 | ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 19 February 2001 | Vol. II #25 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Dr. David Marlett, Editor | 19 February 2001 | Vol. II #25 | ||
|
| ||||
| ||||
In a speech before the American Enterprise Institute, Supreme Court Justice Thomas said he is "concerned because too many show timidity today precisely when courage is required." Here are some exerpts from the speech.
"Judges do not cease to be human beings when they go on the bench. In important cases, it is my humble opinion that finding the right answer is often the least difficult problem. Having the courage to assert that answer and stand firm in the face of the constant winds of protest and criticism is often much more difficult....
Long before walking onto the Court, one must be clear about how to conduct oneself as a human being and as a citizen. One must be clear and confident about one 's judicial philosophy, and have the courage to stand by the decisions that an honest adherence to the law requires....
On July 1, 1991, when I arrived at President Bush's home in Kennebunkport, he invited me to join him in the sitting area of his bedroom. During that very brief meeting, he asked me only two questions. First, could my family and I endure the confirmation process? Not knowing what was in store for us, I answered yes.
The second question was simply whether I could "call it as I saw it" when I became a member of the Court-whether I could rule on the law, and not my personal beliefs. To that, I also answered yes.
In a perfect world, the second question would be the only one members of the Court should ever have to answer, either to a president or to the legislators who confirm their appointments. Judges could then focus their energies on the substance of their decisions, which is more than enough to occupy anyone's spirit or intellect.
I wish it were that simple. But judges can be buffeted by strong winds that tear them away from the basic principles they have sworn to safeguard. Fulfillment of our oath requires us to have both a clear understanding of the principles that allow us to "call it as we see it," and the fortitude to stand by those principles and the decisions that rest upon them.
I'd like to reflect tonight upon those two questions: judicial principles and the question of courage in American political life."
Visit http://www.aei.org/boyer/thomas.htm to read the entire speech, posted on the American Enterprise
[ ACLJ ]
"While Hillary was working on a plan to end racial profiling in New York her husband was in Florida playing golf at a restricted country club where no Jews or blacks need apply. ... What's so maddening about this endless Clinton Tack-O-Rama is that most of us want to get beyond the Clintons. He's an ex-president now and she's merely a junior senator (although you couldn't tell that to Chuck Schumer). But they won't let us."
[ Suzanne Fields, Washington Times ]
"President Bush, in less than a month in office, has gained the respect and admiration of the military, a battle his predecessor lost even before he became commander in chief. Where Mr. Bush made good on his promised pay raises for soldiers, President Clinton gave the armed forces a battle over open homosexuals. Where the new president promises fewer deployments intended 'just to keep warring parties apart,' Mr. Clinton set a record for peacetime missions. And where Mr. Bush, a former Texas National Guard pilot, snaps off a salute with the best of them, Mr. Clinton, who dodged the Vietnam draft, had to attend a remedial 'saluting class.' ...
"While none of the soldiers or sailors interviewed this week at military bases from Norfolk to Savannah, Ga., would speak on the record, several said they still loathed Mr. Clinton. 'Clinton was a dog. Bush is a dog-faced soldier,' one sergeant in the Army's 3rd Infantry Division said when the president visited Fort Stewart, Ga., on Monday."
" ... When naval officers in Norfolk bestowed upon former pilot (Bush) a general purpose aviator's jacket ... a sailor shouted over the loud applause, 'He's earned it.' Tracked down afterward, the staff sergeant said he just couldn't help himself. 'I was just so sick and tired of the way Clinton treated the military, and so damned happy about the way Bush is treating us,' he said.
[ Washington Times ]
"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) is $5.2 million in hard-dollar debt, Inside the Beltway has learned. Yet that didn't stop the DCCC, then chaired by Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, from making a $100,000 disbursement to the Rev. Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition on November 8, 2000, according to records we obtained."
[ John McCaslin's "Inside the Beltway" ]
TCN Comment: Nov 8th was the day he showed up in Palm Beach County Florida to incite the black community into riots if the vote couldn't be swayed in favor of Gore. Both efforts failed, but Jesse still got his money up front.
Let's see… He worked from Nov 8th until Jan 18th (with time out for… well…). That amounts to about $60 per hour 24 hours per day, including his "time-outs". Not bad money for no more than he accomplished….. of interest to the DCCC that is.
Sometimes the left just makes it TOO easy. Rule #1 in politics is: Secure your base. And looking back at the fiasco involving Gore voters who couldn't correctly punch a simple ballot in Florida last November, the Democrat base is obviously the "intellectually-challenged." Well, according to a story appearing in Thursday's USA Today, a Nevada Democrat is launching efforts to protect that base. Assemblywoman Chris Giunchigliani (D-Teachers Union) "plans to introduce an amendment to banish (the word) 'idiot' from Nevada's Constitution."
You see, back in 1864, intelligent and sane Nevada citizens stipulated that "no idiot or insane person" be allowed to vote. Ms. G, apparently fearing a new threat to the Dem's base, is actually drafting legislation to make sure idiots won't be prevented from voting in the future. Heck, her career depends on it!
We've been saying for a long time that only an idiot could support the left-wing agenda of the Democrat Party. It's now obvious its leaders agree. Thanks, Chris. We enjoyed a good laugh at your expense on this one.
[ GOP N&V ]
Maine home schooling rights are under attack. No state in the country requires home school children to take their state's assessment test, but that's what some Maine legislators are trying to do with Legislative Document 405, also known as Senate Bill 129.
L.D. 405 would restrict home school freedom by requiring home-schooled students to take the Maine Educational Assessment exam. The MEA is a highly content-specific test that measures how well students have learned the state's public school curriculum.
For students who have been taught the state public school curriculum, testing them with the MEA makes sense. It's unfair, and it makes no sense, for students to be required to take the test who have not been taught the state public school curriculum. Home-schooled students are not required to use the state's public school curriculum. Their parents can choose one of a wide variety of curricula that are available. This freedom to tailor education to meet each child's unique needs is one reason home school children score so high on nationally recognized tests such as the SAT and ACT.
The bill is officially known as "An Act to Account for Homeschooled Children under the School Funding Formula and to Require the Maine Educational Assessment for Homeschooled Children."
Home school students are already required by law to be assessed every year. Those assessments must be filed with the Maine State Department of Education. Requiring home-schooled students to take an additional test is unnecessary. Passage of L.D. 405 would create tremendous, unfair pressure on parents to give up the curriculum they believe is best for their child, and instead teach the public school curriculum.
Parents would be compelled to make a painful choice: do I continue teaching the curriculum I know is best for my individual child, even if it means my child is stigmatized by a low MEA score, or do I surrender to the pressure and start teaching my child the public school curriculum?
Private school students would also be forced to take MEA if the legislature passes L.D. 405. These students and parents will find that they have many of the same concerns with this bill that home schoolers do.
L.D. 405 is financially irresponsible. Why should the school get paid for children it does not teach? It would allow every school district to collect 25 percent of Maine's per-pupil funding for each home school student just because that student resides in the school district. Furthermore, since taxpayers are the only source of government revenue, public schools will get extra money only if it comes from taxpayers. The greater the numbers of home schoolers, the greater the potential tax increases. Does this make sense when home schooling is today's fastest growing educational movement?
On Wednesday, February 21, the Maine Education and Cultural Affairs Committee will hold a hearing on L.D. 405 in the Cross Office Building, Room 214, on Sewall Street, directly behind the capitol. The location may be changed. Contacts in Maine are available by phoning Ed Green at (207) 763-4251.
[ HSLDA ]
As the law stands today, abortion is legal in this country. Using the most recent polls, a majority of the population believes in a woman's right to have an abortion. However, in another poll when asked if they support public funding of abortion 70 percent don't believe that taxpayer dollars should be used for abortion or abortion counseling.
I am sure most of you are aware that one of the first acts as President in 1992 Bill Clinton authorized the use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to pay for abortion counseling abroad by various organizations. I am also sure that most of you are aware that one of President Bush's first acts was to stop U.S. aid payments to organizations that support abortion by reversing Clinton's order of 1992.
The liberal wing of "Representatives" lead by Senator Barbara Boxer from California has introduced legislation before the House and Senate to overturn Bush's order so that taxpayer dollars will be used to pay for abortion counseling worldwide. To quote Ms. Boxer, "Bush's gag rule flies in the face of our democratic principles by preventing organizations abroad from practicing free speech."
Bush's gag rule doesn't prevent free speech, it just doesn't make the taxpayers of this country pay for their free speech, and since when did our constitution apply to the rest of the world Ms. Boxer? They can talk about it all they want, we just won't pay for it.
Ms. Boxer, if we truly live in a democracy then 70 percent of the Senators and Representatives should vote no on paying for funding of abortions or abortion counseling in this or any other country!
Another example of the elected not representing those who elected them but representing their own agenda!
Call, mail or e-mail your Senators and Representatives and let them know where you stand on this issue.
[ Ike Harley ]
And of course law enforcement would be exempt.
Delegates Oaks, Marriott, V. Jones, Kirk, McIntosh, and Paige have introduced HB 1125, The Ammunition Tax. In prior years the same bill has been introduced in the Maryland Senate as SB 258 and as SB 94.
If you can't outlaw it, you tax it to death.
Synopsis:
"Imposing a tax on the sale of ammunition in the State; establishing the rate of the ammunition tax at 50 cents per round for ammunition other than antipersonnel ammunition and $5 per round for antipersonnel ammunition; including the ammunition tax under the administration of the sales tax; exempting sales of ammunition to police forces and other governmental agencies; requiring ammunition dealers to file specified returns; etc."
See the entire bill at
http://mlis.state.md.us/2001rs/billfile/HB1125.htm
Although judiciary has been able to promote its own power fairly well, the courts do know that their power rests exclusively on their prestige. They work very hard on puffing up their reputations as unanimous, impartial, and independent bastions as the rule of law in the hope that someone will actually listen to them. They are powerless in executing any of their laws on their own, for they do not command any troops or any army of bureaucrats.
As a result, a cult of judicial supremacy has grown up within the legal profession. The judges and lawyers within the cult do their best to always make each other look good and to generally avoid controversy. They have odd habits like no other branch of government. They wear strange puffy black robes, and everyone has to stand up every time they enter the room. No one feels the need to stand up when the councilman from Molokia enters the room, yet when Podunk County judge Joe Schmoe enters the courtroom, everyone's suddenly on their feet.
Unlike elected politicians who openly criticize each other and engage in open debate, the modern Supreme Court and the inferior state equivalents are huddled in a back room poring over some legal texts trying to figure out how they can best subvert the law without losing any of their precious prestige and apparent legitimacy.
Like any good cult, they speak sparingly with outsiders of their own powers and of their role in society.
With the election of 2000, the edifice has cracked, and some light has shone in on the cult. With passions running so high, judges have begun to show their true colors, and while this would have been an excellent opportunity to show their supposed judicial restraint, the Florida and U.S. Supreme courts couldn't wait to get involved. The judicial infighting that has followed is truly a beautiful thing. With split decisions and partisan colors flying, the courts have been so unable to restrain themselves that the hideous innards of judicial lawmaking have been flung out on the table at last.
Even the Supreme Court has not always been successful in enforcing its fiats. When Marshall declared the President Andrew Jackson's Indian policy was unconstitutional, Jackson ignored the decision and said, "Mr. Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." When Chief Justice Roger Taney criticized Lincoln's habit of suspending habeas corpus, Lincoln just ignored him.
What are citizens supposed to do when forced to comply with an unconstitutional law? The logical answer should be, "Tak'em to court and mak'em justify the law on Constitutional grounds." But why are we still being harassed? Is it because no one has thought of taking them to court, or is it because the courts are not exercising their duty of overturning these unconstitutional laws? Hmmmm. Let me see... No country can go into anarchy but by rulings of its courts. As we have continually said, nearly every problem in this country leads back to an unaccountable judicial system.
We need a legal system that enforces accountability for illegal actions by judges, prosecutors, lawyers and other officers of the Judicial branch. We need judicial accountability and integrity laws (that's J.A.I.L. for Judges, aka J4J).
[ www.jail4judges.org ]
The homepage and archives for The Conservative Newsletter are located on the WWW at http://www.wilderness-cry.net/tcn/
This newsletter is sent by subscription only. If you do not wish to be on the mailing list, please let us know and you will be removed immediately. To be removed from this mailing list, simply reply to this newsletter with the word REMOVE in the body of your reply. You may also send your request to tcn@wilderness-cry.net .
Thank you.