|
Supreme
lunacy proves democratic disregard
In
a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court banned
executions of minors. In an oral dissent,
Justice Antonin Scalia, joined by Chief
Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Clarence
Thomas, proclaimed courts have no right
to rule on the morality of American society.
Scalia said that he doesn't "believe
that the meaning of our Eighth Amendment,
any more than the meaning of other provisions
of our Constitution, should be determined
by the subjective views of five members
of this court and like-minded foreigners."
Whoa. Have they lost it completely?
Let
me provide a little bit of background here.
In May of 2002, Scalia gave a speech in
which he approvingly quoted St. Paul on
the Principate, the form of government of
the Roman Empire in its first two centuries:
"... there is no power but of God:
the powers that be are ordained of God.
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power,
resisteth the ordinance of God... For rulers
are not a terror to good works, but to the
evil. ... if thou do that which is evil,
be afraid; for [the ruler] beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of
God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him
that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs
be subject, not only for wrath, but also
for conscience sake. (Romans 13:1–5)"
So,
the ruler (i.e. the government) is to be
feared only by those who do evil. The bearer
of the sword that punishes you is the minister
of God.
Pick
up the Bible. Paul clearly instructs his
followers to obey state authorities.
And
this is not the only time Scalia erred on
the source from which government derives
its authority. In the hearing on the Ten
Commandments displays case currently
under review, he did it again. He said the
Ten Commandments have been accepted by the
nation as "a symbol of the fact that
government derives its authority from God."
Even
if that were accepted, which I doubt, it
is in conflict with the U.S. Constitution.
Anyone
who thinks government is ordained by God
is un-American. It is hard to imagine how
this country could ever have been founded
were it not for people bent on disobeying
authority. In fact, the Declaration of Independence
makes specific references to "[i]nalianable
rights" of individuals. It also says
"Governments are instituted among Men,
deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed." More importantly,
the constitution starts with "We, the
People of the United States." God is
not mentioned at all.
In
the dissent, Scalia also displays utter
ignorance of democracy. Democracies have
constitutions that set limits on what the
majority can do.
The
Constitution does not allow "cruel
and unusual punishments." And the Supreme
Court gets to define what that means.
Next
time you hear about judicial activism, remember
Scalia. Remember also that the Senate Republicans
are trying to change the rules for judicial
appointments to prevent Democrats from blocking
their favorite radicals. The conservatives
have control of the executive and legislative
branches. Were it not for bouts of sanity
experienced by justices Anthony Kennedy
and Sandra Day O'Connor, conservatives would
completely control the judiciary as well.
What should one call this one party rule?
Given recent history, "regime"
is the first thing that comes to my mind.
Wolf
Thiele is a single subject teaching credential
student at CSULB.
|
