The "Gift" of Oligarchy
A columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer argues that the Hamdan decision was a perfect Independence Day "gift" to America. As she notes happily, "the court ruled that [military commissions established by the executive branch] were not authorized by federal law and violated our signature on the Geneva Conventions."
Contrary to the columnist's vaporings, though, the fact is that Hamden is a "gift" to America only to the extent that its people want to live under an oligarchy. Last year in the Kelo case, the Supreme Court redefined the takings clause of the Constitution. Where that document says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" (emphasis added), the liberal bloc of the court ignored the plain meaning of the word "use." As Justice Thomas pointed out in dissent, the Kelo majority authorized all government takings that merely serve a public "purpose" -- extending far beyond those specifically for a public "use." In other words, the majority ignored the plain words of the Constitution.
In Hamden, the Court's liberal bloc did it again, this time with the words of the Geneva Conventions -- finding that, somehow, the US conflict with al Qaeda isn't "international" in character, as I pointed out here.
The fact that 5 justices last year and 4 this year are willing simply to decree what the law is, unsupported by the common-sense meaning of the documents they're purporting to interpret, isn't a gift or a victory, even for those who may happen to like the results in both Kelo and Hamden.
It's an oligarchy -- and no American should celebrate it, especially on Independence Day.
Contrary to the columnist's vaporings, though, the fact is that Hamden is a "gift" to America only to the extent that its people want to live under an oligarchy. Last year in the Kelo case, the Supreme Court redefined the takings clause of the Constitution. Where that document says, "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation" (emphasis added), the liberal bloc of the court ignored the plain meaning of the word "use." As Justice Thomas pointed out in dissent, the Kelo majority authorized all government takings that merely serve a public "purpose" -- extending far beyond those specifically for a public "use." In other words, the majority ignored the plain words of the Constitution.
In Hamden, the Court's liberal bloc did it again, this time with the words of the Geneva Conventions -- finding that, somehow, the US conflict with al Qaeda isn't "international" in character, as I pointed out here.
The fact that 5 justices last year and 4 this year are willing simply to decree what the law is, unsupported by the common-sense meaning of the documents they're purporting to interpret, isn't a gift or a victory, even for those who may happen to like the results in both Kelo and Hamden.
It's an oligarchy -- and no American should celebrate it, especially on Independence Day.
posted by LadybugUSA at 7:02 PM
6 Comments:
"It is a very dangerous doctrine to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions. It is one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy." - Thomas Jefferson
It was as true 200 years ago as it is today.
The liberals on the court are doing what they usually do: reading into the Constitution (and law) what they want it to be, not what it is.
Oligarchy is a good description.
Chils, as a new blogger you need to get something straight.....The letters on usernames aren't always what they seem.
"t" = "c"
"o" = "k"
Plot those into Dittohead's name, and........You get the idea.
Chils,
Welcome!
You've made two VERY excellent points in this thread.
1. Ditto ALWAYS uses EVERY thread to spew Bush hatred.
2. This SCOTUS decision will in no way hinder the current Administration. It will, in the end, be allowed - by legislation - to do exactly what they have wanted to do all along.
I will add this as well:
This decision will be yet another issue in the upcoming elections that will help those who are serious about winning this war. Putting the following questions to the American public will NOT help the Democrats:
Do you want to claim defeat, cut and run? Or, do you want to win this war?
Do you want the U.S. military to be able to follow centuries of tradition and prosecute illegal combatants in a military court? Or, do you want to afford enemy combatants - ILLEGAL combatants and terrorists - the luxury of American civilian courts along with all the rights and priveleges that goes with it?
I can't wait for those questions to be debated in the coming elections!
The Democrats will no doubt backtrack from their current positions on both of these issues. And that is another issue that hurts them. The American public will see once again that the Democrats are not at all serious and cannot be trusted with anything as important as national security.
>> President Bush HAD the authority from the FIRST day of his presidency in 2001 to take out Saddam in Iraq. Do you know why? >>
Doesn't really matter why...
1) DH is still stuck on "Bush lied, people died" - no amount of evidence is going to change his mind.
2) If members of the SC continue as activist judges - that is, reinterpreting the law as they'd _like _ it to be instead of just reading the words and declaring what they were intended to mean - they could decide any day that Bush _doesn't_ have the authority. Don't ask how - they'll find a way! and it seems as if Congress doesn't have the guts to take a definitive position on _anything_.
I'd like to be wrong here, but I don't think I am. They can't even make a decision on securing the border for crumb's sake.
Also - debating with DH is a waste of effort. He's a hit and runner. Just ignore him - and the other one who parrots him. Wish there were some way to killfile on a blog!
I partly agree with Wrabkin that this SCOTUS decision is part of the normal working of our system of government. It just so happens that this decision gives conservatives yet another great issue with which to portray liberals in a poor light.
But concerning this:
"...Somehow, you have decided, Carol, despite years spent studying the law, that this is somehow an aberration, and that the country would work much better if the president just made anything law that he felt like.
This is called tyranny. Maybe you're in favor of it now because there's a Republican in power. ..."
I would respond that expressing alarm at a SCOTUS decision (or a new law, for that matter) is also a part of how our system of government "normally" works. It's the passionate expression of the views of the people that provide direction for the Legislative and Executive branches.
Then there's this:
"...I hope you save all these posts and reprint them when the Dems are back in power. ..."
I'm not sure that even with all of today's modern technology there is a medium capable of storing these posts for that long!
:o)
Post a Comment
<< Home