12-10-05 -- The Second Blog.   Judicial Appointments, Bush Wins the Election, Tax Cuts and other topics of interest.

 

 

Right or Left, Conservative or Liberal.  Let's get to the topics of the day.

 

 

#1) Judicial Appointments. The Founding Fathers created the 3-branch system entirely to ensure that nothing like a King or any similar Absolute Power would ever get its claws in our government. And they specifically created a NON-partisan branch of government entirely to ensure against the possibility that if the other 2 branches came under one controlling partisan group, the INDEPENDANT judiciary would continue to balance that by preserving the rules of the constitution regardless of partisanship. So...Judicial Appointments. It is the right of every President to appoint judges. No debate there, the constitution says so. But EITHER party attempting to actually influence the rule of law by attempting to "control" the independent judiciary through carefully pre-planned appointments in order to attempt to guarantee partisan results...well, seems to be in opposition to the intent of the Framers. And, since we know it is possible, isn't it both reasonable and fair to allow both sides of the partisan debate to carefully examine such appointments, in order to 'attempt' to prevent either side, ever, from controlling the independence of the judiciary? Because of your own personal politics, you may want to see this man or that woman take the bench, but wouldn't you hate it if in 10 or 20 or 30 years the other party triumphed and held the other 2 branches, and every single replaceable Supreme Court justice was a raving, rabid member of that party. Brrrrr. I say that these debates, even if they get rabid enough to level a filibuster, are protections against EITHER side ever controlling what should never be controlled. These current raving liberals need to be able to rave and rant against whatever appointment they want so that in 30 years the Supreme Court will STILL be largely impartial, or at least BALANCED. Which is to say...Moderate. Yes?

 

Now, however, I did just recently find out something fascinating, that I was unaware of.  Did you know that the Constitution does not in fact make the Judiciary the Supreme arbiter of Constitutional Law, at least as it applies globally?  I sure didn't.  The Framers imagined that the Judiciary would, on a case-by-case basis only, determine the legitimacy of any given law or the violation thereof…but in fact, the Framers did NOT deed to the Court the power to rule on the validity of a LAW IN ITS ENTIRETY.  Fascinating.  In other words, according to the pure powers granted in the Constitution, Congress could create a law which prevented anyone from exercising their freedom of  speech, despite the guarantee of such in the First Amendment, and, at least according to the pure reading of the Constitution, the Judiciary would only be able to overturn CASES of such unconstitutionality as they were brought to it.  They could not in fact invalidate an entire law as being unconstitutional, thus broadly sweeping the whole problem back to the Legislature.  It was in a profound and very early decision of the Supreme Court,  the third chief justice, John Marshall, shaped the role that the courts would play in the 1803 ruling of Marbury v. Madison.  The details are irrelevant, what remains is simply that the courts decided that their rulings impacted law directly, and the effective support and lack of legislative counterattack sealed that ruling and its effect onto all of us to this day.  Personally, while I agree that leaving the fate of us all in the hands of "JUST" 9 men is probably not what the Framers intended…I think it is far better than leaving it in the hands of The Majority, whoever they are.  And, furthermore, the total fate of any law does NOT just rest in those 9 men and women…it also rests in the hands of every member of the lower courts who are required to hear the case before them.  So, it is imperfect, to be sure, but I would prefer it to "The Tyranny of the Majority".

 

But did that Majority win its position justly and fairly?:

 

#2)  Did Bush fairly win either of his last two elections. I suppose this could be black and white. The bottom line is, according to the rule of law, he did. Fairly? Who knows exactly, but again, fairly enough that law holds that he is rightfully in office. Seems to me "end of story". So, do the people who like to believe that he "fixed" the election make them un-American, pro-Euro or anything else? I don't think so, at least not as a rule. If they truly believe that the election was somehow improper, then while their belief may be wholly and entirely wrong, their actual intent is wholly and entirely American. Free and true election is, after all, the basis of our entire country. So, I would agree with you if you say it may be fair to call these people crazy or baseless or simply extremely frustrated sore losers. But not 'against the soul of America'. The further bottom line is, which is something which does go properly to your point about America "feeling" entirely divided...the elections, both times, were entirely divided. The winner, both times, won by such a ridiculously close margin that it is almost irrelevant if there were any shenanigans. The shenanigans may or may not have affected the results anyway. If someone tried something improper, but the margin was gigantic, the improper crap wouldn't change anything anyway. So, I agree with you that about half of the people in this country seem to want something different from what this administration is offering. And I again say, despite what the perception may be, it's all in the proper and normal process of the living, breathing thing we call The United States of America. This is not the Civil War. Neither side wants to seceed. This is not the Revolutionary War. Neither side wants a new nation. These are two sides that I think are really lots of sides with many shades of gray. And I think that, in the end, cooler heads will prevail, and some proper combination of these many sides will find the best solutions (or at least attempt to find) to all of these problems. And I do not think that unfailingly clinging to either side is the way to find the right answer. About that notion, I am indeed both unfailingly Moderate, and unfailingly fanatical.

 

This one hasn't been talked about in awhile, but it should be:

 

#3) Tax Cuts; Certainly the classic Left/Right debate, seemingly black and white. But remember, Republicans are supposed to be fiscally conservative, and at least so far, this administration has increased spending in every category by more than any other administration in history. Oh sure, there may be "good reasons" for that. But it remains a fact. And, whereas the tax cuts did most probably help to enact economic recovery, they have undeniably drastically increased the deficit. Remember...spending itself, unrelated to revenue, has increased dramatically. Even if there were no tax cuts, their would still be a giant deficit right now. But with the tax cuts, the deficit is literally of epic proportion. Now, again, I see that this is something which is NOT about the soul of America, this is a hugely complex and almost universally non-understood mystery of economics upon which any 10 PhD's will entirely disagree with each other on what to do or how to do it. So, whilst I personally in general agree with the notion of reducing taxes which increases growth, I also think that this deficit is massively damaging the entire future of the United States in a very serious way. And thus, is something subject to debate.

So I want to end this show with some words that much wiser men than I have spoken before, on behalf of this notion that to be utterly free,  we MUST allow for complete disagreement of the strategies and policies of the current Administration and its Majority.  To avoid the Tyranny of the Majority, to give just measure of devotion to the honored dead who gave us these rights…we must remember to PRACTICE being fee.  Speak now…or you may be forced to hold your peace.

 

From one of our Sacred Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, came this nugget of truth…which, I would say should bring a caution to your mind on the Patriot Act of today:

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

 

 

 

On the topic of allowing voices of dissent, and perhaps, of maintaining a sheer division of Church and State, this from Clarence Darrow:

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free."

Is that something this current administration has forgotten?

 

And to this, perhaps the most important thought.  This is not just an idea, it is a call to action.  Franklin Delano Roosevelt wrote;

 

            "The only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people, and a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."

 

Now, seriously…this quote should be WHAT THE GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT, and WHAT IT DEMANDS of its people.  This quote should represent the position of the current administration, and yet it is clear it does not.  The current administration agrees with the first part, that the "… only sure bulwark of continuing liberty is a government strong enough to protect the interests of the people…".  And that is where this administration stops. 

 

But the next part, that is the most important part…we need "… a people strong enough and well enough informed to maintain its sovereign control over the government."   It is up to us.  Freedom is in OUR hands.  It is we who control our fate.  And it is we who MUST voice our opinions, speak our minds, and CAST OUR VOTE to maintain the government strong enough to protect our interests, but one that knows that it SERVES the People.  It exists to serve us, not the other way around.

 

 

 

God bless you all, and may we all see Lincoln's dream continue to come true…and that this "…government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

 

 

From Matthew Thomas, The Moderate Fanatic, I'm signing off until next week.