How I might give Zjabs a heart attack or at least cause him to question reality .
by Albert 1

68337841
# 1. 10/20/09 11:48 AM by Zjabs
"just "quite well" as Albert 1. wants it to and wants to see common sense remain the basis of how it functions rather than the by the letter of some law as strict constructionists seem to think it should yet continue to interpret just as much as the people they oppose..."

I know you hate this argument but the Constitution is not immutable. I have no problem with Social Security, the FCC etc- JUST PASS AN AMENDMENT. Instead, activist judges rubber-stamp it. And that's the crux of the problem-

read this and be sickened-

Roosevelt suggested that the age was a major problem as six of the judges were over 70 (Charles Hughes, Willis Van Devanter, James McReynolds, Louis Brandeis, George Sutherland and Pierce Butler). Roosevelt announced that he was going to ask Congress to pass a bill enabling the president to expand the Supreme Court by adding one new judge, up to a maximum off six, for every current judge over the age of 70.

Charles Hughes realised that Roosevelt's Court Reorganization Bill would result in the Supreme Court coming under the control of the Democratic Party. His first move was to arrange for a letter written by him to be published by Burton Wheeler, chairman of the Judiciary Committee. In the letter Hughes cogently refuted all the claims made by Roosevelt.

However, behind the scenes Hughes was busy doing deals to make sure that Roosevelt's bill would be defeated in Congress. On 29th March, Owen Roberts announced that he had changed his mind about voting against minimum wage legislation. Hughes also reversed his opinion on the Social Security Act and the National Labour Relations Act (NLRA) and by a 5-4 vote they were now declared to be constitutional.

Then Willis Van Devanter, probably the most conservative of the justices, announced his intention to resign. He was replaced by Hugo Black, a member of the Democratic Party and a strong supporter of the New Deal. In July, 1937, Congress defeated the Court Reorganization Bill by 70-20. However, Roosevelt had the satisfaction of knowing he had a Supreme Court that was now less likely to block his legislation.

Editor's Note: The Aurther Goldberg incident was the one that fascinated me. If all was as one would imagine a sitting S.C. Justice would never resign to accept a, appointment as U.N. Ambassoder as Goldberg did at LBJ's request. I still would like to know what deal that was all a bart of since Johnson was a master of such Washington shenannigans.

Amendments can be passed contrary to the will of the majority if an activist minory like when the WCTU finds a chink in the fabric and gets Prohibition made law of the land. Amendments pass, damage is done, and a later majority recinds the amentment. Far from perfect Z-Man but in the greater view of history one of the "steps back" that accompanies the two forward ones.

I recal a New York State conference a lot of effort was placed in attempting to reform the State constitution that become stuck on an effort concerning Abortion. The end result was that nothing changed.

Amending usually seems like a good idea but in practice it seems not the way change happens.



829123
# 2. 1/18/13 4:56 AM by Albert 1
Here I Am commenting on my own column. I have see and written about the Supreme Court often being the true vehicle of change in American law despite the Constitution's "iIn alien able rights" provision

Sometimes it is amendments and other times the Court's interpretation that changes the course of history.

The World is still here and we as Americans remain a part of it.

In my opinion due to a divinely inspired Nation.

Editor's Note: N.T.



37551415
# 3. 1/18/13 10:04 AM by zjabs
I go back to the story about permits. You feel permits are good for the little people but you had no problem with the town turning a blind eye to your fathers not having one. All are equal under the law and subject to it and if your father gets a pass from codes or permits or zoning or whatnot we all should. Under it all is a question of equality. No one should be above the law. For some reason I am wrong on this though.

Editor's Note: I would not criticize you as being generally or absolutely wrong What is left if not generally or absolutely wrong. Try "the wisdom of Solomon" I have no doubt that you have encountered situations where your humanity caused you to interpret either a necessity to apply a rule or overlook one due to a mitigating factor not covered by a formal decision.

The one example I mentioned that you seem unable to forget had overwhelming mitigating factors unconnected with what are called ""little people" and you know IAm not referring to people of small physical size.

My feelings on law were partly influenced by an old television educational show where children were hung in England for stealing bread. If a decision at what level law breakers are to be dealt with is to be made, who chooses? Equality is one of those words like "freedom" or God.

It all is relative to who defines it.

That is my objection towards absolutes. And even more towards the word should. Try substituting must or may and you will begin to see why I object to should. It is in my opinion a weasel word. We all have the right to like or dislike. I happen to dislike some of the freedoms you consider inalienable rights.

,if they are indeed alienable then they no longer deserve absolute status.

Since when in practice,not theory, are all equal under the law? We have a well experienced attorney here in WOTL . Why don't you try that statement on him? It may be your hearts desire, but not the reality we commonly share.

Remember, practice, not theory!

And don't think for a moment that I either consider my paradigm as superior or preferable for everyone to incorporate.



1245211
# 4. 1/18/13 1:21 PM by Zjabs
Since when in practice,not theory, are all equal under the law? We have a well experienced attorney here in WOTL . Why don't you try that statement on him? It may be your hearts desire, but not the reality we commonly share.

Actually I feel that the punishment should be WORSE for those in the public trust- I have a column coming out condemning the early release of Alan Hevesi. He should die behind bars- certainly someone whose only crime was holding up a bank should be released far earlier than him. Ditto the ex-Greece police chief- he should die behind bars. You betray the public trust- that's FAR worse than most "ordinary" crimes including armed robbery (in which case no one is injured other than psychologically). But instead the little people spend their lives rotting in jail and the people who should know better get treated better in jail and released early. And that's the true crime. I guess being one of the little people, I have to follow the law with the full repercussions of not, unlike Clinton, Bush, Obama, Chief Rahn, Hevesi and your father. Wish I traveled in such a circle.



7884619
# 5. 1/18/13 1:44 PM by Jay - OR
This is, to me, a fascinating discussion of an important subject. Would that I had more time to address my observations in more detail. (But then, I'd be co-opting your column--something of which you have disapproved, and I have no intention of signing up to be a columnist at this time, or maybe ever; and the older I get with less to do, the busier I have become.)

Would you not agree that libertarianism is a broad spectrum, and we can find ourselves at different places on it? I often agree with Zjabs strongly, yet sometimes I find him so irreverent and irrelevant as to be laughable. You rail against absolutes and absolutism; generally I have no argument with that, though I often disagree with the objects you choose.

I do not feel that all things are absolute, far from it. At the same time, you know that I feel there are such things as absolutes--even if we are poorly equipped to define them. You do too, else you would not couch your comments in such language that it cannot be interpreted in any way other than an expression of your belief in the transcendental truth of what you believe. You work hard at avoiding "shoulds" in your language, but there is no other inference that can be taken from much of what you write.

I recommend that you read some Emmanuel (sp) Kant, even if it is only the Wikipedia discussion of his writings. His idea of the "categorical imperative" is, if not totally compelling, at least totally logical. When I use "shoulds" and "musts" with you--now or in the future--I request that you keep that idea in mind.

My study of history, which is a study of humans, has brought me to the conclusion that human nature does not radically change. It may be manifest in different ways at different times, but it veritably demands that there be a societal control of urges and motivations that are seldom acknowledged. The "Founding Fathers" brilliantly recognized that and attempted to provide for it in our Constitution. Inspired? Perhaps; I so believe.

Individual freedom should be enthroned, but not without some restraints (a minimum at best, though that may require some small experimentation, approved by the majority--locally, if possible--lest the perceived rights of one or some infringe upon the rights of one or some others. Without freedom true progress is impossible. This comes very close to the classic definition of libertarianism; the "conditions" become the issue).

The "law," with allowance for reasonable interpretation (even jury renunciation), should be followed and enforced. When it seems proven unreasonable, the law should be modified. BY THOSE WHO LIVE UNDER IT. Even the foundational Constitution CAN be amended; I agree with Zjabs. I'd like you to propose a scenario, given the Constitutional method for its amendment, where such amendment would not reflect the will of the majority (even a "super-majority"). It was not intended to be, and should not, be easy.

History to me shows that human nature does not evolve; rather, it revolves. At times some good characteristics seem to prevail--at other times, less honorable--among the individuals who comprise the majority. I hope you can see where this is heading . . . , I tire of drawing it out, maybe as much as you do of reading it. It would be interesting to discuss this face-to-face, you with your beer, and I with my root-beer. Who knows?

Editor's Note: I can agree with most of what you have presented here on a theoretical basis however I sought your observation of the commonly shared reality from an experiential perspective.

I Am a proponent of well regulated order when compared to Darwinian chaos.

The authority I choose to obey requires my respect If choose to obey authority unworthy of respect then I Am culpable as it for it's furtherance of power.

I judge Zjabs as much more complex and less absolute than the rhetorical stance he writes from here on WOTL

I Am capable of reading between the lines of his writing on WOTL and therefore have no objection in his presentation of a rhetorical stance which If my sources are accurate represents an idealistic rather than a pragmatic approach to life.

Beyond his stated idealism I would venture to say that his life is much more pragmatic in practicevthan he will admit to.

I have shared the fact that I once considered my own idealism as defining my life until judged by one more wiser and experienced than myself who pointed out my pragmatism. I Am exquisitely aware of my inability to communicate at the same level as my internal dialogs permit when observing macrocosmic reality. To me this remains a larger problem than anyone might gather from my willingness to freely express

Prophecy seems like quite a useless ability if its product can't be accurately communicated.

How many know what some of the great scientists true spirituality consists of? Many of them have a spiritual concept of God that bears so little resemblance to traditional theology that they are accused of atheism or agnosticism.

WOTL remains a unique and valuable part of my life. How valuable you will never know including the channel of legal knowledge I once had a near unrestricted access to. Without a lack of humility I can claim it as having a quality above that of published Westlaw. Things we are given when the need exists. I treasure your input when you choose to share;thank you.




include comments