The right to wear a hat under the American Constitution

by M Vernica Brain
Professor Amar has said, Nowhere in the written Constitution does it say that people
can wear a hat, though reading the Constitution as a whole, a first argument to support
the right to wear a hat is founded in the explicit textual framework of the Constitutions
legitimacy. As stated in Article VI, the Constitution self-referentially asserts its own
authority ...shall be the supreme Law of the Land. It is considered as a basic social
fact that Americans generally accept this premise of the Constitution.
Therefore, under this legitimate recognition of the Constitution, being free is a natural
right, a fortiori and fully recognized throughout the Constitution from the Preamble:
...and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, then
throughout the Bill of Rights, primarily in the First Amendment and latterly in the

Fourteenth Amendment: ...any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens which preceded and surpassed the Constitution itself.
Moreover, the Ninth Amendment states that there are more rights, so Americas textual
Constitution ruled that those other rights are reserved for the people, inferring that
everybody shall be entitled to wear a hat, or so I claim.
An historic argument to support peoples right to wear a hat is founded in Blackstones
commentaries: natural liberty consists properly in a power of acting as one
thinks fit, without any restraint or control, unless by the law of nature; being a
right inherent in us by birth.
An important argument to support peoples right to wear a hat is founded in the case
Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969). Although a precedent related to
schools, in which students were not allowed to wear armbands, it can be extended
faithfully to this case. The court ruled that was against the Constitution.

Sister Mary v. District Court (fictional case)

My client, a 35-year-old white woman, was ordered to take off her hat at the District
Court. She had been called as a witness.
The dress code, from 1920, established that people must show their heads at all times in
the open District Court sessions.
My client, Sister Mary, who suffers from Systemic Lupus Erythematosus, used a hat for
health reasons, in order to be protected from UV rays, from sun and artificial light. This
exception was authorized by her bishop. Normally in her order, nuns wear a veil. They
believe that they must cover their heads as a sign of humility and respect for their God,
at all times and places. The orders dress code prohibits nuns to appear in public with
their heads uncovered.
Sister Mary was forced to take off her hat. The fact that she was under threat of not
being allowed to testify for the defendant if she did not take off her hat, constitutes a
violation of implicit and textual Constitutional rights.
She has the right to wear clothing, including a hat - or a veil - as part of her rights to
liberty and to freedom of expression. This was also a threat to her civil rights, among
them, to testify in a court of law, as an entitlement that has roots as old as the written
Constitution itself.
Furthermore, the wearing of a veil - or a hat - is a religious practice. Being forced to
take off her hat was a violation of the First Amendment: Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,

because Sister Mary is entitled to wear a hat - or a veil - at home and in public places,
due to religious practices, even in places where it is prohibited. This Constitutional right
is above the Districts Courts dress code.
Third, but not least, Sister Mary is entitled to wear a hat as a means to protect her
health, even in places where it is forbidden, as her right to health. Although not
expressly recognized in any Constitutional clause, it is implicit in the American
Constitution that her rights to health and personal liberty are fully recognized,
furthermore as a natural right.
The Supreme Court conceded that the aforementioned rights were affected and
threatened in this case, although in principle the dress code of the District Court meets
the criterion of equality.
As a remedy, the Supreme Court ordered the dress code to be amended so as not to
affect the Constitutional rights of any people in the Court building.
A month later, a paragraph was added that states, If you cannot comply with this dress
code due to peoples Constitutional reserved rights, please register and report to the
usher before entering the court hall.