Enshrine

Enshrine (pronounced en-shrahyn)

(1) To enclose (a sacred relic etc) in a shrine or chest.

(2) To cherish as sacred or venerated, someone, an idea or an institution.

(3) In statute or constitutional law, to protect (a concept, ideal, or philosophy) within a law or treaty.

(4) Figuratively, to make permanent.

1575–1585: The construct was en- + shrine.  The en- prefix was from the Middle English en- (en-, in-), from the Old French en- (also an-), from the Latin in- (in, into).  It was also an alteration of in-, from the Middle English in-, from the Old English in- (in, into), from the Proto-Germanic in (in).  Both the Latin & Germanic forms were from the primitive Indo-European en (in, into).  The intensive use of the Old French en- & an- was due to confluence with Frankish intensive prefix an- which was related to the Old English intensive prefix -on.  It formed a transitive verb whose meaning is to make the attached adjective (1) in, into, (2) on, onto or (3) covered.  It was used also to denote “caused” or as an intensifier.  The prefix em- was (and still is) used before certain consonants, notably the labials b and p.  Shrine ((1) a holy or sacred place dedicated to a specific deity, ancestor, hero, martyr, saint, or similar figure of awe and respect, at which said figure is venerated or worshipped, (2) a case, box, or receptacle, especially one in which are deposited sacred relics, as the bones of a saint & (3) figuratively a place or object hallowed from its history or associations) was from the Middle English shryne, from the Old English scrīn (reliquary, ark of the covenant), from the Medieval Latin scrīnium (reliquary (“case or chest for books or papers” in Classical Latin)) and ultimately from the primitive Indo-European sker & ker- (to turn, bend).  It was linked with the Old Norse skrín and the Old High German skrīni (which survives in Modern German as Schrein).  In the sixteenth century enshrine & inshrine were used in parallel, both in the sense of “enclose in or as in a shrine; deposit for safe-keeping”.  The (rare) alternative form inshrine is listed (like the verb enshrineth as obsolete for all but the odd ceremonial use in religious rituals.  Enshrine & enshrined are verbs, enshriner, enshrinee & enshrinement are nouns, enshrined is verb & adjective and enshrining is a verb.

Implausibly, the White House tries to suggest Joe Biden is "cool".

October 3 has become enshrined as Mean Girls Day which is good but the White House for the last two years (2023 (left) & 2022 (right)) has tweeted memes on the theme, apparently in an attempt to make Joe Biden (b 1942; US president since 2021) seem somehow relevant (al last to the early twentieth century).  On both occasions, the reaction has been such that one might hope it stops but the next Mean Girls Day falls a few weeks before the 2024 presidential election and if Mr Biden doesn’t die (God forbid) and really does again run, the temptation may be too great.

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice (TheVoice)

In October 2014, the Australian government submitted to the voters by means of referendum (the only way to modify the nation’s constitution):

A Proposed Law: To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

The insertion of the following chapter:

Chapter IX Recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice.

In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

The “No” case assembled a number of arguments in opposition but one, although it seemed of fundamental importance, seemed to attract little comment and the “Yes” proponents made little attempt to refute its implications.  What the “No” case alleged, inter alia, was:

Putting a Voice in the Constitution means it’s permanent.  Enshrining in our Constitution a body for only one group of Australians means… once it is in the Constitution it won’t be undone.

In a literal sense that was of course almost certainly true but given the vagueness of the wording and the latitude afforded to the parliament in framing the parameters of “The Voice”, there seems no reason why things shouldn’t have gone the way of the Interstate Commission, a creature of Section 101 of the Constitution of Australia (1901):

There shall be an Inter-State Commission, with such powers of adjudication and administration as the Parliament deems necessary for the execution and maintenance, within the Commonwealth, of the provisions of this Constitution relating to trade and commerce, and of all laws made thereunder.

In terms of both legal theory and the usual constitutional practice the words “There shall be an Inter-State Commission” seem unambiguous but the Inter-State Commission wasn’t established until 1912 and became dormant after 1920 because the High Court of Australia (HCA) in 1915 has found the judicial powers granted to the commission by the parliament were invalid.  The bench held a “separation of powers” was implicit in the constitution which demanded judicial power be vested only in the judiciary and that on technical grounds the commission was not a judicial body.  Rendered therefore merely investigative and deliberative, the government allowed the commission to become defunct and it wasn’t revived until the 1980s and even then, after a brief existence as a stand-alone body, it was absorbed by what eventually became the Productivity Commission.

So, even had the words “There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice” had been enshrined in the Constitution, that alone would not seem to prevent a parliament at some point passing a law defining “The Voice” as one (suitably accommodative) indigenous person attached to the Department of Prime-Minister & Cabinet (PM&C) or just about any other model.  Because of the wording, it might be the High Court would have been generous in their view of who would have standing to challenge a model but the clause “The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures” would seem to offer little scope.  Lord Denning (1899-1999; English judge 1944-1982) himself would have struggled to find an “indigenous peoples’ equity” in all that.  Mere enshrinement of “The Voice” in the Constitution would not in itself have guaranteed any sort of legal or political dynamic because, as the tale of the Inter-State Commission demonstrated, words can be dead letters.