Monthly Archives: October 2007

For this statement to be remotely true, it must be rendered as “No individual acting in a non-official capacity is above the law.” However, even in this iteration, it is pre-supposed that “the law” in question is just, moral, and right. For example, an obstetrician may be asked to perform an abortion, which is now a legal medical procedure. He can still refuse based on a higher moral authority, so in that case, he is acting as if he were above the particular law allowing abortion on demand.

Moreover, since abortion once was illegal, the Supreme Court decision that permitted it was written by a group that by definition had to have been above the law. A moment’s thought will convince you that having the power to change an existing law places one above the law.

Traditionally, the law-making or law-changing function of our government has been in the hands of the legislatures, but dating back to Marbury v. Madison (1803) this became muddled, perhaps fatally so. Chief Justice John Marshall was able to create the notion of judicial review out of whole cloth by writing a decision favorable to the sitting president (Jefferson), under the novel theory that the petitioner’s demands were “unconstitutional.”

Ironically, although Marbury would greatly expand the powers of the Court, in the actual (instant) case, it served to limit the powers, as the Court would not grant William Marbury the writ of mandamus that he wanted. In a further irony, the finding against petitioner Marbury would limit the expansion of the federal courts, at least temporarily.

In possibly the greatest irony of all, even though the decision gave Jefferson his desired short term outcome, he would later (1819) lament the case, noting that “The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

Let it be noted that in Marbury, Jefferson acted above the law by refusing to deliver William Marbury the commission certifying his appointment as a judge; and Marshall acted above the law by creating an entirely new justification to allow this.

Marshall argued that the Court did not have authority to grant Mr. Marbury his claim, while Marbury’s side argued—with great logic and indeed foresight—that the Constitution was only intended to set a floor for original jurisdiction that Congress could add to. Marshall contended that Congress does not have the power to modify the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction, but in so doing expanded that very jurisdiction by creating judicial review!

Thus was raised the big question of what happens when an Act of Congress conflicts with the Constitution. Marshall held that Acts of Congress that conflict with the Constitution are not law, and the Courts are bound instead to follow the Constitution. He noted that there would be no point of having a written Constitution if the courts could just ignore it. “To what purpose are powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if these limits may, at any time, be passed by those intended to be restrained?”

This is truly stunning. In that very case he had just expanded the powers of the unelected Supreme Court, putting it—by any standard—above the law, as well as above Congress. More importantly, where has the Court been all these many years in which literally thousands of laws have been passed that are well outside the Constitution?

If Marbury means anything, over the nearly 150-year-long bold expansion of federal authority, there are countless times that the Court should have intervened.

Now, let us venture beyond theory into the practical. Article II, section 3 of the Constitution enumerates one cardinal responsibility of the President: “[He] shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed…”

Clearly, the immigration laws are not being enforced, and while the Executive branch should be held liable, there are also many in the legislative arena who would agree with the non-enforcement. Although the cover story for the lack of enforcement is some sense of higher justice, the real reason is pure politics and nothing more. The Democrats believe that illegals (presumably after an amnesty) will generally vote for their party, and many Republicans—including Bush apparently—are owned by the slave labor, hospitality, banking, or education lobbies, all of which are vastly in favor of the illegals.

Meanwhile, every single poll shows overwhelming public support for aggressive enforcement. What better example of being “above the law” can I proffer than intransigent non-enforcement despite public demand?

The reverse of the immigration situation is drugs. As I have said before, if alcoholic beverages are legal, no possible argument can be made in favor of keeping certain drugs illegal. And, the benefits of legalizing them so outweigh the negatives, that it should be a no-brainer.

Street crime would be drastically reduced, and the prison population, bulging with minor drug offenders, would drop by more than 30 percent, according to some estimates. The only negative would be one we currently have, whereby drug-addled individuals ruin their lives. Certainly, there are many alternative ways to ruin one’s life, including alcohol abuse. Absent drug laws, though, what in the world would law enforcement and the courts be doing?

Only drug enforcement and tax collection emerge as areas where no one is above the law, and this is for the very same reason: It’s all about the dollars, and no one is above the dollars.

One way to get a pulse on political and cultural thoughts and trends is to examine popular bumper stickers. We note that back in the early to mid 1960s, bumper stickers most often reflected conservative or right-wing opinions…

“America: Love It or Leave It”
“Impeach Earl Warren”

Of course, this has all changed, with liberal or Leftist sentiments now dominating the bumper sticker universe.

Hate Is Not a Family Value

This one is directed primarily at those intolerant souls who do not embrace the gay revolution. It may have originated as a reaction against various incidents whereby closeted gay teachers were outed by students, parents, or colleagues.

Excessively contentious even for a bumper sticker, “hate” is trotted out as an all-purpose pejorative for those who would disagree with their enlightened position. Since it is already assumed that we tolerant people must still be intolerant of hate, this is nothing more than a thinly veiled attack (even hatred?) of those on the other side. Moreover, the sentiment is namby-pamby in that it is anything but an affirmative endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle.

Mark well this key Leftist technique, probably originated by Stalin, but most notably used by opponents of Joe McCarthy. When there is nothing on your side that can be affirmatively defended, simply attack the opponent. In this case, since most on the Left are loathe to endorse gay sexual practices, they can only attack the other side as being full of hate.

To be fair, no one has ever defined “family values,” the term being little more than a catch-all for vague concepts of an intact traditional family, with possible religious connotations. Ironically, “hate” in the Gospels is overwhelmingly used by Jesus to refer to how his followers would be treated by the world.

Militant Agnostic:  I don’t know & you don’t either

A fairly mild entry in the large collection of anti-religion and atheist materials, the sentiment strikes an interesting posture. “Agnostic” implies maintaining a continuing doubt as to the existence of God, whereas “atheist” affirms that there is no God. One would think that in taking a “militant” position, a person would be sure, rather than doubtful. Then again, the exhibitor of the sticker could be sure that he is doubtful, I suppose. That would be in keeping with the Left’s tendency toward namby-pamby sentiments, as noted above.

But there is much more here.

The condescending point is that the exhibitor is not prone to mere exercises of faith. Whatever he believes to be true must be proven, and be based on reason. Thus, as you will see, he falls into a fatal contradiction.

Any fact the exhibitor feels comfortable as being “known” was first learned at some time in the past. When that particular fact was being learned, there were already certain assumptions being made, that cannot be proven:

• A certain sequence of letters signifies a specific word

• Any word that is learned refers to a unique object—physical or otherwise

• The concept of numbers

Less fundamental is his acceptance of all sorts of facts, that, at best, can only be verified by consulting reference books, but even this verification must assume some faith in some source. Indeed, if he were not to accept certain matters on faith, he would never learn anything at all. For example, he may learn that Richmond is the capital of Virginia. This assumes the geographical entities mentioned, along with the notion of a “capital.”

Therefore, based on but a moment’s reflection, you will see that there is no difference between faith and reason.

He may then counter that certain things—such as the existence of God—are simply unknowable. This stance, however, creates further problems. Based on the standards of the bumper sticker, for him to contend something, he must be able to prove it, and now he is forced to prove that something can be unknowable.

For him, this is fatal. Assuming that it is even possible to prove that something is unknowable, if he does prove this, all he has done is underscored the necessity to take certain matters on faith, as I have already demonstrated. However, if he is unable to prove that something is unknowable, he has destroyed the very sentiment of the bumper sticker.

[T]he truth will set you free. (John 8:32)

Washington-based attorney and pundit Peter Mulhern recently posted a piece to Real Clear Politics that surveyed some of the current political scene, in support of Fred Thompson’s candidacy. Several of his observations are worthy of further comment, beyond their connection with Thompson…

He notes early on that “[C]onventional wisdom rarely gets anything right. When it does, it’s only by accident.”

I like this statement, not only because it is obviously true, but because it explains so much of what is wrong with America. The conventional arguments for single-payer health care, for example, are all based on the notion that since health care is so expensive, the government HAS to take charge of it. In fact, cause and effect have been reversed here: Health care is so expensive BECAUSE the government is already involved, and this goes back to Medicare in 1965.

If you like the way Medicare works, including the marvelous feature whereby it is virtually impossible to discern how much it will cover until a claim is submitted—thus creating an odd sort of retroactive rationing—you will love a government single-payer system.

The real wisdom to be had here is that people like cheap and free, until it’s time to pay the piper—as in lead-contaminated toys. Suddenly, price isn’t the sine qua non anymore. Similar points could be made regarding public education.

Mulhern muses “[H]ow much of Clinton’s appeal, such as it was, depended on his flaws rather than his strengths. Could Clinton have been so charming to so many without the selfishness, the total lack of self-discipline, the sexual incontinence, the dishonesty, the flabby physique and the swollen nose?”

Spot on. Bill Clinton embodied the very worst characteristics of the baby boomers, and became the first anti-hero president. It didn’t hurt that he ran against weak opponents, with an electorate confused by the entrance of a third party candidate in 1992.

Mulhern mocks Dick Morris, saying that his career was “grounded on the idea that pandering conquers all.” Indeed. He is too polite to mention that Morris now pens columns that trash much of what the Clintons stand for, yet he was neck-deep in it for years. Just when did Morris have his epiphany? Besides, how credible is a guy who a short time ago was saying that only Condoleeza Rice could compete with Hillary?

Mulhern rejects the idea that a president “runs the country,” and, as such, needs to be a manager. This is an attack on Mitt Romney, celebrated for being CEO of the 2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics, and for his association with Bain Capital.

While Romney surely had a hand in turning around the scandal-laden and debt-ridden Olympics, raising money on behalf of a world-class sporting event—that was also the first major event following 9/11—could hardly have been difficult. Recall that a tide of patriotism was sweeping the country, and this was before the Iraq war.

As to Bain, it is well to note that mega-mergers seldom do anything more than earn fees and stock benefits for the few—most often at the expense of the many. Moreover, in cases such as AmPad, where Bain actually retained financial interest in a company, the management record was abysmal. But, if business acumen is strictly defined as making money for oneself, as opposed to building some sort of meaningful enterprise, Romney’s record is secure.

Let’s review what our Constitution says about the president:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. (Article II, section 1) [“executive” = designed or fitted for or relating to execution or carrying into effect]

Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy; Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States; Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States (Article II, section 2)

shall give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union; recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; shall receive Ambassadors and other public Ministers; shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, and shall Commission all the Officers of the United States. (Article II, section 3)

Clearly, the executive function described therein implies getting things done with special emphasis—it would seem—on executing laws. Thus, the current failure to enforce our immigration laws cries out! How ironic that this most basic deficiency is apparent to the overwhelming number of voters, even if it is being virtually ignored by the candidates.

Finally, consider the concept of running the government like a business. In fact, the government may be many things, but it is nothing like a business. It could slightly resemble a business if it had to operate at a profit, or at least cover all expenses, but even then, the comparison is deeply flawed.

Politics and cronyism may well exist in a real business, but sooner or later, if these factors are harmful enough, individuals will be discharged, or the company will eventually fail. In government, the president might be a CEO, but he cannot fire the speaker or house majority leader. He might wish to appoint several federal judges, but with a hostile senate standing in his way, be rendered powerless.

Furthermore, beyond being able to appoint cabinet secretaries with (usually) little interference, he can do virtually nothing to control the day-to-day operations of these gigantic agencies, since they are staffed by tens of thousands of bureaucrats, essentially assured of lifetime employment. It is worth remembering that no one was fired in the wake of the Robert Hanssen FBI spy case or 9/11, certainly two of the worst disasters in the history of the US government.

But then, “running the government like a business” just drips with conventional wisdom.