Most of us tend to read only things with which we already agree. Liberals read the New York Times; and conservatives read the Wall Street Journal. How can we expect to grow in understanding if we continue doing that?
An editorial by James P. Rubin in the Wall Street Journal dated 14 June 2010 presented both sides of the controversy over President Obama’s foreign policies, however. Rubin was an assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration.
He pointed out that the Republican attitude toward the Obama foreign policies is that they see him as “an unreliable friend (of our allies), and a faint-hearted adversary (to our enemies). U.S. allies in Europe no longer treasure their ties to the United States. Turkey defies us without paying a price. China’s leaders question our fortitude. Iran’s nuclear weapons program continues unchecked.” And, I would add, Russia extracts a weapons reduction agreement from us without an equal reduction in their arms stores and both Russia and China continue trading in oil and arms with Iran over our weak, only verbal, arguments.
On the other hand, Mr. Rubin claims that Mr. Obama’s administration has “restored strained alliances and friendships around the world while weakening the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran and Hugo Chavez in Venezuela.” He has restored “respect for international rules on prisoners and acceptance of responsibilities associated with climate change, transformed America from a lonely superpower often seen as a threat to international order back to an indispensable leader in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.”
I have a hard time buying Mr. Rubin’s attitude, especially in his praise for the good relations built up in Europe. I feel sure that the emotions felt in The Czech Republic and in Poland by Obama’s decision to quit the construction of the missile defense shield there have not endeared those Eastern European peoples to the United States.
Never the less, I think that we all should try to look at both sides of all issues before we jump to any conclusions.
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Sunday, June 13, 2010
America Not Prepared for Disaster
The inspector general of the federal Justice Department, issued a statement in late May, saying the department is not prepared to ensure public safety in the days or weeks after a terrorist attack in which nuclear, biological or chemical weapons are used. That is certainly a fine state of affairs for a country that has had nine years after 9/11to prepare for a terrorist disaster.
"The Department is not prepared to fulfill its role . . . to ensure public safety and security in the event of a WMD incident," says the 61-page report. Justice has yet to assign an entity or individual with clear responsibility for oversight or management of WMD response; it has not catalogued its resources in terms of either personnel or equipment; it does not have written plans or checklists in case of a WMD attack. A deputy assistant attorney general for policy and planning is quoted as saying "it is not clear" who in the department is responsible for handling WMD response. Workers interviewed said the department's operational response program "lacks leadership and oversight." An unidentified Justice Department official was quoted: "We are totally unprepared." He added. "Right now, being totally effective would never happen. Everybody would be winging it."
It is true that the federal government has done a good job in prevention of future attacks; and we hear not infrequently how individual terrorists have been apprehended. But…what will we do if one of them deploys a biological, chemical WMD or if one of them should fire off a dirty bomb, spreading nuclear material all over a large metropolitan area. Such a weapon can be carried in a suitcase and exploded in New York’s Central Park.
Many are of the opinion that it is absolutely unthinkable that anyone in their right mind would ever deploy one of these WMD in America. How naïve!! Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “Man has never had a weapon he didn't use.” The question is not whether a terrorist would use such a weapon against the United States. The question is, rather, WHEN.
The above report from the Justice Department needs to be brought to the acute attention of our legislators in Washington. Write to them now and ask them if they are aware of the dangers we face from WMD. If we have another 9/11 all Americans will suffer. Our Congress and Senate are in the worst state of public opinion that has ever existed. If a disaster such as the deployment of a WMD happens, they will all be kicked out of Washington.
This blog post was excerpted from an editorial by Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal 11 June 2010.
"The Department is not prepared to fulfill its role . . . to ensure public safety and security in the event of a WMD incident," says the 61-page report. Justice has yet to assign an entity or individual with clear responsibility for oversight or management of WMD response; it has not catalogued its resources in terms of either personnel or equipment; it does not have written plans or checklists in case of a WMD attack. A deputy assistant attorney general for policy and planning is quoted as saying "it is not clear" who in the department is responsible for handling WMD response. Workers interviewed said the department's operational response program "lacks leadership and oversight." An unidentified Justice Department official was quoted: "We are totally unprepared." He added. "Right now, being totally effective would never happen. Everybody would be winging it."
It is true that the federal government has done a good job in prevention of future attacks; and we hear not infrequently how individual terrorists have been apprehended. But…what will we do if one of them deploys a biological, chemical WMD or if one of them should fire off a dirty bomb, spreading nuclear material all over a large metropolitan area. Such a weapon can be carried in a suitcase and exploded in New York’s Central Park.
Many are of the opinion that it is absolutely unthinkable that anyone in their right mind would ever deploy one of these WMD in America. How naïve!! Ronald Reagan has been quoted as saying, “Man has never had a weapon he didn't use.” The question is not whether a terrorist would use such a weapon against the United States. The question is, rather, WHEN.
The above report from the Justice Department needs to be brought to the acute attention of our legislators in Washington. Write to them now and ask them if they are aware of the dangers we face from WMD. If we have another 9/11 all Americans will suffer. Our Congress and Senate are in the worst state of public opinion that has ever existed. If a disaster such as the deployment of a WMD happens, they will all be kicked out of Washington.
This blog post was excerpted from an editorial by Peggy Noonan of the Wall Street Journal 11 June 2010.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Against Whom are We Competing—the Muslims??
There seems to be a great fear among Western peoples that we are soon to be over-run by hoards of Muslims whose civilization is more vital and powerful than ours in some ways. Let’s look at that idea for a moment.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
There are nearly a billion and a half Muslims in the world, but their footprint on world events is small. Computation and communication technology has changed many things in the world; but the Islamic world has lagged far behind in developing that kind of technology.
According to a World Bank estimate, the total exports of the Arab world other than fossil fuels amount to less than those of Finland, a country of five million inhabitants. Not one scientific discovery of note, innovative firm of international importance, or contribution to universal culture has come from the Muslim world in the past century. In 2008, only 133 patents were filed in Muslim-majority lands, about a tenth of the number in Israel, while the Israeli total exceeded that of India, Russia, and Singapore combined.
But what about the population decrease that many have noted in Western countries due to falling fertility and birth rates? That is all true, and it portends trouble for the countries involved—there are soon to be too few wage earners and tax payers to pay for the burgeoning numbers of elderly and retired persons. Will this not cause the West to succumb to Muslim population expansion? While it is true that Western countries are experiencing dropping birth rates, the birth rates of the Muslim countries are falling even faster. Muslim countries still have a higher birth rate than most Western countries, but their birth rates are falling at a faster rate. Iran is the most extreme case in the Islamic world with the fastest drop in births; but Turkey and Algeria are not far behind.
America’s fear of the Muslim world may be ill founded. The Soviet Union, which liberal thinkers thought was invincible, fell before the economic and cultural power of the United States under Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, America has elected a President who has no faith in the American system nor in the strength of our country. He seems bent on apologizing to the Muslims; and his obvious deep sentimental attachment to the Muslim world is plain to see. The only thing we have to fear from the Muslims is our own fear, itself. We need to stand up and proclaim the truth that we have the character and the strength to lead this world into a veritable principle that individual freedom and enterprise can bring about great blessings to all peoples.
I am reminded of the beginning of the Reagan administration. America had been humiliated for months by the tiny regime of Libya, which was in the business of blowing up passenger planes over the Mediterranean. President Carter had faced that problem by sitting in his office and wringing his hands. When Ronald Reagan came to office, he sent one or two fighter bombers over Libya, dropped a bomb on the factory producing explosives in Libya, and the whole problem ceased. We need another Ronald Reagan in the White House!!
Parts of this post were excerpted from First Things, the Morality of Self-Interest, June 2010.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 6
Ninth Amendment
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” Many modern constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unremunerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decision makers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges “detecting” such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people have implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis, April 2010.
Another looming constitutional battleground concerns the meaning of the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” Many modern constitutionalists understand this amendment to say that there is some unknown array of unremunerated rights that lie fallow in the Constitution, waiting only to be unearthed by far-sighted judges.
Professor Thomas Grey of the Stanford Law School has suggested, for example, that the Ninth Amendment constitutes a “license to constitutional decision makers to look beyond the substantive commands of the constitutional text to protect fundamental rights not expressed therein.” Rights to abortion, contraception, homosexual behavior, and similar sexual privacy rights have already been imposed by judges “detecting” such rights in the Ninth Amendment. The problem is that, in the words of Justices Stewart and Black, this understanding of the amendment “turns somersaults with history” and renders the courts a “day-to-day constitutional convention.”
The more conventional understanding of the Ninth Amendment has viewed it in the historical context of the Bill of Rights, of which it is a part. By this understanding, it was written to dispel any implication that by the specification of particular rights in the Bill of Rights, the people have implicitly relinquished to the new federal government rights not specified. Like the Tenth Amendment—which serves as a reminder that powers neither given to the federal government nor prohibited to the states in the Constitution are reserved to the states or to the people—the Ninth Amendment was adopted to emphasize that our national government is one of limited powers. Its principal purpose was to prevent an extension of federal power, not to provide an open-ended grant of judicial authority that would have the opposite effect.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis, April 2010.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 5
Political Questions:
In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political…can never be made in this Court.”
Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2 (both parts of the Constitution)—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.
If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then, every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government , at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
In areas that were once viewed as inappropriate for judicial involvement, federal courts have begun to assert themselves in an unprecedented and aggressive manner. The limited role of the judiciary, for example, with regard to matters of national defense and foreign policy is not explicitly set forth in the Constitution, but such matters have from time immemorial been understood to be non-justiciable and within the exclusive responsibility of the elected branches of government. As far back as Marbury v. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall recognized that “Questions in their nature political…can never be made in this Court.”
Yet just in the last several years, the Supreme Court, in a series of 5-4 decisions, has overruled determinations made by both the legislative and executive branches regarding the treatment of captured enemy combatants. Most notably, the Court ruled in Boumediene v. Bush (2008) that foreign nationals captured in combat and held outside the United States by the military as prisoners of war—a war authorized by Congress under Article I, Section 8, and waged by the President as Commander-in-Chief under Article II, Section 2 (both parts of the Constitution)—possess the constitutional right to challenge their detentions in federal court. Thus, in yet one more realm of public policy—one on which the sovereignty and liberty of a free people are most dependent, national defense—judges have now begun to embark upon a sharply expanded role.
If there is no significant realm left of “political questions,” if there are no longer any traditional limitations upon the exercise of the judicial power, then, every matter coming before every president, every Congress, every governor, every legislature, and every county commission and city council can, with little difficulty, be summarily recast as a justiciable dispute, or what the Constitution, in Article III, Section 2, describes as a “case” or “controversy.” As a result, every policy debate taking place within government , at every level, will become little more than a prelude for judicial resolution.
This post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 4
State Action on privileges and immunities clause of 14th Amendment
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 as applying only to the states. It has not been applied to individual private citizens or private institutions. In other words, if a state law violates a person’s privileges and immunities under the Bill of Rights, then the federal courts will hear and judge the complaint. But…if a private person or institution violates these privileges and immunities, then, the federal government would not assume the authority to judge between the two competing parties. It is only after a state steps in to adjudicate a case of alleged violation of rights that a federal court can act.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard cases for adjudication between private organizations and other agencies without the intervention of state courts. This tendency has made the Fourteenth Amendment a party to a further takeover of judicial power by federal courts. The federal government has increasingly treated private institutions as the equivalent of the state, thereby extending public oversight in a way the framers of our Constitution never intended.
If this tendency continues, the policies of private institutions in the various states will have to pass the scrutiny and receive the imprimatur of federal judges.
The federal judiciary violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in other ways by invading common sense and precedent: For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended) clearly defines groups that deserve to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, e.g., racial and religious groups, etc. That Act does not list sexual orientation as a protected group. But…the Supreme Court in a decision regarding preferential housing for homosexuals in Boulder, Colorado in recent years, found in favor of homosexuals under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus violating the rights of recognized people groups in Boulder. It mattered not to the Court that bills to recognize homosexuals as a special privileged group have been voted down in Congress every year for at least 15 years.
Well…we can see that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is being misused by liberal groups to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. More of this activity will be up-coming in the future if nothing is done to stop this judicial take-over.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court since the Civil Rights Cases of 1883 as applying only to the states. It has not been applied to individual private citizens or private institutions. In other words, if a state law violates a person’s privileges and immunities under the Bill of Rights, then the federal courts will hear and judge the complaint. But…if a private person or institution violates these privileges and immunities, then, the federal government would not assume the authority to judge between the two competing parties. It is only after a state steps in to adjudicate a case of alleged violation of rights that a federal court can act.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has heard cases for adjudication between private organizations and other agencies without the intervention of state courts. This tendency has made the Fourteenth Amendment a party to a further takeover of judicial power by federal courts. The federal government has increasingly treated private institutions as the equivalent of the state, thereby extending public oversight in a way the framers of our Constitution never intended.
If this tendency continues, the policies of private institutions in the various states will have to pass the scrutiny and receive the imprimatur of federal judges.
The federal judiciary violates the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in other ways by invading common sense and precedent: For instance, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (amended) clearly defines groups that deserve to be protected under the Fourteenth Amendment, e.g., racial and religious groups, etc. That Act does not list sexual orientation as a protected group. But…the Supreme Court in a decision regarding preferential housing for homosexuals in Boulder, Colorado in recent years, found in favor of homosexuals under the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, thus violating the rights of recognized people groups in Boulder. It mattered not to the Court that bills to recognize homosexuals as a special privileged group have been voted down in Congress every year for at least 15 years.
Well…we can see that the privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is being misused by liberal groups to change the meaning and intent of the Constitution. More of this activity will be up-coming in the future if nothing is done to stop this judicial take-over.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Constitutional Changes of the Future—Part 3
Positive Rights
For people who believe that we need a new constitution, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
President Obama is correct. The original Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Proponents of constitutional change would like to change the document’s requirements into a document that requires many positive rights for the benefit of the people, rights such as those listed in the above paragraph, i.e., housing, education, etc. And, for today, that specifically refers to health care, which many people are claiming as a basic right that ought to be guaranteed under the Constitution or, at least, under statute law. For them, lack of universal health care abridges and limits the “privileges and immunities” of our citizens. Therefore, these changers of the Constitution like to use the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as their springboard into a new constitutional understanding.
As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution will become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers. If this happens, a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.
Much of this post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
For people who believe that we need a new constitution, perhaps the greatest virtue of redefining the privileges or immunities clause is the prospect of transforming the Constitution from a guarantor of “negative liberties” into a charter of “affirmative government,” guaranteeing an array of “positive” rights. As President Obama has observed in a radio interview in criticism of the legacy of the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s, “[It] never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and . . . more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. . . . [T]he Warren Court . . . wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution. . . that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties, says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.”
President Obama is correct. The original Constitution defines individual rights in terms of what the government cannot do to you. For example, the government cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such punishment; the government cannot engage in unreasonable searches and seizures, and therefore the individual has a constitutional right not to be subject to such searches and seizures, and so forth. By contrast, the Framers’ Constitution does not guarantee rights to material goods such as housing, education, food, clothing, jobs, or health care—rights that place a related obligation upon the state to obtain the resources from other citizens to pay for them.
Proponents of constitutional change would like to change the document’s requirements into a document that requires many positive rights for the benefit of the people, rights such as those listed in the above paragraph, i.e., housing, education, etc. And, for today, that specifically refers to health care, which many people are claiming as a basic right that ought to be guaranteed under the Constitution or, at least, under statute law. For them, lack of universal health care abridges and limits the “privileges and immunities” of our citizens. Therefore, these changers of the Constitution like to use the “privileges and immunities” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as their springboard into a new constitutional understanding.
As various advocates of a 21st century constitution have urged, a privilege or immunity might be interpreted to allow the invention of a host of new “rights,” and thus be construed to guarantee social or economic equality. However pleasing this might sound to some people, there should be no mistake: adopting this interpretation will supplant representative decision-making with the decision-making of unelected, unaccountable, and life-tenured judges. Should the privileges or immunities clause be used in this way, as a charter of positive rights, ours will become an America in which citizens are constitutionally entitled to their neighbors’ possessions; in which economic redistribution will become as ingrained a principle as federalism and the separation of powers. If this happens, a succession of new “rights” will be parceled out as people are deemed worthy of them by berobed lawyers in the judiciary.
Much of this post was excerpted from Imprimis April 2010.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
