In a private letter of the 20^th of April, the President said: “In what terms of decency can we speak of this?… But all the principles of law are to be perverted which would bear on the favorite offenders who endeavor to overturn this odious republic!…All this, however will work well. The nation will judge both the offender (Burr) and the judges (John Marshall, et. al.,) for themselves…They will see then and amend the error in our Constitution which makes any branch (i.e., the judiciary) independent of the nation…”

http://books.google.com/books?id=0QUOAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1&dq=corwin+marshall#PPA95,M1

The trial of Aaron Burr, then, revealed a deep antipathy between Jefferson and Marshall. Jefferson’s right to interpret the Constitution is suspect, vis-a-vis Marshall, on at least two counts: he was never a judge and did not attend the Convention.  Jefferson’s rant, cited above, is remarkable because it reveals a tortured understanding of the Constitution, i.e., that it created an independent judiciary, and that the President considered himself above it. Throughout the affair, as Corwin shows, Jefferson demonstrated nothing but contempt for the judiciary.  The parallel with another President Jefferson, William Jefferson Clinton, portends ill for the "weakest branch."  Thomas Jefferson ignored, for the most part, Marshall's court, failing to provide necessary materials that, Marshall believed, would demonstrate precipitousness in the indictment.  William Jefferson Clinton lied to a federal judge on a material issue and probably obstructed justice.  The underlying theme of both controversies was whether being elected, rather than appointed, entitles one to defy the highest branch.

The trial of Aaron Burr is, perhaps, the most bizarre chapter in American history. Here you have a Jefferson demanding the head of the Burr, who dispensed with Hamilton, frustrated by Marshall, who, more than any man since Washington, personified Hamilton’s ideal.  One can only imagine how conflicted Marshall must have been.  He must have truly despised Jefferson to eschew an urge to hang the man who shot Hamilton.  More likely, Marshall personified the rare ideal: a judge who declares and interprets laws rather than inventing them.  Corwin (link above) claims otherwise.  Of course, while the federalist party died in 1812, the influence of Marshall's party continued through the federal judiciary.  The seating of the current Court reflects a resurgence.

 Potential presidential candidate Fred Thompson crafted an article that was mostly hailed by the Townhall community. http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FredThompson/2007/04/23/talking_about_federalism?page=full&trackbacks=true#commentAnchor I would like to differ with my conservative friends.

Thompson is preaching to the choir!

Most conservatives, judging by friends and bloggers, share Thompson's views on Federalism. Thompson is, by all accounts, a highly intelligent and successful man. The first luminary on the High Court to espouse the views repeated by Thompson was no slouch. Oliver Wendall Holmes, jr., crafted his seminal work, The Common Law, before he surpassed fourty. He was a battle-veteran of the Civil War and is credited by some with saving Abraham Lincoln's life. When the rather conspicuous Commander-in-Chief wandered onto a battlefield and into harm's way, Holmes convinced the erstwhile executive to take cover. Holmes served longer than any other Justice on the Court- over thirty years. He became a fountainhead of judicial deference- especially to states. It was Holmes who first articulated the notion that states should be left alone as political "laboratories." Thompson repeats this idea explicity in his article.

The idea that individual states should "compete" for taxpayers, in the same way that corporations compete for customers seems logical. The problem is, as Holmes himself stated,

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. The felt necessities of the time, the prevalent moral and political theories, institutions of public policy, avowed or unconscious, even the prejudices which judges share with their fellow men, have had a good deal more to do than the syllogism in determining the rules by which men should be governed. The law embodies the story of a nation's development through many centuries, and it cannot be dealt with as if it contained only the axioms and corollaries of a book of mathematics."

From the first of twelve Lowell Lectures delivered by Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. on November 23, 1880, which were the basis for The Common Law.

If nothing else, the history of America demonstrates that States are more often on the wrong side of our most important controversies. The principal example is slavery, but there are more. The Constitution itself grew out of a need to finance our national security and delimit interference with private contracts. Alexander Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury, and, according to the brilliant popular historian Ronald Chernow, the architect of our nation's economy, understood that the future of America lied in industrialization. States stood in the way of this trend. The Constitution clearly established a source of supreme law, binding on the states, or it did nothing at all. Even without the Civil War, in which more than half a million Americans died, state's rights doctrine has a tarnished history. Jim Crow Laws exemplified the extent to which Hamilton's co-author James Madison was correct, in Federalist 10, when he placed the hopes of liberty in the Federal government. Extend the sphere, he said, and there will be less cause for faction. This article is a seminal chapter in American history. Madison later changed his tune, allying himself with Jefferson and states rights doctrine.

The problem with Thompson's thesis, that "States become laboratories for democracy and experiment with different kinds of laws" is that states can't think. It is rare that an error is repeated this faithfully. It is as if this fallacy is written into conservative DNA. This analogy would have appealed to Holmes. Holmes was a positivist. He extended the notions of science to law. In this effort- as FA Hayek and others have demonstrated- lies much of our disarray. Societies are not laboratories. Legislatures don't learn from their mistakes. It is finally time to turn Holmes's famous observation on itself.

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience. And experience shows that states do not deserve our fidelity.

 

“To be sure, courts deserve criticism when they exercise legislative or executive powers ordering taxes to be raised, assuming control over school systems or prisons, giving regulatory agencies broad lawmaking authority. But better to call this behavior what it really is, not "activism" but lawlessness. By contrast, judicial activism -- defined as courts holding the president, Congress, and state and local governments to their constitutional boundaries -- is essential to protecting individual liberty and the rule of law.”

Clint Bolick’s thesis challenges over a hundred years of wisdom, dating back to Oliver Wendall Holmes, Jr. Holmes and his ideological progeny (most prominently, Felix Frankfurter) started the so-called restrainist school of constitutional jurisprudence. Since then, conservatives have been wed to the notion that the Court should be a good child, seen but not heard. This dangerous notion was furthered by the work of Robert Bork, principally in Slouching Towards Gamorrah. Though Bork has backpedaled or at least refined his position of late, his philosophy of judicial surrender remains a serious impediment to conservatism.

Maybe Bolick is the next Bork. He is, at least, no slouch.

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/AboutUs/ArticleView.aspx?id=1534

Note:  After posting this initially I went to the link above and watched the CATO institute presentation of Bolick and his detractors, in its entirety.  The video is over an hour long, but I found it absolutely fascinating.  I intend to review parts of it in a subsequent post.  In particular, I would take issue with the accuracy of Bolick's characterization of Madison as the "primary" founder of constitutionalism.  He corrects this error somewhat, though without saying as much, when he relies on Hamilton to defend his notion of legitimate activism.  There is a point at which the discussion gets bogged down by semantics.  "Is Bolick talking about activism or just judicial review?" wonders one of his conservative colleagues.  And there are many more points made by the eminent panelist from the left that deserve scrutiny.  What unfolds is a fascinating discussion on the current status of the Supreme Court.

Those of you who support G.W., as do I, will bristle at Bolick's characterization of the latter as a government bully.  I am not sure what he has in mind here, but it, also, is worth exploring.

A video has surfaced in which a boy "barely twelve" saws off a live man's head.  The boy's actions are part of a systemmatic effort by jihadists to intimidate western sympathizers.  This event is not isolated.  It wasn't perpetrated by a deranged loner.  This boy is now a hero. 


http://www.comcast.net/news/international/asia/index.jsp?cat=ASIA&fn=/2007/04/21/642734.html&cvqh=itn_jihadvideo

In the wake or recent events, it is interesting to revisit the reputation of one of our most revered founding fathers.  What possible explanation can there be for our persistent reverence for Thomas Jefferson?  Jefferson was not only a towering political and intellectual figure.  He was also a committed racist and a life-long opponent of abolition.  Jefferson used his national status to preserve his state's perogative.  He was in Washington's cabinet and even obtained the office which the General defined; but he was always, first and foremost, a Virginian.

The question remains, how a dogmatic defender of racial subjection retains admirers in a day and age in which even a whiff of prejudice can sink a career.  The answer may lie in our subconscious.  Clearly, we distinguish a racist then from a racist (presumed or otherwise) now.  We recognize that being a racist in Jefferson's time indicated a lesser degree of turpitude.  And indeed, it may have.  Even three decades after slavery ended, Justice Harlan spoke positively of racial pride, of white pride in our nation's accomplishments.  And he did so in a rightly famous opinion against legalized racism.  Such were his times.  Harlan is, perhaps, the last great national figure to share the Jefferson enigma.  The contradictions of Jefferson's Declaration and Harlan's dissent run in parallel. 

Jefferson and Harlan's failures, though vastly different in extent, were primarily moral.  They ably compartmentalized the suffering of blacks in America while retaining their nation's faith.  Their minds were uncorrupted, if their hearts were cold.

Neither Jefferson nor Harlan would survive a moment in today's political climate were they to retain and vocalize their views.  There is no doubt that we are better for it.  The reason is that racism today is not just a moral failure.  It is an intellectual one.  To accept the inferiority of blacks is to negate the existence of Ellison, the courage and intelligence of King, the temerity of Steele.  So the racist today stands at an altogether different relation to reason.  He is both a moral coward and a mental degenerate.  

Consideration of the Jefferson Enigma cannot but lead one to question the appropriateness of racialist politics.  The policies and actions of the racial absolvers would have been appropriate- and eminently courageous- in Jefferson's times, when men of power and prestige could hold power and be openly racist.  Racism today is indefensible.  The person who holds such views is marginalized.  It is often said that racists really hate themselves.  To the extent this is true- and I, for one, consider it so- we have indeed come a very long way.

But if Jefferson's bigotry is excusable, and racism in today's enlightened age is not, in what esteem should we hold a man like Alexander Hamilton, an abolitionist and an intellectual?  I would argue, higher.  Much, much higher. 

In case you haven't seen it, there is a poignant picture circulating of Alec Baldwin and his daughter on a red carpet.  They are both smiling.  Baldwin is chatting with photographers and/or journalists.  His daughter, Ireland, is standing next to him.  But, in light of Baldwin's diabolical rant, in which he tells his daughter that she is not smart enough to understand him and that she is "a rude thoughtless little pig," the most telling aspect of the picture is the background.  Apparently, PETA was one of the organizations standing to benefit from Baldwin's celebrity.

Here is a man who can't treat his own daughter with respect raising money for a rabid animal rights group.  He has probably shed a tear or two on behalf of ducks or lobsters.  I can only imagine the patronizing twinkle in his eye as he decried the loss of a slug or suckerfish.

I suggest Alec jettison Peta and join PETC, People for the Ethical Treatment of Children.  But that wouldn't gain him any friends on the left. 

The Last King of Scotland just hit pay-per-view.  I recommend it.

The movie is a searing portrait of tyranny, madness and futility.  I expected to watch a few minutes and then annoy my wife by finding something better to do, like giving the cat a bath.  Instead I was mesmerized.    Forest Whitaker is brilliant.  The other main actor is adequate, while the supporting cast, from Amin's Minister of Health to his wife to a stoic native physician, perform a flawless humanscape.  And that is the heart of the film's gravity.  Amin is the movie.  This is tyranny:  how it looks, how it must feel.  One's heart leaps at Amin's volatile outbursts, of violence and of tenderness.  James McAvoy's less than perfect portrayal is incidental.  The director's intent- at least his accomplishment- is to put his audience in McAvoy's place.     

Despite a subplot involving Great Britain's role in propping up Amin, the movie transcends conspiracy.  By focusing on Amin and McAvoy's character, it succeeds admirably.

I usually take the advice my dad offers to football players who over celebrate in the end zone, "Act like you've been there."  On this case, however, I have to gloat a bit.  The Supreme Court, with Alito and Kennedy casting deciding votes, has finally voted to support the federal ban on partial birth abortion.  This decision is more important even than it seems.  It will directly impact only a small number of doctors/procedures.  The more enduring legacy will be that finally, FINALLY!, the Supreme Court has mustered the will to stand for what it should, the Constitution.  And the Constitution, to be effective, requires enunciation and defense.  And that is the role of the courts: enunciate the Supreme Law and strike down laws repugnant to it.  The era of judicial deference- to states, to legislatures, to pressure groups- may finally be coming to an end. 

Late last night, as I waited in an interminable line to mail off an Extension to File, I witnessed a poignant convergence.

I exited the ramp toward one of only two Post Offices slated to remain open past midnight.  I thought I was being clever.  This particular office was more remote than the alternative.  Within less than a mile, I realized my mistake.  I ran into a solid wall.  By this time, it was about 11:30 and the only thing keeping me in line was the radio.  Dennis Miller was talking about the night a suspicious coed had led him through sleet, hail and driving rain to the gravesite of Mark Twain.  The context was the WVA shooting.  Miller was doing a remarkable job weaving humor and commentary into a narrative honoring the dead.   He's got a gift.  Oh, and he gave me leave to enjoy the Boss's music.  Miller said that despite his differences with Springsteen, he considers Bruce "one hell of a human being."  Good enough for me.  Anyway.

I'm sitting in my car, listening to DM when a guy gets out of his car somewhere behind me and starts running.  A ten or twelve foot chain link fence encloses the Post Office and I am still easily a mile from the drop off.  So I see this older gentleman running up the sidewalk beside me and I'm thinking "hey!  He's running faster than I'm driving.  Not a bad idea."  And then I realize that running with him would rob me of Dennis Miller's sparkling conversation, so I defer.  I also briefly consider rolling down my passenger window and asking the Marathon Man to do a fellow tax payer a favor.  Then I think better of it.  Suddenly, the grey haired fox runs by a bus bench and stops.  He's leaning heavily on the bench.  His chest is heaving up and down.  I think, "This guy is gonna die!"  Of course, I consider offering the poor guy a ride.  But before I can make this meaningless offer, he's off again.  And then it hits me, It's true what they say about death and taxes.  What they don't tell you is that taxes can kill you.  About fifteen minutes later, the old jogger is nearly crawling the opposite direction, back to his car.   

By this time, I realize I have virtually no hope of getting to the drop-off before midnight.  I consider doing a u-turn out of the line and heading home.  I really don't care if I have to pay a penalty for not filing, I just happened to be up late last night with nothing better to do.  But Dennis pulls me back in.  Sitting in a stop and go line waiting to beg the state for mercy has become just an excuse to listen to Mr. Miller.  I consider calling in to the show.  But I have nothing to add.  I just want to tell Dennis that taxes can actually kill you.  A little off-topic, so I probably wouldn't make it on anyway.  Finally, at about 12:05 I reach the drop off.  There is a very congenial woman taking envelopes from outstretched hands.  When I get to her, I thank her for accepting my plea.  She smiles and says "you are welcome."  I think, "She is the nicest postal worker I've ever met."  And I have never, ever known a post office to stay open even a second later than necessary.  

And then it occurs to me, "Is this a coincidence?"  The one and only time the post office acts like a legitimate business is on tax day.  Hmmm. 

Why so much furor over a retarded off-the-cuff remark?  Look to Duke.

The rush to judgement in the Duke LAX case was made because as a society we have been convinced that racism is systemic.  Given the opportunity, why wouldn't three privileged white males rape and denigrate a black woman?  As the popular aphorism goes, Is the Pope Catholic?  Of course these guys abused this woman:  to do so is in their nature.  The mere circumstance of white males in a position to denigrate a black person- male or female- presupposes the act itself.  Thus the assumption of white guilt combined with opportunity virtually seals the deal.  And nothing spurs a lawyer's salivary glands more quickly than a high-profile conviction. 

But what does that have to do with Imus?

Likewise, the need to police thought is based upon a premise that all white people need is an excuse.  Slavery wasn't an artifact of history; it was a natural product of Caucasion predisposition.  Never mind that, as Thomas Sowell remind us, slavery existed before Western culture.  Never mind that slavery has been a critical feature of Islam for thousands of years.  Slavery is an outgrowth of white people's desire to control and denigrate. 

The unspoken assumption behind the furor over impolitic speech is that white people are only kept at bay by the arbiters of correct speech.  Let a person like Imus (or that moron from Seinfeld) go unpunished and before you know it society will revert to Jim Crow. 

And behind all of these assumptions is a bankrupt view of history.  It is not so much politically correct history, as ahistory.  The question that the left can't answer is the obvious one:  If white people are genetically predisposed to be racist, how did a nation founded by such people set an unprecedented standard for integration and equality?  Sure it took a few hundred years.  But a long historical view reveals that this length of time is remarkable...for its precipitousness.  There is no parallel at any time, anywhere.

Until we eradicate the notion that prejudice and bigotry are the province of one race, travesties like the one at Duke will continue to occur.  And only when bigots are allowed free reign to reveal their reptilian notions at will may we be assured that the hate mongers have lost.

And, as for Al Sharpton:

Were I forced to choose between Mr. Sharpton or a White Supremacist (at the end of a gun barrel, for instance), I can't say for sure which way I'd go.

I can think of no greater insult to Mr. Sharpton.

My local paper, the Denver Post, ran a cartoon today by Bruce Tinsley, "Mallard Fillmore," which reads:

Psst!  Turn on your computer, and go to "Townhall.com..."  Do a search for a series of columns by Thomas Sowell called "Global Hot Air..."  Read these columns, which contain the names and work of respected climate scientists who are open-minded about whether "Global Warming" is man-made.

Congratulations!  You are now light-years ahead of the Mainstream Media im your global warming knowledge.

Priceless!

I tried to find a link to the actual cartoon but it wasn't available.

Now look at the leading searches for the day.

 Civil rights used to have meaning.  Equal protection used to mean "before the government."  As is often pointed out by libertarians, the Constitution is prohibitive.  Ours is a government of enumerated powers.  The problem with this equation is that it wasn't balanced.  Even after the Civil War, conservatives maintained the position that the Federal Government hadn't the privilege, let alone the duty, of interfering with Jim Crow.  It was up to the states- in Holmes's germane language- to experiment.  Originally, then, the Civil Rights movement focused on getting the national government involved in what had been the purview of states.  This necessitated extending the Commerce Power to include private action.   This was, perhaps, the greatest achievment of the Civil Rights Era. 

Now, however, rights have become wrongs.  Protecting the rights of minorities has been equated with creating a perfectly tolerant society.  This means that the government is legally required to stop at nothing to make sure that minorities are shielded from prejudice.  This effort includes reshaping human conscience.  Human beings are no longer afforded the luxury of stupidity.  Every act that could conceivably construed as intolerant must be both prevented- through mind control- and vehemently prosecuted. 

It is frightening to consider that America's story- which began among men who took exception with a tax on tea- should end with their progeny's ideological capitulation.  Don't think there weren't among the founder's a great many disagreements on matters of principle.  Uniformity of thought is the death knell of liberty.  Welcome to the United Minds of America.

A trio of Denver teens have been charged in the gruesome murder of one of their mothers.  The victim, who was allowing her daughter's seventeen year old boyfriend, Bryan Grove, to live in her home, purportedly prompted her own multiple stabbing by uttering a racial slur during an argument with Mr. Grove.  Ms. Damm's prior actions notwithstanding, Grove took umbrage, plunging one knife through his landlady's neck and then retrieving a larger knife to complete the job.  It is troubling to consider Mr. Grove's motivation on two levels.  First, if Ms. Damm did indeed commit the verbal offense, did it in any way justify her murder; second, and more importantly, if Grove invented the slight to diminish his culpability, what does that say about the younger generation's perception of "equal and opposite force?"

According to Grove's own testimony, as reported in the Denver Post,  

"The fight escalated until Grove said Damm shouted that she wished her daughter had never been born because then she wouldn't have "this black guy hanging all over me," according to the affidavit.

Enraged, Grove said, he choked Damm to unconsciousness, then grabbed a small knife and thrust it into her neck so deeply that he couldn't pull it back out, the document says.

Grove said he then went to get a large kitchen knife and stabbed her several more times in the neck, twisting the knife each time, until she stopped breathing, the affidavit states. "

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_5379949

Grove's "defense" reflects a logical extension of media-fueled hysteria, whereby all blacks in America are subject to systemmic racism and all white people potential targets of retribution.  It isn't likely that a woman who allowed a young black man to live in her home entertained deeply racist ideas, so Grove either invented the slight or allowed it to trump the obvious.  Either way, America may finally be reaping the rewards of Rodney King and O.J.

 18-9-121. Ethnic Intimidation.
(1) The general assembly hereby finds and declares
that it is the right of every person, regardless of race, color,
ancestry, religion, or national origin, to be secure and protected
from fear, intimidation, harassment, and physical harm caused by the
activities of individuals and groups. The general assembly further
finds that the advocacy of unlawful acts against persons and groups
because of a person's or group's race, color, ancestry, religion,
or national origin, for the purpose of inciting and provoking bodily
injury or damage to property, poses a threat to public order and
safety and should be the subject of criminal sanctions.
(2) A person commits ethnic intimidation if, with the intent
to intimidate or harass another person because of that person's
race, color, religion, ancestry or national origin, he:
(a) Knowingly causes bodily injury to another person; or
(b) By words or conduct, knowingly places another person in
fear of imminent lawless action directed at that person or that
person's property and such words or conduct are likely to produce
bodily injury to that person or damage to that person's property;
or
(c) Knowingly causes damage to or destruction of the property
of another person.

(3) Ethnic intimidation is a class 1 misdemeanor, except that
a violation of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) of this section is
a class 5 felony.

Colorado Revised Statutes:

Use of Physical Force and Use of Deadly Physical Force

18-1-704. Use of physical force in defense of a person.
	Except as provided in subsections (2) and (3) of this section, a person is justified in using physical force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of unlawful physical force by that other person, and he may use a degree of force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for that purpose. Deadly physical force may be used only if a person reasonably believes a lesser degree of force is inadequate and:
		The actor has reasonable ground to believe and does believe, that he or another person is in imminent danger of being killed or of receiving great bodily injury; or The other person is using or reasonably appears about to use physical force against an occupant of a dwelling or business establishment while committing or attempting to commit burglary as defined in sections 18-4-202 to 18-4-204; or The other person is committing or reasonably appears about to commit kidnapping as defined in section 18-3-301 or 18-3-302, robbery as defined in section 18-4-301 or 18-4-302, sexual assault as set forth in section 18-3-402 or in section 18-3-403 as it existed prior to July 1, 2000, or assault as defined in sections 18-3-202 and 18-3-203.
	Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) of this section, a person is not justified in using physical force if:
		With intent to cause bodily injury or death to another person, he provokes the use of unlawful physical force by that other person; or He is the initial aggressor, except that his use of physical force upon another person under the circumstances is justifiable if he withdraws from-the encounter and effectively communicates to the other person his intent to do so, but the latter nevertheless continues or threatens the use of unlawful physical force; or The physical force involved is the product of a combat by agreement not specifically authorized by law.
18-1-704.5. Use of deadly physical force against an intruder.
	The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force. Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

What is the advantage of democracy if its mistakes are irreversible?  And what if the organs of public policy are structurally predisposed to insularity?  To achieve a more just society, is it necessary to undermine the bedrock of justice?   In the public interest, legislatures across the nation have enacted hate crimes legislation.  The ostensible purpose of these laws is noble:  protect historically disadvantaged groups from an ignorant and hateful majority.  The dirty little secret of these enactments is that they undermine rules that protect all citizens.  By legitimizing a view in which the majority is guilty prima facie, hate crime laws threaten the deepest foundations of western civilization.  After all, how can a majority instinctively prone toward the worst forms of depravity possibly meet even the minimum standards for democracy?  And what will happen when the majority is the minority?  Our law already has codified their inherent inhumanity.  How will laws of the future treat these beasts?  We can be excused for assuming the worst.  And what is the worst?  Defenders of the current trend will doubtless point toward Reconstruction and Segregation Era abuses.  That would indeed be poetic justice, would it not?  Pasty white people being segregated, even lynched.  And yet, what hope would they have for a better future?  Likely, none.  For by that time, the greatest hope of all humanity will have been erased as if from a whiteboard.  The rule of law will have been irretrievably lost, and all in the name of justice, but not the old form of justice, the one that our Founders defined and defended.  This will be symbolic justice. 


Of all the things that make America special, none is more vital than the rule of law.  But the rule of law can mean different things to different people.  The most common sense of the phrase in use today equates it with majority rule, with democracy and legislation.  Both ends of the political spectrum seem to embrace this meaning, the main distinction being that liberals make exception for the whims of socially minded justices.  But there is a slightly more pedestrian meaning to the phrase that is steadily losing its cache.  It is the meaning embodied in the 14th Amendment:  every man, no matter how low or high, is to have his day in court and will be treated fairly.  Prior to the 14th Am. this ideal was only partially realized.  The 14th Am. sought to extend the rights and privileges of citizenship to the newly emancipated.  It was only partially successful in doing so, as individual states continued to treat crimes against blacks casually, at best, in tandem, at worst.  Republican Administrations compounded these crimes by failing to intervene.  The problem reached a zenith in South Carolina, where the KKK operated under the tacit approval of state officials.  Finally, the Federal government intervened, but most of the accused were never convicted.  The most evil were let escape.

(tbc)