 |
| Abraham Lincoln The sixteenth President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
What would Lincoln do?
Related source » Judicial Betrayal: 'via Blog this'
[This related source is recommended in its entirety.]
“What [Chief Justice Roberts] did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States. Whom he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans -- past, present and future -- whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted. Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath -- and retaliation -- of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper "deference" to the legislative branch of government. But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.” — Thomas Sowell, Jul 04, 2012 (townhall.com)
I am not a religious man. But on some occasions of National significance I admit to viewing serious and far-reaching issues with almost religious fervor. On such occasions my go-to-guy, the historical figure who came closest to being our national messiah, is Abraham Lincoln.
Arguably, for our Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Laws first and foremost, there are no more significant issues than those that concern the Constitutionality of our laws. And the most significant of such significant issues are those that concern the separation of powers between our three Branches of government: Legislative (the Congress); Executive (the Presidency); and Judicial (the Supreme Court).
I submit that the fundamental strength, which has insured the viability of our Constitution for over two centuries, more than one fifth of a millennium (perhaps a grander way of stating it), is the ingenious manner in which the Framers implemented checks and balances between the three co-equal Branches. It is analogous to "rock, paper, scissors", the children's game in which the winner is determined via a cyclic tie-breaker: "rock" is "covered" (and therefore "trumped" or "bested" by paper); "paper" is "cut/trumped" by "scissors"; and "scissors" are "broken/trumped" by "rock".
When the three Branches are vying for primacy, what then? Well, then we have the Constitutional crisis from hell, because the Framers did not intend to have hierarchical primacy between the Branches — they intended the three Branches to be co-equal, so as to serve as checks and balances on each other. Finally, then, what would Lincoln do in such circumstances?
I fervently believe that "Big Abe", as I fondly "worship" his spirit, has already intimated what he prescribed in such circumstances. When our National leaders (alas, in principle, but frequently not in practice), namely: the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Majority Leader of the Senate; the President; and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court get caught up in the all-too-human struggle for primacy, they must collectively take a big breath and recall their sacred duty. To wit, their duty is not to their own Branch of the Federal Government; and it is certainly not to themselves. Their sacred duty is to the people of this once (and future?) great Nation — the people they serve:
Post 1,839 “For the People”
Arguably, for our Constitutional Republic, a Nation of Laws first and foremost, there are no more significant issues than those that concern the Constitutionality of our laws. And the most significant of such significant issues are those that concern the separation of powers between our three Branches of government: Legislative (the Congress); Executive (the Presidency); and Judicial (the Supreme Court).
I submit that the fundamental strength, which has insured the viability of our Constitution for over two centuries, more than one fifth of a millennium (perhaps a grander way of stating it), is the ingenious manner in which the Framers implemented checks and balances between the three co-equal Branches. It is analogous to "rock, paper, scissors", the children's game in which the winner is determined via a cyclic tie-breaker: "rock" is "covered" (and therefore "trumped" or "bested" by paper); "paper" is "cut/trumped" by "scissors"; and "scissors" are "broken/trumped" by "rock".
When the three Branches are vying for primacy, what then? Well, then we have the Constitutional crisis from hell, because the Framers did not intend to have hierarchical primacy between the Branches — they intended the three Branches to be co-equal, so as to serve as checks and balances on each other. Finally, then, what would Lincoln do in such circumstances?
I fervently believe that "Big Abe", as I fondly "worship" his spirit, has already intimated what he prescribed in such circumstances. When our National leaders (alas, in principle, but frequently not in practice), namely: the Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Majority Leader of the Senate; the President; and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court get caught up in the all-too-human struggle for primacy, they must collectively take a big breath and recall their sacred duty. To wit, their duty is not to their own Branch of the Federal Government; and it is certainly not to themselves. Their sacred duty is to the people of this once (and future?) great Nation — the people they serve:
“ … that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”
Post 1,839 “For the People”
No comments:
Post a Comment