Category — Judicial

The Winter 2011/2012 issue of the Claremont Review of Books was packed full of interesting reviews and essays (as they all are.) One of these provided the inspiration for this article, which examines the efficacy of international tribunals in changing the hearts and minds of those under their jurisdiction.

A similar line with a different pronoun was made famous by Ronald Reagan during the 1980 presidential campaign. It was in response to Carter’s repetition of claims regarding Reagan’s position on Medicare. It gained currency because it was so representative of both Reagan’s sense of humor and his ability to turn the tables on political opponents.

We have veered from the Framers design. If there are any restriction on federal powers, it will have to be somewhat restored with a Supreme Court decision on ObamaCare, but even if the court rules against the heath care mandate, prior decisions will remain in place that pretty much gave the government carte blanche to do whatever it wants. Constitutional checks and balances are also in tatters. It seems frighteningly possible for a group of determined activists to gain and maintain control of an unfettered national government.

In the first of our Constitution Day (week) posts, Jim looks at the speed bumps specified by the nation’s charter document to restrain government.

Constitutional Illusions and Anchoring Truths is as advertized, as thought-provoking as it is a beguiling. Readers, however, are forewarned that while they will be greatly rewarded by what they learn, they also may be dismayed to find that those whose task it is to find the way to justice are sometimes in need of a moral compass.

The only way to repair our Constitution is with justices that have a deep-seated loyalty to the founding principles. The founders may have underestimated the capacity for judicial activism by a highly politicized court.

If you want to understand how the Constitution became a shadow of its former self, The Dirty Dozen is an excellent place to start.

The Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision last week on the rights of an individual in a Federalist system. At issue was an individual’s right to challenge judgments based on unconstitutionality. The Supreme Court unanimously reversed the Third Circuit Court’s ruling, which would seem to imply that an individual, “does not have standing to raise a Tenth Amendment issue.”