Saturday, January 08, 2005
Karl Spence wrote the following to me in an email:
How about an amendment that reads like this:I like it. What do you think? You can also email Karl yourself.
The Judiciary of the United States shall not presume to exercise nonjudicial power.
The sense in which this Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation shall be the guide in expounding it. Its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended beyond the natural and obvious meaning contemplated by the plain understanding of the people at the time of its adoption. Any faults it may contain are to be corrected by amendment as prescribed in Article V, not by usurpation.
Disregard of these principles is cause for impeachment.
If any of those phrases sound familiar, it's because they're lifted from the writings of John Marshall, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton and George Washington.
The amendment would need additional sections to ratify those changes the courts made for us that we should have made for ourselves (e.g., the overthrow of Jim Crow), and --- if it is to have a chance of success --- to give proper constitutional authority to a great deal of the functions the federal government is now performing (Social Security, Medicare, the Federal Reserve, national parks, disaster relief, etc., etc., etc.). Devising it and getting past the furious opposition of today's legal establishment would be a lot of trouble. But at the end of the day, we'd have the advantage of practicing actual self-government, instead of bowing to the dictates of a judicial elite whose interpretations of the Constitution bear less and less relation to its original, true, ratified meaning.
Dr. Harvey Bialy discusses this with us in Dean's World. Sample idea: Out of more than 250 chimpanzees who have been infected with HIV since 1980, only one has gotten AIDS. Chimpanzees are our closest genetic relative, and this is the only disease we know of which has behaved thus. Doesn't that fact deserve investigation?
Kim du Toit argues persuasively against a man who would force his views upon my children. Were you to succeed, Professor Apple, you would only force my family to flee beyond your reach. Your intentions are benevolent, I grant you, but like all who would impose your views upon free men, you must be opposed. In the end, you, sir, intend to be a dictator, a petty, harmful tyrant. I'm sure you will work within the system, like Caesar, but in the end your desire is the same: to impose your views upon us all.
I have a sister who is so profoundly intellectually disabled that she cannot chew her food or sit up without assistance. The only reason she has lived this long is that my parents have cared for her to this day, just over forty-two years after her birth. The initiative Rich Lowry describes will not help her, but it will help the many intellectually disabled folks who can work. I've known many such people like this. They are hard, willing workers, who only want to live as normal a life as possible. Jeb Bush is an enthusiastic backer of this program, which is designed to enable more intellectually disabled people to enjoy the dignity of work. Hooray for the Bush family!
We discuss who wants to restore which parts of the Constitution on the lawyer dominated group blog called The Volokh Conspiracy.
Wednesday, January 05, 2005
Matt Rustler and friends discuss a case.
My duaghters are crazy for Petz . And Petz is significantly better suited for children than Sims, I figure.