You mean, what's left of it?
Posted on 03/26/2005 5:06:00 AM PST by billorites
UNQUESTIONABLY, Alexander Hamilton was the most prescient of the Founding Fathers. While Adams mistrusted banks, and Jefferson and Madison conceptualized America as a nation of yeoman farmers, Hamilton embraced finance and industry. But Hamilton got it completely wrong when he predicted in Federalist No. 78 that the judiciary would be the “least dangerous” branch of government. With every new decision it issues, the U.S. Supreme Court looks less and less like a court of law and more and more like a supreme legislature. Its recent decision declaring the death penalty for minors unconstitutional — like its decisions on abortion, race, religion, sex and speech — was based not on the constitution or precedent or even historical or contemporary practice, but on the personal views of a majority of the justices. Which makes us a nation not of laws, but of seven men and two women. And many state courts are just as bad as their federal counterparts. Not content with having appointed themselves as their states’ supreme school boards, they are now undertaking the mission of redefining marriage. Hardly what Hamilton and the other Founders had in mind. Writing in Federalist No. 81, Hamilton claimed that Congress’ power of impeachment would prevent the federal judiciary from overstepping its bounds: “There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations.” Nowadays, howeer, there is little possibility that impeachment — or its first cousin in some state constitutions, a bill of address — will be used to remove judges who overstep their constitutional roles. This is due in part to the popular misconception that removing a judge on account of his decisions, even decisions plainly at odds with the constitution, would be a threat to “judicial independence.” That this view is so commonly accepted shows how constitutionally ignorant we have become since Hamilton’s time. The reason our federal and state constitutions made the judiciary independent from the legislative and executive branches was to preserve the constitution. This independence was intended to allow courts to serve as an effective check on the other branches when they exceeded their constitutional limits. It is nonsensical to use judicial independence as a reason for not removing judges who rewrite the constitution, because that permits the very result that judicial independence was intended to prevent. The Founders also failed to foresee that today’s politicians would care more about advancing their political agendas than upholding the constitution. The Democrat party is particularly to blame for the present state of affairs in the federal courts. Unable to win control of either Congress or the presidency in 2004, Democrats in Washington are reduced to running interference for activist judges. Hence, jurists such as Supreme Court Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who believe the Constitution has a fixed and ascertainable meaning which should be applied to present circumstances, are branded extremists. While jurists who believe that the meaning of the Constitution evolves to reflect the policy positions of moveon.org are lauded as moderates. Here in New Hampshire, both parties share the blame for failing to check an overreaching judiciary. Many, if not a majority of, Republicans like the outcome of the Claremont decisions — which drastically diminished local control over education in favor of control by state government — every bit as much as the Democrats. Hence, the Legislature’s repeated refusal to even let the voters consider a constitutional amendment. Various commentators, such as rejected Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, have suggested amending the Constitution to allow the representative branches some degree of review over court decisions. But amending the federal Constitution requires a super-majority of Congress and the states, which the success of the Democrat filibusters of President Bush’s federal appeals court nominees shows is impractical. The durability of Claremont and other state court education funding decisions shows this approach is also impractical at the state level. It is clear that the only solution to a runaway judiciary is the principle declared in the Declaration of Independence that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of the ends for which government is intended, “it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” What is less clear is how many of us believe in this principle and are willing to act on it. Ed Mosca is a Manchester attorney and former chairman of the city Republican Party.
Believe me, he's made a lot of enemies doing this and he's not a coward. Clinton told Janet Reno to seize Elian because she had already demonstrated her willingness to kill Americans to do his dirty work (remember Waco?). Gov. Bush is not willing to do the same. This does not make him a coward.
BTW, I'm going down to Pinellas Park later today. Are you? One of the saddest things about this is how few people are at the hospice. If a huge crowd had turned up, even the judge might have been intimidated. But it's obvious that Bush has no support from most Floridians or Americans in general, and this is another thing that makes a confrontation dangerous and a waste of time.
If true, that hits at the heart of our present problem, that being allowing the judiciary to usurp rights not granted to them by the Constitution.
What the liberals/Democrats are doing is threatening, much like a small child, to cause such a disproportionate ruckus over some things, like the filibuster rule and this situation, in order to cow those of longer term vision and higher values, usually conservative Republicans, into inaction. This is tyranny by the unprincipled minority, pure and simple. (Same as the Rent-a Mob protests by the left.)
In Washington, the Republicans should act like the leaders they are and go ahead with their agenda. That is why they are the majority - the majority of people approve of their agenda.
In Florida, Jeb Bush should have assembled the State Police or the National Guard and lead them himself to remove Terri from that place. Call their bluff and there would have been no shooting.
Bullies are the same all over, whether little kids or great big adults, and the only way to handle them is to call their bluff.
Instead, in Washington and Florida, we let them tie us up in minutia and court procedures while we fret too long about how to do things right rather than just doing the right thing.
No better time than now while emotions are high over the filibuster rule and this tragic Shiavo case, both centered on judges. Whether we think it does any good or not we need to bombard the media and all elected representatives, not just ours but all of them, with emails, faxes, letters, and phone calls. Let them know a storm is brewing and they had better react to it.
I think that much of the discussion we hear about the problem being with the legal representation of the Schindlers is an effort to deflect blame from the judges. They anticipate the storm of protest and they are building an alibi to counter it.
I agree Jeb is not a coward. It's completely terrible that Terri is being killed by the state. But I believe at least he's doing the best he thinks he can without approaching the line of anarchy or setting a dangerous precedent in use of power.
I'm NOT saying I agree he with everyone he has done and not done, but I appreciate his extremely difficult position.
-- Joe
All the judges in the schiavo case ARE protecting the laws of the USA. Its only people blinded by right to life issues that advocate judges ruling on morality rather than laws.... thats what you call...ACTIVIST.
You mean, what's left of it?
Great piece. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. This is what the French razor and old sparky were invented for.
Please tell me what laws the judges are protecting by removing this woman's feeding tube. The last time I checked hearsay evidence was not admissible against a serial murderer, and therefore could not condemn him to the death penalty. Please tell me why Terri has less rights than him?
Also, Congress is the one with the power to set up federal courts. Congress passed a law, yes, that's LAW, with the clear intent that a federal judge should retry the case. The judge totally disregarded that LAW.
This is not right wing emotionalism. Some people may or may not have Terri as the end all be all. The long term danger for the Republic is to have a precedent for judges to a) disregard acts of Congress (better known as the LAW), and b) have the power of life or death for people too helpless to protest.
Maybe we could go after their pay checks and donations and let them starve to death from like of funds.
What's difficult about his position? The judge has had no problem ignoring subpoenas he finds inconvenient, ignoring evidence he finds inconvenient, ignoring state laws he finds inconvenient. He arrogates power to himself beyond belief: writing up grandiose court orders to the entire state of Florida.
If Bush had half the willpower the thug cracker has, the woman wouldn't be dying as we write.
Increasingly, that appears to include all of us.
You ignore the fact that this judge has been upheld by a virtual host of other judges. Greer is not acting alone.
The judiciary is out of control in this country and has userped the powers of the other branches and of the people themselves.
Yes it is so funny how the MINORITY Dums have so much POWER NOW, that they are not in POWER. You didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. Try reading.
Oh, I agree with that. The unelected brotherhood is closing ranks, seeing the crack of daylight coming into their little clubhouse where they rule unchallenged.
American's need to unite and form a plan and then carry it out. The reason this country is in this shape is the bad know the rest of the country can't agree and so they can do as they please.
If only Judge Greer had posted the Ten Commandments, they he would have been kicked out long ago.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.