Jefferson Review

"Your Liberty is Our Interest"

Home /  Archives / Links / Quotes / Book Reviews / Advertise /Contact us / Subscribe / Calendar

Of Laws and Men

By Theresa Camoriano

*What does it mean to “legislate from the bench” rather than to rule in accordance with the law?  In a recent article in a publication for attorneys, I read that legislating from the bench is what you call it when you don’t like the result, and ruling in accordance with the law is what you call it when you do like the result.  What nonsense!  While there may be some cases in which reasonable people could disagree, it usually is very clear when a judge is adhering to the law and when he is making it up as he goes along.  For example, did the judge bother to refer to the language of the law in his opinion and make an earnest attempt to apply that language to the situation at hand, or did he apply legal tests that are not found in the written law?  Did the result end up drawing a clear line that others could use as a guidepost for future actions, or was it a compromise or “splitting of the baby” decision, as in the recent Ten Commandments case, in which the posting in Texas was found to be constitutional while a similar posting in Kentucky was found to be unconstitutional?  Such compromises rarely result from adherence to the law but rather result from judges who are trying to make it up as they go along. For the safety and security of our society, we need a clear rule of law and judges who will apply that law faithfully whether or not they like the outcome in any particular case.  Let’s hope President Bush appoints judges at all levels who are strict constructionists, who will adhere to the law, and who will be worth fighting for.

*Property Rights vs. Personal Rights – I recently read an article by Molly Ivins, in which she discussed the recent Supreme Court Kelo decision on taking private property.  She said that, while she did not like the decision, she is generally more concerned about personal rights than property rights.  Doesn’t she understand that property rights are the most fundamental personal rights?  People are physical beings, and we require physical things (property) in order to do anything.  Without air, water, food and shelter (property), we die. We need printing presses, paper, computers, and other forms of property to exercise our free speech rights.  We need churches, wine, lights, money, and other forms of property to exercise our freedom of religion.  Does Molly think all the physical things she relies on to exercise her “rights” will always be there if they are not protected from thieves, defrauders, and government?  If so, she is dead wrong.

*Why do politicians think it is their job to change our personal habits?   I do not vote for a politician because I want him to tell me what to eat or drink or smoke or how to live my life or raise my children.  I also don’t want him to dictate those things to you.  I figure we are adults, we know our own personal circumstances better than anyone else, we are capable of getting advisors to help us make decisions when we want them, and we should be perfectly free to screw up our own lives as we choose.  If you have a helpful hint that you think will make my life better, I would much prefer that you share it with me directly rather than telling a politician to force it on me by law.  How is it that people who call themselves “tolerant” are so fond of using government to impose their great ideas on everyone else?

*What has happened to good old fashioned social pressure?  If you remember when it was scandalous for a girl to become pregnant before she was married, you are probably my age (50) or older.  I used to feel sorry for the girls, but now I think it wasn’t so bad.  While the girls were embarrassed and ashamed, it certainly reduced harmful behaviors and made it much more likely that babies would grow up in supportive, two-parent homes.  A little embarrassment wasn’t too high a price to pay for such good results.  However, these days, we don’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings by shaming them or applying any kind of social pressure to encourage them to be virtuous, so, instead, we end up passing laws to try to regulate everything.  What a nutty notion that it is better to apply physical force through police and jails than to apply social pressure to try to regulate human behavior!  I feel kind of sorry for Kentucky’s Governor Fletcher’s crew, who are now being threatened with fines and jail time for hiring their political friends – something that has gone on forever and should be expected in politics.  On the other hand, if the use of laws to micromanage society ends up punishing politicians, maybe they will realize that they have been taking the wrong approach by always increasing the power and scope of government and will begin to roll back these intrusions.  No, I haven’t been smoking anything illegal – just exercising some positive thinking! 

Weather (Louisville) / Mapquest /  White Pages / Business Search / CNN / Dictionary / E-card / MSN