Thursday, March 24, 2005
"Congress’ actions today are a clear threat to our democracy. More than 200 years ago, our forefathers designed our nation’s government with three separate, yet equal branches. Today, Congress is about to overturn the separation of powers so carefully constructed by our forefathers by disregarding the laws of Florida and the decisions of a judge that have never been reversed on appeal.
". . . The United States Congress is on the verge of telling states, courts, judges and juries that their opinions, deliberations and decisions do not matter."
It has been fun over the past few days to hear the Democrats talk about the limited role of the Federal Government. Tell it to the builders of the Tellico Dam who had construction halted, by the Federal Government to protect the snail darter.
The above excerpt from Congressman Davis' statement seems childish to us. And, as the rhetoric over the Terry Schiavo case builds to a crecendo, it highlights the building annoyance of we, the people, with, them, the judges.
Just hold on a moment and get what is going on here. The Governor of a State, his brother, the President of the United States, along with the Congress of the United States want to do something. However, they are not doing it, because men in black robes say, "No."
Regardless of your position on this dreadful Terri Schivo case, the over-arching conflict between separate, yet equal branches of government, lauded above by Congressman Davis, is certainly reaching a point of absurdity.
Genuflecting at the rulings of the judges, even Supreme Court Justices, is a new phenomenon in America and certainly does not have the hallowed history Congressman Davis suggests with his, ". . . more than 200 years ago" talk -- as if the Schiavo case is the first interruption of this perfect balance of powers.
President Andrew Jackson is supposedly to have said of the Chief Justice John Marshall's Supreme Court ruling in the 1831 case Cherokee Nation v. State of Georgia, "Marshall has made his decision. Now let him enforce it." Whether he said it or not, he completely ignored the Court's ruling and proceeded about his business as if the Court had said nothing, which it effectively had said -- i.e., nothing. He's featured on the $20 bill.
Also, another head of the Executive Branch would hold in utter contempt the "States, courts, judges and juries [AND ELECTED STATE LEGISLATORS IN LAWFUL ASSEMBLY] that their opinions, deliberations and decisions do not matter." That, of course, was honest Abe -- President Abraham Lincoln who took his Union conscripts into Southern lands and fought a bloody, deadly war to reestablish the Union. That civil war was fought less than eighty years after the ink dried on the Constitution and left 500,000 Americans dead at the hand of the Government they had created to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. O-o-o-p-s. President Lincoln only made the $5 bill.
We get all the nice things people say about rule of law, but we can't help but wonder if any subject of the Crown ever bowed so low for so long.