Categories
Uncategorized

Nothin’ to do with it

From John Mortimer’s “Rumpole and the Family Pride” in Rumpole of the Bailey:

Liz Probert: “It’s a bloody unjust world, Rumpole.”

Horace Rumpole: “You’ve been at the law this long, Liz, and you’re just now finding that out?”

From Clint Eastwood’s film Unforgiven:

Sheriff Little Bill Daggett:  “I don’t deserve this … to die like this.”

Will Munny:   “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
 

Commentary by Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor, known for his successful appeal and subsequent acquittal of Claus von Bulow in the Reversal of Fortune case where von Bulow was accused of attempted murder of his socialite wife in Rhode Island  (full essay at this link):

“(CNN) – On the basis of the evidence currently in the public record, one likely outcome of the case against George Zimmerman is a mixed one: There may be sufficient evidence for a reasonable prosecutor to indict him for manslaughter, but there may also be doubt sufficient for a reasonable jury to acquit him.

“Any such predictions should be accepted with an abundance of caution, however, because the evidence known to the special prosecutor, but not to the public, may paint a different picture. It may be stronger or weaker.”

* * *

“These ‘facts’ give rise to several possible scenarios of what may actually have occurred on that dark rainy night. Under the Florida self-defense statute, it matters greatly what happened, most especially who ‘initially provoke[d] the use of force,’ and who started the physical encounter.”

* * *

“All this goes to show how factually driven this case is under Florida law. And we don’t yet know all the facts. The special prosecutor, who has said she will not use a grand jury to decide whether to indict Zimmerman, has an obligation to consider all the evidence and to apply the law to the facts.

“All she needs in order to indict is probable cause that a crime has been committed. A jury that ultimately decides whether the defendant is guilty needs much more: proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But what if a prosecutor concludes that there is both probable cause and a reasonable doubt?

“That is the nightmare scenario that this prosecutor may well face. In ordinary circumstances, most prosecutors would not bring such a case, because it would be a waste of resources to indict someone who will probably be acquitted. But this is anything but a run-of-the-mill case.

* * *

“Moreover, the Florida statute provides an additional layer of protection to a defendant claiming self-defense: A judge must decide whether the defendant is “immune from prosecution,” that is, if the judge believes his actions fall under the law of self-defense.

“So the following mixed outcome is certainly possible: The special prosecutor indicts; the judge does or doesn’t grant immunity; if he doesn’t, the jury acquits.

“Many people would be unhappy with such a mixed outcome, but it is not the job of the law to make people happy.” (My emphasis)

So there we have it. Either a man who committed murder gets off, or a man who justifiably killed another is convicted and sentenced to a lengthy prison term, or is acquitted but had the ordeal and expense of defending himself. In any event, the nation and world will be treated to a media circus sure to make the advertising industry giddy.

What is the deal about central Florida? Terri Schiavo, Casey Anthony, and now Martin/Zimmerman. Something in the drinking water?

It is a bloody unjust world; and I guess “deserve” really has nothing to do with it.

Categories
Uncategorized

"An Epic without Villains"

April 12, 1862

University of Texas professor H. W. Brands has written a number of histories that, in addition to receiving praise from fellow scholars, have also achieved a degree of popularity among the pedestrian public. In one of his latest works, American Colossus, he takes the position that the key to American growth and prosperity during the 19th Century was the West, the key to the West was the Mississippi River and its major tributaries, and the key to the Mississippi was the city of New Orleans. In 1860, New Orleans had only a few rivals as the first city of the South, the others being on the Eastern seaboard — so if the southern states left the Union, that city would go with them. Therefore, it was vital that the South remain in the Union if the United States was to grow and prosper. York University scholar Mark Egnal’s study Clash of Extremes: The Economic Origins of the Civil War, published in 2009, tends to corroborate Brands’ view. After of lifetime of studying history both semi-professionally and as an avocation, there is no doubt in my mind the Civil War, as Margaret Mitchell’s character Rhett Butler in Gone with the Wind put it, was, like all wars, about money. It ultimately was a clash between two economies: one semi-feudal and agrarian; the other a maturing, capitalist free-market and industrial technology based. Which one was the winner should be no surprise.
Some historians have opined that, had the Southern states’ politicians not compromised the issue of expansion of slavery into the western territories in 1850, secession then would have followed, succeeded and left the nation split asunder. One reason for that assertion is the transportation revolution brought about by steam locomotion. Railroad construction during the interim gave the North a distinctive advantage in the always decisive logistics capability of war-making nations. The importance of railroads in the American Civil War is hard to overstate.
Map: United States Railroads in 1860
(Oliver Jensen, History of Railroads in America, Am. Heritage Pub. Co. 1975)

A glance at this map of U. S. rail lines as they existed in 1860 shows the already complex and extensive network in the northeastern and midwest states in contrast to the paucity in the South. A closer look reveals that there are only a few North-South connecting lines, and only one line connecting the Atlantic seaboard states with the Mississippi Valley. The latter line, which connected Richmond in Virginia with Memphis, Tennessee via Chattanooga, where it connected with the Western & Atlantic to Atlanta, and thence to Charleston and Savannah, set the stage for one of the most interesting and boldest adventures of the War. It was an earlier day version of our recent Cold War era missions impossible – and it turned out to be just that. It was the Andrews Raid, or the Great Locomotive Chase, that occurred one year to the day after Fort Sumter – 150 years ago.
While General U.S. Grant was moving up the Tennessee River to engage P.G.T. Beauregard’s Confederate army at Shiloh in the spring of 1862, a division commanded by General O. M. Mitchel was left to defend the recently occupied capital at Nashville. Mitchel, believing that he was defending Nashville by moving further into Confederate territory, came up with a scheme he believed would shorten the war by taking Chattanooga and interdicting vital rail communications in the Confederacy. At the time, Chattanooga was garrisoned by a small contingent of troops commanded by one Colonel Danville Leadbetter. These troops had the defensive advantage of the terrain around the city, and while small in number and ill-equipped, they could be reinforced and supplied relatively quickly from Atlanta via the Western & Atlantic Railroad. Mitchel believed he could better his odds of success by disabling Leadbetter’s lifeline with a clandestine attack to burn railroad bridges over Chickamauga Creek in the rugged north Georgia hills
To accomplish such a plan, Mitchel sought the help of one James J. Andrews, a civilian contraband runner and spy, what we who grew up in the Cold War era might call a double agent. Mitchel allowed Andrews to recruit volunteers from among his division to carry out the plan. Andrews and these soldiers, dressed as civilians and claiming to be Confederate sympathizers from Kentucky, traveled to Marietta, Georgia where on the early morning of April 12 they boarded a train heading to Chattanooga. At Kennesaw (then known as Big Shanty), while the train crew stopped to eat breakfast, the raiders disconnected the locomotive, named the General, and three boxcars, from the rest of the train and left heading north without the crew. Andrews’ cover story was that he was an emissary of the Confederate war department tasked to run a special ammunition train to Beauregard in western Tennessee. They would cut the telegraph wires along the way so word could not be sent ahead of the train’s theft. When they reached the Chickamauga bridges, they planned to burn as many of them as possible, one after the other. General Mitchel, who was to capture the east-west railroad at Huntsville, Alabama in the meantime, would launch an attack on Chattanooga, trapping and overwhelming Leadbetter’s sparse and ill-equipped troops. The raiders would then join Mitchel’s forces.
The plan failed for three reasons. First, the spring rains had delayed Andrews and his men from reaching Marietta on Friday, April 11, the day planned for the raid. Andrews went ahead the next day believing that the weather would similarly delay Mitchel. It did not, and by Saturday, word was out about the Union army’s capture of Huntsville, causing increased traffic on the single tracked railroad, thus delaying Andrews significantly at a critical point. Second, the rain itself soaked the bridges. The raiders managed an attempt to set one afire, but it was too wet and failed to burn.
But the main reason for the raid’s failure was William A. Fuller, the stolen train’s conductor. Seeing his locomotive and three boxcars leaving without him, Fuller started running after them on foot. He ran for several miles until he came upon a track crew with a hand car. Fuller took the car, picked up two other railroad employees – one being his boss – who had followed him on foot, and continued after the raiders. Farther up the line, Fuller found an old yard locomotive used by an iron foundry which he commandeered and continued the pursuit with. Because the raiders’ train was delayed nearly an hour at a junction waiting for southbound trains to pass, Fuller almost caught up to Andrews at that point. The pursuers took over another locomotive, named the Texas, that was the equal of the General in size and power, and stayed on Andrews’ heels from then on. Fuller managed to get a telegraph message to Leadbetter from Dalton, Georgia, and, with the help of Confederate militia, finally ran down Andrews and the raiders just south of Chattanooga.
Facing the prospect of an alerted and reinforced garrison, Mitchel’s scrubbed his foray and withdrew back into central Tennessee. The Confederate Army recovered after the Shiloh setback, and won some important battles. The Union advance in the West fizzled for the time being. All of the raiders were captured. Andrews, another raider who was a civilian, and several soldiers were hanged as spies and saboteurs. The others escaped or were exchanged for Confederate prisoners of war.
All of the Union soldiers who participated were awarded the first Medals of Honor, today the highest United States military decoration for bravery in action above and beyond the call of duty.
In preparation for, during, and in the immediate aftermath of the raid, no shots were fired, and no one was killed. There was enough bravery to go around on both sides. Andrews and the Union soldiers, knowing that undercover action – spying and sabotage – was against the rules of war in those days and a capital offense, chose to go ahead anyway. Fuller and his fellow railroad employees, were intrepid, courageous, and persistent. And they foiled the plot. As one historian wrote “This is an epic without villains, and one in which there was glory and pain enough to be shared by all those in it, without diminishing the common supply.”
In the decades after the War, the surviving adversaries met for a number of commemorations and reunions. As would be expected, a number of the participants sought to profit from the notoriety, with varying degrees of success. A number of them wrote accounts of the raid. William Pittenger, a Union corporal who may have known Andrews prior to the raid, wrote a number of separate works. In 1956, Charles O’Neill published Wild Train, essentially an edited compilation of various participants’ accounts. The Andrews Raid has been the subject of two motion pictures, The General with Buster Keaton in the 1930s and Walt Disney’s The Great Locomotive Chase with Fess Parker (as Andrews) and Jeffrey Hunter (as Fuller) in 1956. A fictionalized account, based on the Disney film, was also published that year. That account contains numerous historical inaccuracies, but has an interesting postscript by Atlanta resident (and Fuller’s son-in-law) that gives a factual synopsis detailing the history of the W & A Railroad and some of the subsequent events.
The most researched and comprehensive history of the Andrews Raid is Stealing the General by Atlanta lawyer and historian Russell S. Bonds, published in 2007. Bonds draws on many sources, provides comprehensive references, and crafts a readable narrative. Without diminishing the heroism of both sides, he corrects a number of inaccurate claims made by earlier writers.
The General itself, along with a great deal of other memorabilia, is on display in the Southern Museum of Civil War and Locomotive History in Kennesaw, Georgia. I spent an afternoon there about two years ago, and it is well worth the visit. For those interested, nearby is the Kennesaw Mountain Battlefield National Park, where the last battle prior to Sherman’s capture of Atlanta in 1864 occurred.

The General today

Categories
Uncategorized

Maleficent Nature Tamed

From The Mayor of Casterbridge,by Thomas Hardy (1886):

The time was in the years immediately before foreign competition had revolutionized the trade in grain; when still, as from the earliest ages, the wheat quotations from month to month depended entirely upon the home harvest. A bad harvest, or the prospect of one, would double the price of corn in a few weeks; and the promise of a good yield would lower it as rapidly. . . .

The farmer’s income was ruled by the wheat-crop within his own horizon, and the wheat-crop by the weather. Thus in person, he became a sort of flesh-barometer, with feelers always directed to the sky and wind around him. The local atmosphere was everything to him; the atmospheres of other countries a matter of indifference. The people, too, who were not farmers, the rural multitude, saw in the god of the weather a more important personage than they do now. Indeed, the feeling of the peasantry in this matter was so intense as to be almost unrealizable in these equable days. Their impulse was well-nigh to prostrate themselves in lamentation before untimely rains and tempests, which came as the Alastor of those households whose crime it was to be poor.

After midsummer they watched the weather-cocks as men waiting in antechambers watch the lackey. Sun elated them; quiet rain sobered them; weeks of watery tempest stupefied them. That aspect of the sky which they now regard as disagreeable they then beheld as maleficent.

Reprinted in the “Notable and Quotable” feature in The Wall Street Journal (4/11/2012)
Categories
Uncategorized

Not a Nice Day (or Save the Whales, I mean the Lawyers)

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

“Nancy Black, a marine biologist and operator of whale-watching boats, recently became ensnared by 1001. When one of her boat captains whistled at a humpback whale that approached the boat a few years ago, regulators investigated whether the incident constituted harassment of a whale, which is illegal.

“This past January, Ms. Black was charged in the case—not with whale harassment, but with lying about the incident. She also faces a charge of illegally altering a video of the whale encounter, as well as unrelated allegations involving whale blubber. Together, the charges carry up to 20 years in prison.

 “She denies all wrongdoing, including lying. “I wasn’t charged with anything about the dealings with the humpback,” says Ms. Black, 49 years old. “So why would they charge me with lying about it? It makes no sense.”

“A Justice Department spokesman declined to comment. [Of course].

* * *

 “As the U.S. federal criminal code has grown increasingly large and complicated, critics from the left and right alike argue it is becoming too easy for Americans to unwittingly commit crimes.

“Nobody argues that telling a falsehood to Uncle Sam is either wise or admirable, but some say 1001 is overly broad. “There is no statute out there that’s more pernicious,” says Stephen Saltzburg, a former senior Justice Department official and now a law professor at George Washington University.

“The law against lying, officially Title 18, section 1001 of the United States Code, is “a bread-and-butter” statute for Justice Department prosecutors, says Thomas O’Brien, the former U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles. The law’s breadth makes it useful for nabbing wrongdoers, particularly in cases where suspected crimes are complex and tough to prove, he says.”

* * *

“While 1001 helps nab guilty parties, it can also be a trap “for innocent people to fall into,” said Rep. Louie Gohmert (R., Texas), in an interview. Rep. Gohmert, a critic of the federal justice system’s expansion, said he hopes to put new limits on the statute in a criminal-reform bill pending in the House.

“Statute 1001’s precursor, the False Claims Act of 1863, had a relatively narrow focus: It was intended to punish contractors and suppliers who were defrauding the government during the Civil War.

“Over the next 135 years, Congress significantly increased the reach of federal law regarding falsehoods. By 1998, courts around the country carved out an exception—known as the “exculpatory no”—aimed at blocking prosecution of a person who denied (falsely) being involved in wrongdoing. The exception was at least partly inspired by the Constitution’s protection against self-incrimination.

“But in 1998, the Supreme Court threw out the exculpatory no, saying the law as written by Congress didn’t allow for an exception. While some false-statement prosecutions might seem ‘harsh,’ Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, ‘courts may not create their own limitations on legislation, no matter how alluring the policy arguments for doing so.’ [There was no Constitutional challenge to the law, as I recall.]”

* * *

“Ms. Black’s attorney, Lawrence Biegel, says prosecutors threatened that if his client didn’t plead guilty to one or more misdeeds, she would face a range of charges. The indictment, filed in January, contains four criminal counts including illegal alteration of records resulting from editing the video. The false-statements charge comes from allegedly lying about the video’s completeness.

“The indictment includes a paragraph referencing a 12-count indictment, which the Justice Department spokesman said was mistakenly pasted in from a document unrelated to Ms. Black’s case.

“Ms. Black says she was never asked about the completeness of the video and if she had known the officials wanted an unedited copy, she would have provided one.”

 For the complete article, see here.

The lesson to be learned is that when speaking with a federal law enforcement officer, the only appropriate things to say are: (1) please give me your business card, (2) my lawyer will be in touch with your, and (3) have a nice day. Regarding the third item, don’t say that it IS a nice day, if it rains you might get a 1001.

Categories
Uncategorized

Tour Dallas 2012

The annual first Saturday in April Tour Dallas bike ride had over 3000 participants this year.  The courses are 8, 20, and 30 miles long through some of the more scenic areas of Dallas, including the Swiss Avenue historic districts, Lakewood, White Rock Lake, and Turtle Creek.  I have participated the past four years, riding the 30 mile course, and have had great fun.  This year I decided to ride to the start at Dallas City Hall on the Katy Trail, one of the Rails-to-Trails that passes not far from our neighborhood.  With the trips to and from home, I managed around 45 miles on my bike.  The pizza served at the finish really hit the spot.

Here are some photos.  Some taken on the fly, as it were.

At the Starting Line

Moving Along

Across the River 

Along Swiss Avenue


Approaching White Rock Lake

Devil in Bike Drag
20 Mile Mark

Pizza at Finish

Elliptical on Wheels
CHEERS!

Categories
Uncategorized

Cat Taxes

Cats Aren’t Deductible

. 
Categories
Uncategorized

Pizza Politics

From Charles Krauthammer’s Washington Post column today:

“When asked about Obamacare’s constitutionality, Nancy Pelosi famously replied: “Are you serious?” She was genuinely puzzled.

“As was Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.). As Michael Barone notes, when Hare was similarly challenged at a 2010 town hall, he replied: “I don’t worry about the Constitution.” Hare is now retired, having been shortly thereafter defeated for reelection by the more constitutionally attuned owner of an East Moline pizza shop.”

We need more pizza shop owners (and plumbers) in Congress.

Categories
Uncategorized

Plaid Pants

Virginia M. Rometty, the new CEO of IBM, will attend this week’s Masters golf tournament, but it’s not clear if she will be wearing the green jacket of an Augusta National member. No women are members of the exclusive country club, and there has been a lot of criticism of that from many quarters, including, I understand, the White House.

A similar dustup came and went a few years ago. 

Well, except for a week in April every year, when the azaleas and other foliage are at their most beautiful and many of the best golfers in the world play there, the club is populated mostly by pot-bellied geezers wearing plaid pants. Who wants to hang out with that bunch, and listen to their moaning about prostate problems?

Or as Groucho Marx is reported to have said, he wouldn’t join a club that would have him as a member.

See more at a golf blog.

Categories
Uncategorized

Comments rejoined

I thought about replying to comments to the preceding post with my own, but upon reflection, I thought they deserved a subsequent post.
Regarding the President’s criticism of the Court (as well as his improvident weighing in on other issues) I wish he wouldn’t. Whether it hurts or helps him politically, I don’t know, but, for better or for worse, he is my President.
I have no problem with criticism of any branch of the government. The Supreme Court has gotten it very wrong in a number of instances, Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, Wickard v. Filburn are some examples. It has become more politicized over the past half-century or so because it has taken up matters and made some rulings counter to the sense of right and wrong and common sense for, if not a majority, a significant minority, of the populace.
The point about Justice Thomas’ alleged conflict of interest is useless, especially since the even more serious question of conflict of Justice Kagan’s possible conflict goes unmentioned. No big deal; if they vote according to their perceived ideologies, they cancel each other out anyway. Further comment in this regard would be meaningless and a waste of time.
The issue of the individual mandate in ObamaCare would not be couched in “sharing the responsibility” because it is ludicrous to think that a Republican majority would have passed it or a Republican President (even McCain) would have signed such a bill. Romney supported it at the state level when he was governor of Massachusetts. States have general police powers that the Constitution does not give to Congress. Massachusetts can do what it wants with regard to the welfare of its citizens; Texas should not have to do the same thing.
Insofar as the provenance of the individual mandate from such think tanks like the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute is concerned, think tanks are supposed to weigh alternatives, sometimes get it wrong, and make corrections. I tend to form my ideas fro many sources, many of whose points of which I tend to disagree with. A Constitutional analysis of the individual mandate does not depend upon whose idea it was or wasn’t, so I have not particularly cared who thought it up. It is merely an ad hominem (or one of the related fallacies). Nevertheless, my curiosity was piqued because I know neither Heritage nor Cato support the mandate today. I appreciate many leads to discovering sources, and the link to procon.org is helpful. I discovered the following:
Stuart Butler, a Heritage Foundation fellow, explains his part in the Foundation’s study in the 1990s:
“Is the individual mandate at the heart of ‘ObamaCare’ a conservative idea? Is it constitutional? And was it invented at The Heritage Foundation? In a word, no.
* * *
“The confusion arises from the fact that 20 years ago, I held the view that as a technical matter, some form of requirement to purchase insurance was needed in a near-universal insurance market to avoid massive instability through “adverse selection” (insurers avoiding bad risks and healthy people declining coverage). At that time, President Clinton was proposing a universal health care plan, and Heritage and I devised a viable alternative.
* * *
” . . . the version of the health insurance mandate Heritage and I supported in the 1990s had three critical features. First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on “catastrophic” costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance.
“Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.
“And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the “mandate” was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement.
* * *
 
“Moreover, I agree with my legal colleagues at Heritage that today’s version of a mandate exceeds the constitutional powers granted to the federal government. Forcing those Americans not in the insurance market to purchase comprehensive insurance for themselves goes beyond even the most expansive precedents of the courts.
“And there’s another thing. Changing one’s mind about the best policy to pursue — but not one’s principles — is part of being a researcher at a major think tank such as Heritage or the Brookings Institution. Serious professional analysts actually take part in a continuous bipartisan and collegial discussion about major policy questions. We read each other’s research. We look at the facts. We talk through ideas with those who agree or disagree with us. And we change our policy views over time based on new facts, new research or good counter arguments.
“Thanks to this good process, I’ve altered my views on many things. The individual mandate in health care is one of them.”
As Mahatma Gandhi once said (paraphrased): What I say today is inconsistent with what I said yesterday because I’ve learned something since then. Good advice to us all.
See Butler’s entire article at this link:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/forum/story/2012-02-03/health-individual-mandate-reform-heritage/52951140/1
Regarding the Cato Institute’s position when the Clinton proposals were being considered, here is an excerpt from Policy Analysis No. 210: Nickles-Stearns Is Not the Market Choice for HealthCare Reform (June 13, 19940 by Tom Miller
“Executive Summary”
“The Consumer Choice Health Security Act, of which Sen. Don Nickles (R-Okla.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) are primary sponsors, is one of the leading proposals for health care reform. Unfortunately, it sets contradictory objectives: universal coverage and increased consumer choice, individual responsibility, and competition in health insurance markets. Absent a major overhaul, it will neither ensure that health care markets remain private and voluntary nor make them more competitive, efficient, and responsive to consumers’ wishes.
“The primary virtue of Nickles-Stearns is that it avoids the worst features of the Clinton administration’s proposed Health Security Act. Nickles-Stearns would make health insurance more portable, avoid structural disruptions in coverage, and encourage individuals to choose health insurance in a more cost-conscious manner.
“However, the legislation (as introduced last November) contains a number of serious flaws. It endorses the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage and imposes a standardized ‘minimum’ package of health insurance benefits. Its cost-sharing requirements would undercut the appeal of Medical Savings Accounts. Its efforts to eliminate risk selection in insurance markets are both futile and counter-productive. It provides inadequate incentives for restraining health care costs and hampers the use of more effective devices to do so.
“By failing to provide a clear alternative based on market principles, Nickles-Stearns blurs opposition to Clinton-style health care legislation. By focusing the political debate on the wrong issues, it opens the door to extensive political interference in private health care decisions.”
Hardly an endorsement of the individual mandate as it is in ObamaCare.

The entire article is at http://healthcarereform.procon.org/sourcefiles/1994_nickles-sterns_is_not_the_market_choice_for_health_care_reform.pdf

Keep the cards and letters coming. Send money.

Categories
Uncategorized

Flatulence and Vowel Movements

I don’t remember when I first heard of Marbury vs, Madison, it could have been as early as 7th grade history, or perhaps in high school. I do recall from an early age that it was the 1803 Supreme Court case that confirmed the principle of judicial review, that is, the ability of the court system to determine that a statute enacted by Congress or a state legislature is contrary to the Constitution and this void and ineffective. The sentence that stuck in my mind (and given the number of times it has been quoted, in many other minds as well) was Justice John Marshall’s statement that ” it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” So President Obama’s statement regarding the “unelected judges” who might dare to overturn a statute such as his carelessly drafted health care law would be “unprecedented” was surely misplaced.

The Court has often invalidated both acts of Congress and of states when they conflicted with the Constitution. It is true that for the past 75 years or so, it has generally deferred to Congress regarding so-called “economic” regulation as being within the purview of the power to regulate interstate commerce, but since nearly all human activity, including, I suppose, flatulence, has a conceivable effect on commerce, there has to be some limiting principle. If there were not the specific grant of power to Congress would be superfluous. Fart police? It boggles the mind.

The reason we have a written Constitution in the first place is to restrain government, not enable it to do whatever a collection of special interests can cobble together a majority to do. The court system, headed by the Supreme Court, is a final backstop to legislative excess and executive arrogance.
 
I have heard it said that President Obama is much like Jimmy Carter. Not at all. Carter was a humble man, albeit with good reason to be humble. Obama reminds me more of Richard Nixon, who, once famously declared that the President was sovereign, and railed against the Court on a number of occasions.   Don’t know about the flatulence, but plenty of vowel movement.

The only true sovereign is the individual. We cede part of our sovereignty to governing bodies at various levels, beginning with our family when we are dependent, to secure our liberty, safety, and security.