Candidates Proactive OR Reactive?
The Voters Know the Difference
October 15, 2006
(This is a continuation of a series of columns focusing on issues facing the American electorate. A portion of today's article will deal with the judiciary)
Twenty-three more days and counting. America stands on the brink of an epic mid-term election and conscientious voters are the decision makers. Most American voters are hard working, family oriented, issue minded individuals. They are determined to do the best for their family, their country, and their community. The Americans people are aware that there are serious foreign and domestic issues to work through and resolve. We are facing monumental national and world related matters of substance. And what the voters want and need NOW are profound proposed strategies of resolution NOT rhetoric and generalities.
Winning an election is based upon integrity and honesty and putting forth solid, fundamental constructive ideas. We believe that candidates must possess a mental construct based upon stoic fundamental principles and beliefs. Presenting and voicing only a litany of problems and pointing to the flaws of others is not sufficient and will not do. The voter recognizes the ineptness and emptiness of candidates when those individual candidates lack creative problems solving approaches and solutions for a promising future.
Most assuredly, there are a number of hard hitting issues which are weighing heavily on the minds of most Americans. A focus on the major concerns point to... protecting Americans against terrorists and wining the war against Islamic radicalism and the proliferation of nuclear weaponry by rogue nations. Further, safeguarding Social Security and the pocket book issue of holding the line on taxes are hot bottom items. And in addition, on the minds of most Americans are concerns with respect to the quality of education for all learners, illegal immigration, safeguarding affordable health care, building reform in the run away tort system and instilling quality and integrity in our judicial system. And many of the candidates for the US Senate and the House have been disturbingly silent or lacking of concrete proposals to deal with these serious matters. With these factors in mind, this week we focus on the major issue of the judicial system and the appointment of judges.
Make no mistake about it, judicial philosophy must be at the heart of any judicial nomination. It is not about whether the nominee will advance a social policy agenda but rather it is about one who will stand with the original intent of the Constitution. Judge John G. Roberts pointed it out well when he articulated the concept that the court system is not a forum to remedy social problems, but rather, to strictly interpret the law in the light of its constitutionality. As we see it, the US Constitution is the client of the US Supreme Court. The purpose of the Court is not to write the laws that lawmakers are unable to get approved through their own appropriate legislative process or body.
It is true, we hear much about the term "activism" vs. "restraint" and looking at the Constitution as a "living document" vs. focusing on "original intent." As we see it, the Constitution is a product of the "wisdom of the ages"; it is that document which serves as the basis on which our Country was founded. The Constitution is the law of the land. The only uncertainty we have today is how it might be applied in untested situations and settings. And, there are those who believe that we live forever in a social experiment and our reality is the result of whatever thinking happens to be in vogue at the time by the thinkers and social engineers of that time. There is a marked difference in this culture dialogue-judges who, by virtue of their vote on a case, prefer legislating from the bench (that is, doing the work of legislators) to that of those judges who see their role as interpreting legislation in light of its Constitutionality (undertaking rightfully the work of Court).
More important is a judge's view on the significance of the Constitution. Many modern judges, including even "conservatives" like Anthony Kennedy cite international law as a basis for a decision. In our view this is reprehensible. Our Constitution was designed as a sovereign document which held certain and specific values which must come from within. To impose external views on domestic laws is a violation of a judge's duty to interpret existing statutes and American sovereignty. Law is the overarching conscience of a people within a national boundary. While many international laws have merit, unless we first adopt them into our nation through the legislative process the foreign law should have no bearing. In fact, the very usage of foreign law is nothing more than a guise of legal activism to gain an already sought about result. To draw from other nations not in our legal heritage is to, in our view; reduce the system of our law. Our legal system has its basis in English Common Law, and there is no doubt, its basis has made our nation a model to emulate. And as Judge Lerned Hand used to say of our system, "It is better to let one hundred guilty men free, than to convict one innocent man." There are few nations in the world that would have such a high legal standard. And in terms of international law, they would do well to cite us, not vice versa. We believe it is reprehensible and unacceptable when American judges cite international law as the basis for their decision. To wit: Article VI of the US Constitution, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States ... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...."
Ours is a great free enterprise system made up of enterprising men, women and children. A characteristic strength of the free enterprise system is the ability to deal constructively with issues, including the weaknesses within our judicial system, and to fix what needs fixing with the tools constitutionally provided. We believe that one can fix most anything when given the tools to do so. And it is the obligation of our candidates to propose the strategic constitutionally provided tools and plans to fix what needs fixing. The American public, within the free enterprise system, has a wealth of energy and ingenuity to do the fixing.
We ask our candidates to be up front with the people and proactive with plans to deal with critical issues, if they have any, and not just reactive to the flaws of other. The voters are aware and know the difference. That is how we see it FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE.