoon on May 22, the court opened. Three federal district court judges sat in the courtroom to hear the trial. Norma didn't show up. Coffey first presented the procedural matters, followed by Weddington on the substantive legal issues. It was the first time in their legal careers that they had made statements in court. Weddington was very nervous, her voice trembling. She looked up and saw Judge Hughes smiling at her, and then gradually calmed down. She argued to the court, Jane. Roy has the right to decide for herself whether to terminate her pregnancy, which falls within her constitutionally protected right to privacy. Texas law prohibits abortion, which violates her constitutional rights. Some later lawyers, judges and jurists argued that women’s right to abortion should be included in the right to equality protected by the Constitution, and that it was too far-fetched to include it in the right to privacy. But legal doctrine in the conceptual world is one thing, and court proceedings in the real world are another. Generally speaking, U.S. courts follow the principles of precedent. The Constitution clearly stipulates a few rights, which the Supreme Court calls "fundamental rights." When interpreting the scope of coverage and application of basic rights, lawyers and grassroots courts cannot arbitrarily extend them. They must look at previous decisions of higher courts, especially the Supreme Court. Are there any precedents?

The Constitution does not provide for the right to abortion. Therefore, if the plaintiff accuses Texas of unconstitutional laws prohibiting abortion, they must find a fundamental right in the Constitution and cite previous court precedents to argue that abortion belongs to that fundamental right. The Supreme Court has no previous precedent supporting the right to abortion. In this case, lawyers must rely on comparable precedents in fact and law when prosecuting. Coffey and Weddington found that the most comparable Supreme Court case to the abortion issue was Grace Ward v. Connecticut, decided in 1965. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that Connecticut's law banning contraception violated the plaintiff's right to privacy. The Supreme Court held that although the Constitution does not explicitly stipulate the right to privacy, the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution implicitly protect the right to privacy. This is the jurisprudence on which Coffey and Weddington relied.