Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics
www.constitution.org ^ | April 20, 2000 | Janice Rogers Brown

Posted on 11/28/2004 7:56:02 AM PST by Huck

"A Whiter Shade of Pale": Sense and Nonsense — The Pursuit of Perfection in Law and Politics

Speech of Janice Rogers Brown, Associate Justice, California Supreme Court

The Federalist Society University of Chicago Law School April 20, 2000, Thursday 12:15 p.m.

Thank you. I want to thank Mr. Schlangen (fondly known as Charlie to my secretary) for extending the invitation and the Federalist Society both for giving me my first opportunity to visit the City of Chicago and for being, as Mr. Schlangen assured me in his letter of invitation, "a rare bastion (nay beacon) of conservative and libertarian thought." That latter notion made your invitation well-nigh irresistible. There are so few true conservatives left in America that we probably should be included on the endangered species list. That would serve two purposes: Demonstrating the great compassion of our government and relegating us to some remote wetlands habitat where — out of sight and out of mind — we will cease being a dissonance in collectivist concerto of the liberal body politic.

In truth, they need not banish us to the gulag. We are not much of a threat, lacking even a coherent language in which to state our premise. [I should pause here to explain the source of the title to this discussion. Unless you are a very old law student, you probably never heard of "A Whiter Shade of Pale."] "A Whiter Shade of Pale" is an old (circa 1967) Procol Harum song, full of nonsensical lyrics, but powerfully evocative nonetheless. Here's a sample:

"We skipped the light fandango turned cartwheels cross the floor I was feeling kinda seasick but the crowd called out for more.

The room was humming harder as the ceiling flew away. When we called out for another drink the waiter brought a tray."

There is something about this that forcibly reminds me of our current political circus. The last verse is even better.

"If music be the food of love then laughter is its queen and likewise if behind is in front then dirt in truth is clean...."

Sound familiar? Of course Procol Harum had an excuse. These were the 60's after all, and the lyrics were probably drug induced. What's our excuse?

One response might be that we are living in a world where words have lost their meaning. This is certainly not a new phenomenon. It seems to be an inevitable artifact of cultural disintegration. Thucydides lamented the great changes in language and life that succeeded the Pelopennesian War; Clarendon and Burke expressed similar concerns about the political transformations of their own time. It is always a disorienting experience for a member of the old guard when the entire understanding of the old world is uprooted. As James Boyd White expresses it: "[I]n this world no one would see what he sees, respond as he responds, speak as he speaks,"1 and living in that world means surrender to the near certainty of central and fundamental changes within the self. "One cannot maintain forever one's language and judgment against the pressures of a world that works in different ways," for we are shaped by the world in which we live.2

This is a fascinating subject which we do not have time to explore more thoroughly. Suffice it to say that this phenomenon accounts for much of the near hysterical tone of current political discourse. Our problems, however, seem to go even deeper. It is not simply that the same words don't have the same meanings; in our lifetime, words are ceasing to have any meaning. The culture of the word is being extinguished by the culture of the camera. Politicians no longer have positions they have photo-ops. To be or not to be is no longer the question. The question is: how do you feel.

Writing 50 years ago, F.A. Hayek warned us that a centrally planned economy is "The Road to Serfdom."3 He was right, of course; but the intervening years have shown us that there are many other roads to serfdom. In fact, it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens.

It is my thesis today that the sheer tenacity of the collectivist impulse — whether you call it socialism or communism or altruism — has changed not only the meaning of our words, but the meaning of the Constitution, and the character of our people.

Government is the only enterprise in the world which expands in size when its failures increase. Aaron Wildavsky gives a credible account of this dynamic. Wildavsky notes that the Madisonian world has gone "topsy turvy" as factions, defined as groups "activated by some common interest adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community,"4 have been transformed into sectors of public policy. "Indeed," says Wildavsky, "government now pays citizens to organize, lawyers to sue, and politicians to run for office. Soon enough, if current trends continue, government will become self-contained, generating (apparently spontaneously) the forces to which it responds."5 That explains how, but not why. And certainly not why we are so comfortable with that result.

America's Constitution provided an 18th Century answer to the question of what to do about the status of the individual and the mode of government. Though the founders set out to establish good government "from reflection and choice,"6 they also acknowledged the "limits of reason as applied to constitutional design,"7 and wisely did not seek to invent the world anew on the basis of abstract principle; instead, they chose to rely on habits, customs, and principles derived from human experience and authenticated by tradition.

"The Framers understood that the self-interest which in the private sphere contributes to welfare of society — both in the sense of material well-being and in the social unity engendered by commerce — makes man a knave in the public sphere, the sphere of politics and group action. It is self-interest that leads individuals to form factions to try to expropriate the wealth of others through government and that constantly threatens social harmony."8

Collectivism sought to answer a different question: how to achieve cosmic justice — sometimes referred to as social justice — a world of social and economic equality. Such an ambitious proposal sees no limit to man's capacity to reason. It presupposes a community can consciously design not only improved political, economic, and social systems but new and improved human beings as well.

The great innovation of this millennium was equality before the law. The greatest fiasco — the attempt to guarantee equal outcomes for all people. Tom Bethell notes that the security of property — a security our Constitution sought to ensure — had to be devalued in order for collectivism to come of age. The founders viewed private property as "the guardian of every other right."9 But, "by 1890 we find Alfred Marshall, the teacher of John Maynard Keynes making the astounding claim that the need for private property reaches no deeper than the qualities of human nature."10 A hundred years later came Milton Friedman's laconic reply: " 'I would say that goes pretty deep.'"11 In between, came the reign of socialism. "Starting with the formation of the Fabian Society and ending with the fall of the Berlin Wall, its ambitious project was the reformation of human nature. Intellectuals visualized a planned life without private property, mediated by the New Man."12 He never arrived. As John McGinnis persuasively argues: "There is simply a mismatch between collectivism on any large and enduring scale and our evolved nature. As Edward O. Wilson, the world's foremost expert on ants, remarked about Marxism, 'Wonderful theory. Wrong species.'"13

Ayn Rand similarly attributes the collectivist impulse to what she calls the "tribal view of man."14 She notes, "[t]he American philosophy of the Rights of Man was never fully grasped by European intellectuals. Europe's predominant idea of emancipation consisted of changing the concept of man as a slave to the absolute state embodied by the king, to the concept of man as the slave of the absolute state as embodied by 'the people' — i.e., switching from slavery to a tribal chieftain into slavery to the tribe."15

Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism's virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental and profound flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice — including our freedom. Revel notes that Marxism has been "shamed and ridiculed everywhere except American universities" but only after totalitarian systems "reached the limits of their wickedness."16

"Socialism concentrated all the wealth in the hands of an oligarchy in the name of social justice, reduced peoples to misery in the name of shar[ed] resources, to ignorance in the name of science. It created the modern world's most inegalitarian societies in the name of equality, the most vast network of concentration camps ever built [for] the defense of liberty."17

Revel warns: "The totalitarian mind can reappear in some new and unexpected and seemingly innocuous and indeed virtuous form. [¶]... [I]t ... will [probably] put itself forward under the cover of a generous doctrine, humanitarian, inspired by a concern for giving the disadvantaged their fair share, against corruption, and pollution, and 'exclusion.'"18

Of course, given the vision of the American Revolution just outlined, you might think none of that can happen here. I have news for you. It already has. The revolution is over. What started in the 1920's; became manifest in 1937; was consolidated in the 1960's; is now either building to a crescendo or getting ready to end with a whimper.

At this moment, it seems likely leviathan will continue to lumber along, picking up ballast and momentum, crushing everything in its path. Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates, and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.

But what if anything does this have to do with law? Quite a lot, I think. In America, the national conversation will probably always include rhetoric about the rule of law. I have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country's founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document. In his famous, all too famous, dissent in Lochner, Justice Holmes wrote that the "constitution is not intended to embody a particular economic theory, whether of paternalism and the organic relation of the citizen to the State or of laissez faire."19 Yes, one of the greatest (certainly one of the most quotable) jurists this nation has ever produced; but in this case, he was simply wrong. That Lochner dissent has troubled me — has annoyed me — for a long time and finally I understand why. It's because the framers did draft the Constitution with a surrounding sense of a particular polity in mind, one based on a definite conception of humanity. In fact as Professor Richard Epstein has said, Holmes's contention is "not true of our [ ] [Constitution], which was organized upon very explicit principles of political theory."20 It could be characterized as a plan for humanity "after the fall."

There is nothing new, of course, in the idea that the framers did not buy into the notion of human perfectibility. And the document they drafted and the nation adopted in 1789 is shot through with provisions that can only be understood against the supposition that humanity's capacity for evil and tyranny is quite as real and quite as great as its capacity for reason and altruism. Indeed, as noted earlier, in politics, the framers may have envisioned the former tendency as the stronger, especially in the wake of the country's experience under the Articles of Confederation. The fear of "factions," of an "encroaching tyranny"; the need for ambition to counter ambition"; all of these concerns identified in the Federalist Papers have stratagems designed to defend against them in the Constitution itself. We needed them, the framers were convinced, because "angels do not govern"; men do.

It was a quite opposite notion of humanity, of its fundamental nature and capacities, that animated the great concurrent event in the West in 1789 — the revolution in France. Out of that revolutionary holocaust — intellectually an improbable melding of Rousseau with Descartes — the powerful notion of abstract human rights was born. At the risk of being skewered by historians of ideas, I want to suggest that the belief in and the impulse toward human perfection, at least in the political life of a nation, is an idea whose arc can be traced from the Enlightenment, through the Terror, to Marx and Engels, to the Revolutions of 1917 and 1937. The latter date marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. All of these events were manifestations of a particularly skewed view of human nature and the nature of human reason. To the extent the Enlightenment sought to substitute the paradigm of reason for faith, custom or tradition, it failed to provide rational explanation of the significance of human life. It thus led, in a sort of ultimate irony, to the repudiation of reason and to a full-fledged flight from truth — what Revel describes as "an almost pathological indifference to the truth."21

There were obviously urgent economic and social reasons driving not only the political culture but the constitutional culture in the mid-1930's — though it was actually the mistakes of governments (closed borders, high tariffs, and other protectionist measures) that transformed a "momentary breakdown into an international cataclysm."22 The climate of opinion favoring collectivist social and political solutions had a worldwide dimension.

Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers' conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests. Because the only way to come to terms with an enduring Constitution is to believe that the human condition is itself enduring.

For complex reasons, attempts to impose a collectivist political solution in the United States failed. But, the political failure was of little practical concern, in a way that is oddly unappreciated, that same impulse succeeded within the judiciary, especially in the federal high court. The idea of abstract rights, government entitlements as the most significant form of property, is well suited to conditions of economic distress and the emergence of a propertyless class. But the economic convulsions of the late 1920's and early 1930's passed away; the doctrinal underpinnings of West Coast Hotel and the "switch in time" did not. Indeed, over the next half century it consumed much of the classical conception of the Constitution.

So secure were the intellectual underpinnings of the constitutional revolution, so self-evident the ambient cultural values of the policy elite who administered it, that the object of the high court's jurisprudence was largely devoted to the construction of a system for ranking the constitutional weight to be given contending social interests.

In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned. A judicial subjectivity whose very purpose was to do away with objective gauges of constitutionality, with universal principles, the better to give the judicial priesthood a free hand to remake the Constitution. After a handful of gross divisions reflecting the hierarchy of the elite's political values had been drawn (personal vs. economic rights, for example), the task was to construct a theoretical system, not of social or cultural norms, but of abstract constitutional weight a given interest merits — strict or rational basis scrutiny. The rest, the identification of underlying, extraconstitutional values, consisted of judicial tropes and a fortified rhetoric.

Protection of property was a major casualty of the Revolution of 1937. The paradigmatic case, written by that premiere constitutional operative, William O. Douglas, is Williamson v. Lee Optical.23 The court drew a line between personal rights and property rights or economic interests, and applied two different constitutional tests. Rights were reordered and property acquired a second class status.24 If the right asserted was economic, the court held the Legislature could do anything it pleased. Judicial review for alleged constitutional infirmities under the due process clause was virtually nonexistent. On the other hand, if the right was personal and "fundamental," review was intolerably strict. "From the Progressive era to the New Deal, [ ] property was by degrees ostracized from the company of rights.25 Something new, called economic rights, began to supplant the old property rights. This change, which occurred with remarkably little fanfare, was staggeringly significant. With the advent of "economic rights," the original meaning of rights was effectively destroyed. These new "rights" imposed obligations, not limits, on the state.

It thus became government's job not to protect property but, rather, to regulate and redistribute it. And, the epic proportions of the disaster which has befallen millions of people during the ensuing decades has not altered our fervent commitment to statism. The words of Judge Alex Kozinski, written in 1991, are not very encouraging." 'What we have learned from the experience of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union ... is that you need capitalism to make socialism work.' In other words, capitalism must produce what socialism is to distribute."26 Are the signs and portents any better at the beginning of a new century?

Has the constitutional Zeitgeist that has reigned in the United States since the beginning of the Progressive Era come to its conclusion? And if it has, what will replace it? I wish I knew the answer to these questions. It is true — in the words of another old song: "There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."27

The oracles point in all directions at once. Political polls suggest voters no longer desire tax cuts. But, taxpayers who pay the largest proportion of taxes are now a minority of all voters. On the other hand, until last term the Supreme Court held out the promising possibility of a revival of what might be called Lochnerism-lite in a trio of cases — Nollan, Dolan, and Lucas, Those cases offered a principled but pragmatic means-end standard of scrutiny under the takings clause.

But there are even deeper movements afoot. Tectonic plates are shifting and the resulting cataclysm may make 1937 look tame.

Lionel Tiger, in a provocative new book called The Decline of Males, posits a brilliant and disturbing new paradigm. He notes we used to think of a family as a man, a woman, and a child. Now, a remarkable new family pattern has emerged which he labels "bureaugamy." A new trinity: a woman, a child, and a bureaucrat."28 Professor Tiger contends that most, if not all, of the gender gap that elected Bill Clinton to a second term in 1996 is explained by this phenomenon. According to Tiger, women moved in overwhelming numbers to the Democratic party as the party most likely to implement policies and programs which will support these new reproductive strategies.

Professor Tiger is not critical of these strategies. He views this trend as the triumph of reproduction over production; the triumph of Darwinism over Marxism; and he advocates broad political changes to accommodate it.

Others do not see these changes as quite so benign or culturally neutral. Jacques Barzan finds the Central Western notion of emancipation has been devalued. It has now come to mean that "nothing stands in the way of every wish."29 The result is a decadent age — an era in which "there are no clear lines of advance"; "when people accept futility and the absurd as normal[,] the culture is decadent."30

Stanley Rosen defines "our present crisis as a fatigue induced by ... accumulated decisions of so many revolutions."31 He finds us, in the spirit of Pascal, knowing "too much to be ignorant and too little to be wise."32

I will close with a story I like a lot. It's a true story. It happened on June 10, 1990. A British Airways jet bound for Malaga, Spain, took off from Birmingham, England. It was expected to be a routine flight. As the jet climbed through the 23,000-foot level, there was a loud bang; the cockpit windshield directly in front of the captain blew out. The sudden decompression sucked Captain Lancaster out of his seatbelt and into the hole left by the windscreen. A steward who happened to be in the cockpit managed to snag the captain's feet as he hurtled past. Another steward rushed onto the flight deck, strapped himself into the captain's chair and, helped by other members of the crew, clung with all his strength to the captain. The slipstream was so fierce, they were unable to drag the pilot back into the plane. His clothing was ripped from his body. With Lancaster plastered against the nose of the jet, the co-pilot donned an oxygen mask and flew the plane to Southampton —approximately 15 minutes away — and landed safely. The captain had a fractured elbow, wrist and thumb; a mild case of frostbite, but was otherwise unharmed.

We find ourselves, like the captain, in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. Familiar arrangements are coming apart; valuable things are torn from our hands, snatched away by the decompression of our fragile ark of culture. But, it is too soon to despair. The collapse of the old system may be the crucible of a new vision. We must get a grip on what we can and hold on. Hold on with all the energy and imagination and ferocity we possess. Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 James Boyd White, When Words Lose Their Meaning (Univ. of Chicago Press 1984) p. 4.

2 Ibid.

3 F. A, Hayek, The Road to Serfdom (Univ. of Chicago Press 1994).

4 Golembiewski & Wildavsky, The Cost of Federalism (1984) Bare Bones: Putting Flesh on the Skeleton of American Federalism 67, 73.

5 Ibid.

6 Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 1 (Rossiter ed. 1961) p. 33.

7 Michael W. Spicer, Public Administration and the Constitution: A Conflict in World Views (March 1, 1994) 24 American R. of Public Admin. 85 [1994 WL 2806423 at *10].

8 John O. McGinnis, The Original Constitution and Our Origins (1996) 19 Harv. J.L.& Pub. Policy 251, 253.

9 Tom Bethell, Property Rights, Prosperity and 1,000 Years of Lessons, The Wall Street J. (Dec. 27, 1999) p. A19.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid.

13 John O. McGinnis, The Original Constitution and Our Origins, supra, 19 Harv. J. L.& Pub. Policy at p. 258.

14 Ayn Rand, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal (New American Lib. 1966) pp. 4-5.

15 Ibid

16 Jean Francois Revel, Democracy Against Itself (The Free Press 1993) pp. 250-251.

17 Id. at p. 251.

18 Id. at pp. 250-251.

19 (198 U.S. at p. 75.)

20 Clint Bolick, Unfinished Business (1990) p. 25, quoting Crisis in the Courts (1982) The Manhattan Report on Economic Policy, Vol. V, No. 2, p. 4.

21 Jean Francois Revel, The Flight From Truth (Random House N.Y. 1991) p. xvi.

22 Id. at p. xxxvii.

23 348 U.S. 483.

24 Tom Bethell, The Noblest Triumph (St. Martin's Griffin, N.Y. 1998) p. 175.

25 Id. at p. 176.

26 Alex Kozinski, The Dark Lesson of Utopia (1991) 58 U.Chi. L.R. 575, 576.

27 Buffalo Springfield, For What It's Worth (1966).

28 Lionel Tiger, The Decline of Males (Golden Books, N.Y. 1999) pp. 21, 27.

29 Edward Rothstein, N.Y. Times (April 15, 2000) p. A l7.

30 Ibid.

31 Stanley Rosen, Rethinking the Enlightenment (1997) 7 Common Knowledge, p. 104.

32 Ibid.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: janicerogersbrown; judicial; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last
If this is a good example of a Bush nominee, I'm gonna stop worrying about it and sit back and watch. This is a good speech that demonstrates just the right tempermant towards government needed on the bench, and throughout the nation, for that matter.
1 posted on 11/28/2004 7:56:02 AM PST by Huck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Huck
Prior to this article, I knew "zip" about Janice Rogers Brown. Now I say, GET THIS WOMAN ON THE SUPREME COURT !!!NOW!!!

Wonderful article, wonderful Supreme Court nominee.

I can see why the socialists are scared to death of the potential of her on the Court.

2 posted on 11/28/2004 8:28:07 AM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Actually, this is a great speech. WOW. Janice R. Brown is not only brilliant and witty but must be scaring the left into "a whiter shade of pale."

bookmarked.


3 posted on 11/28/2004 8:43:43 AM PST by janis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Wow. She articulates so well the vision that could save this country from descent into increasing collectivism and authoritarianism--a return to the Constitution. She is one of the few people talking about what happened to the Constitution in the 1930s, which is where the major damage occurred, in my opinion.


4 posted on 11/28/2004 8:50:07 AM PST by Defiant (Democrats: Don't go away mad, just go away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read later


5 posted on 11/28/2004 8:53:54 AM PST by sauropod (Hitlary: "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

read later


6 posted on 11/28/2004 8:55:52 AM PST by 230FMJ (...from my cold, dead, fingers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Brown Sides with Calif. SC to Uphold Assault Weapons Ban

2002/4/22
Justices Uphold State's Assault Weapons Ban

By MAURA DOLAN, Times Legal Affairs Writer

SAN FRANCISCO--The California Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the state's 1989 assault weapons ban, the first such prohibition of semiautomatic assault weapons in the nation.

The strongest weapons ban in the nation, the law bars about 75 models of firearms and allows judges to add new ones to the list as makers design modifications. A Court of Appeal in Sacramento decided two years ago that the add-on provision violated separation of powers between the Legislature and the judiciary.

But none of the state's seven high court justices agreed. "For good or ill," wrote Justice Janice Rogers Brown for the court, "the Legislature stood up and was counted on this issue, one of the most contentious in modern society."

In her opinion for the court majority, Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.

"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

The court majority also rejected the challenge that the law was invalid because it failed to ban all similar weapons.
"Doubtless, 10 years after Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act became law in California, many semiautomatic weapons potentially classifiable as assault weapons remain on the market here," Brown wrote.

"That may or may not be regrettable, depending upon one's view of this highly charged public policy question," Brown added, "but it does not amount to a constitutionally fatal flaw."


7 posted on 11/28/2004 9:24:06 AM PST by retyered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: retyered

Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not? If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?


8 posted on 11/28/2004 9:46:43 AM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Defiant; janis

She definitely demonstrates a healthy mistrust of government, a quality sorely lacking in our country.


9 posted on 11/28/2004 9:47:42 AM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Huck
it now appears that human nature is so constituted that, as in the days of empire all roads led to Rome; in the heyday of liberal democracy, all roads lead to slavery. And we no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more.

I've been noodling on this same thing recently. It almost seems that human beings are hard-wired to want and expect strongarm leadership.

We see this most evidently in the way that Islamofascists tell their countrymen to resist democracy as a Western corruption. Tribal leaders, shieks, and some strongarm thug at the top are the natural ways to live, according to these types. And in fact millions do live that way. If they oppose it, it's not by enough to overthrow it.

But I see the same thing on FR. The extreme cases are the conspiracy kooks who, in the absence of a strongarm thug running everything, make one up. It's the Bilderbergers, or the bankers, or the CFR, or The Jooz.

But set them aside for a moment, because they aren't that numerous. What bothers me more on FR is the sheer number of people who don't seem to get the idea that the world basically runs by itself.

The best examples of this going on right now are in the numerous threads discussing the falling dollar. That the dollar is falling is a result of totally automatic market forces that in the end can't be resisted. Americans have been buying imports faster than foreigners have been buying our exports, and this has been going on for a long time. The system — not any tribal leader, not Alan Greenspan, not George W. Bush — adjusts to this by revaluing the dollar against foreign currencies. It is an example of the world working by itself.

When these adjustments are complete, the millions of individuals throughout the world will have a new set of prices signalling them to change their behavior. For Americans, the prices of imported goods will be higher; for foreigners, the prices of American exports will be lower. Presto, everybody does what they are supposed to do to correct the previous trade imbalance. No tribal leaders were needed, and no strongarm dictator has to order people to behave differently. It just "happens."

And yet, there is no end on FR to the people insisting that tribal leadership — usually in the form of George W. Bush, but also Alan Greenspan or Treasury Secretary Snow — pull their secret levers or turn their secret knobs to make the world change.

A world that runs itself makes some people profoundly uneasy. Without a tribal leader to point to and crab at, they just aren't happy. So they invest their tribal leaders with all sorts of powers that in fact tribal leaders don't have. Bill Clinton no more "presided over" an economic boom than Willard Scott presided over thunderstorms. Bill Clinton just happpened to be the weatherman when the Sun was out. But people will insist — apparently based on some deep-seated need for tribal leadership — that Bill Clinton made the boom happen. Or that George Bush and Alan Greenspan could prevent a revaluation of the dollar if they only wanted to.

Part of this is a lack of even basic teaching of how a market economy works in our elementary and high schools, but even with that, there is something almost genetic in the way some people embrace this idea that somewhere, there is a strongman figure in charge, and whoever that is knows stuff the rest of us don't, and they ought to be smart enough and powerful enough to fix anything.

There was a time when people invested that sort of authority in God. No one expected earthly leadership to make the hurricanes go away. But we actually saw billboards this year suggesting that the Florida hurricanes were Bush's responsibility, as if the climate system of the Earth were his to control.

That's primitive. It's nuts. It's almost a kind of savagery. And it amazes me to see it so prevalent here on FR.


10 posted on 11/28/2004 10:01:39 AM PST by Nick Danger (Want some wood?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: retyered
In her opinion for the court majority, Brown strongly rejected any suggestion that the state Constitution protects the rights of Californians to own weapons.

"No mention is made [in the state Constitution] of a right to bear arms," Brown wrote.

Damn. Just damn.

FMCDH(BITS)

11 posted on 11/28/2004 10:02:22 AM PST by nothingnew (Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Huck

I had a friend who said that one of her professors "explained" the lyrics to that song...I should have asked...


12 posted on 11/28/2004 10:06:30 AM PST by the invisib1e hand (if a man lives long enough, he gets to see the same thing over and over.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Excellent post ND...now I refer to my screen-name...nothingnew.

FMCDH(BITS)

13 posted on 11/28/2004 10:07:32 AM PST by nothingnew (Kerry is gone...perhaps to Lake Woebegone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Huck

Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not? If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?






"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "



14 posted on 11/28/2004 10:12:18 AM PST by retyered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger; nothingnew

--- there is something almost genetic in the way some people embrace this idea that somewhere, there is a strongman figure in charge, and whoever that is knows stuff the rest of us don't, and they ought to be smart enough and powerful enough to fix anything.

There was a time when people invested that sort of authority in God. No one expected earthly leadership to make the hurricanes go away. But we actually saw billboards this year suggesting that the Florida hurricanes were Bush's responsibility, as if the climate system of the Earth were his to control.

That's primitive. It's nuts. It's almost a kind of savagery. And it amazes me to see it so prevalent here on FR.
10 posted by Nick Danger






Damn. Just damn.
11 posted by nothingnew






Bump. Just bump.


15 posted on 11/28/2004 10:34:14 AM PST by retyered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: retyered

I don't think that answers the question. It seems to me, the Cali supreme court must judge Cali law based on Cali laws. If it is in fact in violation of a federal law, that is for a federal court to decide, is it not? Where is Cali in violation of federal law?


16 posted on 11/28/2004 11:02:14 AM PST by Huck (The day will come when liberals will complain that chess is too violent .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Huck
I don't think that answers the question.

Art VI certainly answers the question of whether a CA judge can ignore the 2nd Amendment in ruling on a State law that infringes upon it.
The answer is no.

It seems to me, the Cali supreme court must judge Cali law based on Cali laws.

Read Art VI again. It clearly says that: "Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding."

If it is in fact in violation of a federal law, that is for a federal court to decide, is it not?

ALL officials are bound by oath to support the Constitution. To date, the USSC has refused to hear the issue.

Where is Cali in violation of federal law?

CA has banned many so called "assault weapons", in direct violation of the 2nd Amendment.

17 posted on 11/28/2004 11:31:56 AM PST by retyered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Huck
"Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not?"

No, it does not. As I recall, only two states do NOT have RKBA clauses in their Constitutions--those being California and New Jersey.

"If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?"

Nowhere, unfortunately. She is EXACTLY following precedent at all levels. Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.

"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".

18 posted on 11/28/2004 12:08:56 PM PST by Wonder Warthog (The Hog of Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Wonder Warthog
"Where did she err?" Nowhere, unfortunately. She is EXACTLY following precedent at all levels.

Such 'legal precedents' are not law. She is directly violating her Art VI oath to support the Constitution & its Amendments. [which oath takes precedent to all other oaths by virtue of the supremacy clause]

Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.

"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition. It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.

"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".

Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.

19 posted on 11/28/2004 12:57:17 PM PST by retyered
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Well, Mr Danger, with the governments of several US states bigger in terms of economic influence than most countries on the planet and with the US federal government bigger than probably any one country on the same planet, it's kinda hard to accept your premise that "the world basically runs by itself", unaffected by the strongmen, as you call them, that many here worship or curse. Williard Scott might have been a humble millionaire idiot box weatherman, but somebody, somewhere, occasionally, had been seeding the clouds.

Otherwise, excellent points as usual.

20 posted on 11/28/2004 1:18:00 PM PST by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-48 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson