Bacon's Rebellion

Democracy Thrives in Sunlight

An Example of ‘Government’ Speech

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

This is the written ‘ government’ speech from an Act of the General Assembly passed in 1786. Written by Thomas Jefferson.

“An Act for establishing religious Freedom. Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time”

Okay, class, is the Almighty God referred to in this act any God other than the deity of the King James Bible?

So, does the reference to this author of our religion (which religion might that be?) make this an unconstitutional disestablishment of the official state church of Virginia?

Why is it that Thomas Jefferson never referred to ‘government speech’, but Sandra Day O’Connor did? Why don’t any of the Founding Fathers write or speak about ‘government’ speech?

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

  1. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    “Okay, class, is the Almighty God referred to in this act any God other than the deity of the King James Bible?”.

    I think that’s a togher question than it might first seem. I offer two poeces of ecidence:

    1. Many of the founding fathers were Masons. In order to be a Mason you have to believe in God or a “madter architect”. However, you don’t have to believe in any particular God. The God in the King James bible was fine by the Masons but so was Allah or the God worshiped by the Jews. While Jefferson was not known to be a Mason I believe that this “school of thought” influenced the founding fathers – including Jefferson. I think it’s a stretch to assume that any reference by Jefferson to God is a reference to the God of the King James Bible.

    2. Jefferson is known to have owned a Koran. Therefore, he intellectually understood the fact that people worship different Gods – or, the same God in different ways. If he would have wanted to name a particular religion’s concept of God I think he would have done that.

    Of course, none of this excuses a government agency or body from editing a preacher’s prayers in front of that government entity. To edit religious commentary is, in effect, to start defining a religion – and that is definitely prohibited.

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Sorry, I don’t buy the “King James version of the Bible.” Way too Protestant!

    Peter Galuszka

  3. God Avatar
    God

    He was definitely talking about Me, no doubt about it. I always liked Jefferson. He really tried to use all of the talents that I gave him.

  4. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    G: Nice try. Masons used the King James Bible. Read what Jefferson said about the God of the King James Bible and you will see his preference – clearly. Also, that was the God worshipped when he attended Sunday services held in the Congress itself.
    PG: The King James Bible was the bible for the English-speaking people in the 90% plus Protestant majority.

    I read that 40% of all the references cited in the Constitutional Convention to argue one way or the other where from the King James Bible. I believe Blackstone’s Commentaries was number 2.

    I posted this for two reasons.

    I find there are Liberals who want to separate America from its Christian experience – and from its English Enlightenment Protestant thinking. Present company excepted. It’s like being a Holocaust denier to me.

    The idea of ‘government’ speech needs to be mocked as much as rejected.

  5. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I have no problem with anyone who believes there is a higher being involved in his existence.

    I have a BIG problem with any person invoking their own vision of that higher being in the context of acting as a representative of other citizens who may or may not share that particular vision.

    We need to have a zero tolerance for this.

    People who insist on this, in my view, on basically advocating more hate and discontent and a continuation of the “us against them” mindset.

  6. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry,

    I have zero tolerance for people who want to force me to keep my faith to myself. My faith is not private – it is who I am. If it isn’t, its fake, and we have plenty of that in our society.

    I understand that in a narcissistic postmodern society that the idea of truth and faith are dispised, but that’s just too bad. Deal with it, because I and others like me are not going away.

    As for calling my belief system “hate” and us against them, isn’t that what you just did?

  7. dkuehn Avatar
    dkuehn

    james –

    reread clause one of the fourteenth amendment and you’ll understand why it was perfectly legitimate for Jefferson to write those words then and perhaps not as legitimate to right them now. And I think Jefferson personally would have been thrilled with this amendment.

    Also – why do you insist on ridiculing the idea of government speech? as you say – a law is government speech. So is a treaty, an executive order, a subpoena, etc. Are you getting fussy because O’Connor made it into a noun? What if she said “The government is allowed to restrict its own communications to nonsectarian prayer, but it is not allowed to restrict Turner’s individual communications in any way” Would you have an issue with that? I can’t believe how hung up you are on this “government speech” issue.

    And I’d 100% agree with you – denying our christian and enlightenmnet heritage is sort of akin to denying the holocaust (granted, you’re not denying genocide so its not exactly the same… but I see where you’re going with this). Couldn’t agree with you more on this point.

    But the wisdom of the English Enlightment and the wisdom of Christ have also lead our founding fathers to certain conclusions about restrictions that have to be placed on the power of the government… and in 1865 these restrictions were extended to the state governments as well, by a constitutional amendment, NOT an activist judiciary. So yes I celebrate our christian and enlightenment heritage… and I recognize that those heritages have, over time, given us a system of government where the power of the state is not used to promote or elevate one religious perspective over another. It took some time to get to that point, but we absolutely have christianity and the enlightenment to thank for it.

  8. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    re: faith and government

    I don’t want you to keep your faith to yourself unless your role is as a government representative of others who may not share your particular religious views.

    At that point – “expressing” your particular religious views with a non-sectarian prayer is divisive and destroys trust in you as an objective representative of others.

    Why did JFK and more recently Romney go to such trouble to convince folks that his religion was separate from his role?

    What if they, instead, INSISTED on having a “Christian prayer” every time he addressed the country?

    every person has every right – as a citizen to practice and profess their faith….. in any venue that they choose

    EXCEPT
    when they represent other citizens in a government context.

    how can you really represent others effectively if you say that you have sectarian views anyhow?

    In that context, are you not advising others of your own bias at the same time you are professing to be objective?

    For myself, I reall don’t want to hear Christian, or Muslim, Buddhist or Wiccan or Atheist beliefs in the context of representative government.. period.

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    But Larry, you are essentially saying that any real Christian (or Jew or Muslim or whatever) is not fit for office. I am a Christian, and my faith permeates my beliefs. I admit, I don’t always live up to the principles of God but I strive to. If I were to run for office, it would be impossible for me to separate that from how I come to conclusions on policy positions.

    And I should not have to separate the two. By asking me to do that you are in essence making me less than a full citizen with less rights – and I think they tried that once and it didn’t work so well.

    Our philosophy, or worldview, determine how we think. You are saying that people of any religion cannot be allowed to use their philosphy to come to conclusions in policy and governement – that is ludicrous. I am a citizen of the US with the same rights as you and anyone else. If I ran for office, I don’t lose those rights!!!

    If so, we’re more screwed up than I thought.

  10. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Dk:The 14th Amendment is the ‘Gumby’ amendment. It means anything a judge makes up.

    The protection of privileges and immunities to individual citizens from abuse by states doesn’t equal the prohibition of the Congress from establishing an official federal religion. The individual rights of citizens and the state’s ability to establish an official religion have nothing to do with one another. Unless, a judge pretends that it does so.

    The 14th Amendment had specific intent and purposes. It protected Blacks as citizens and denied Indians as citizens from birth. I doubt Jefferson would have celebrated the abridgement of freedom for former Confederates, since all of his descendants served Virginia during the Late Unpleasantness.

    The issue with the term ‘government’ speech is letting a court make up the term and then define its rights and wrongs.

    It’s not the courts’ business to define different kinds of speech.

    It’s not the courts’ business to say what speech is politically correct and what is verboten.

    It’s up to the legislatures to say some speech is libelous, riotous, assault, unlawful in public for morality, treasonous, etc. The courts have the duty to adjudicate any disputes within that narrow window of discussion.

    The proper response to the lawsuit should have been to throw it out and not review it. The issue is for the City of Fredericksburg and the General Assembly.

    The idea of ‘government’ speech is as empty, but dangerous, as ‘hate’ speech. Letting judges write speech codes is a big step away from liberty.

    Any person who is in government who says something wrong – hearing the wrong is in the ear of the listener, like beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder – can have their speech address through many avenues of redress at every level of government.

    The one big avenue to not take is to let judges create a new category of speech and make up speech codes – legislate – from the bench.

    Thanks for the dialogue.

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    JAB – you infer that judicial interpretations are illegitimate somehow – that seems a common thread from conservatives, that judges are somehow operating outside the law. For better or worse, the founding fathers are in their graves, my friend, and judges are part of the process they left behind. So whether you like it or don’t like it, the constitution means what a sitting judge says it means, true? Everybody on the political spectrum has lived with this. When your turn comes, don’t call those decisions out of bounds. The Gumby reference. Three branches of government, remember? Three.

  12. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    what I am saying is that you take an oath to represent ALL of the people whom you professed to represent when you too the job and that includes people whose religion is different from yours.

    Just as JFK was a Catholic, he took an oath to represent the ALL people who elected him – many who were not Catholics and did not subscribe to the Catholic religion.

    and probably none of whom would have voted for him if he had stated up front that he intended to let his Catholic faith guide him in decisions.

    Your role as a representative of the people means that your first job is to represent the people when doing the people’s business.

    You are perfectly free on your own time and business to fully exercise whatever your religion is – in your private life.

    If you could not make this promise when you took the oath of office – like JFK understood, you’d be assuming office under false pretenses – lying – something most religions eschew.

  13. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Anon: We agree in part.

    Bad judicial interpretations range from insipid to stupid to illegitimate to immoral and beyond. Just like bad laws and bad executive actions.

    The Constitution is what it says on paper – in English.

    Justice Frankfurter’s comment “the Constitution is what I say it is” is a perfect example of judicial arrogance that has grown to acts of judicial tyranny.

    The Constitutionality of a law, when there is a real Constitutional issue, is for the judiciary to determine. But, they shouldn’t go beyond that and make up remedies, etc that are the duty of the legislative and executive branches. Judges will go one way when these judges are in and the other when other judges are in.

    Judicial activism by Conservatives – seems a bit of a contradiction in terms – isn’t better than when Liberals do it.

    There are times, when Thomas Jefferson (as he wrote in the Declaration) and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr and I agree that the ruling of a judge has gone against natural law – and is absolutely illegitimate. The point of that political exercise is that reasonable people will disagree. So, if you violate that judicial ruling, you may become a martyr, a leader of a movement, or just another nut case.

  14. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Why is it that the founding fathers spoke and wrote so much about God but so little about Jesus? They were all Christans but rarely included Jesus in their God-filled writings. In simple terms, they were writing for all of America – not just Christians. They were men of their times and believed that just about everyone believed in God. However, they understood that not everyboby was a Christian – even if they were. In some ways, this liberal belief that people could worship their own God in their own way was the most important contribution of the founding fathers to the history of the world.

    God bless them all.

  15. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Groveton: Your last point is the clincher. America is the story of our twin helical – the DNA of the Great Experiment (Democracy) and the Great Commission (Evangelical Christianity). Both ideas changed over time – and their interrelationship is the expansion of the franchise and full civil rights for persons excluded in every other spot around the world. It is a dramatic story of great acheivement – step by step – in expanding personal, individual freedom. And opportunity.

    The Founding Fathers used the language they used for a reason. About 90 years before their great-grandfathers (or gg-grandfathers) fought a tough civil war among the Anglicans, Presbyterians and Puritans.

    In America the descendants of these three warring factions lived next to each other. In the Revolution they all paid the blood tax and became one as – Virginians and Americans.

    Add the Scot-Irish 15% of the population (who provided 40% of the soldiers) and you have folks who had fought tooth and nail for centuries against the people they marched with in the ranks of the Continental Army. Add free and slave Blacks. Add the tiny minority of Catholics and Jews in the colonies – who bravely cast their lot for freedom – and it’s pretty awe inspiring. They all paid the blood tax for freedom.

    Because of their sensitivity to the excesses of the English Civil War and Cromwell’s New Model Army – the Founding Father’s spoke less as sectarian Protestants than as generic Evangelical Christians.

    It was the dissenters – Quakers and Baptists – who made much about the need for religious tolerance. Including the freedom to not believe.

  16. dkuehn Avatar
    dkuehn

    James –

    RE: “The 14th Amendment is the ‘Gumby’ amendment. It means anything a judge makes up.”

    A more respectful way of putting it (for the sake of the memory of the authors of the amendment) is that the 14th amendment may have broader implications than its immediate intentions… so? It’s still the constitution. It may make you angry that it gives judges latitude, like the commerce clause and some other things – but you can’t cherry pick the law of the land. This has all been an interesting discussion because I get the impression that you think you’re a strict constructionist and someone who wants to place limits on the Leviathan state, and I think I’m one too – but that’s what’s so great about 14th amendment! it binds the power of the several states just like the founders bound the power of the federal government decades earlier – what’s your resistance? Isn’t that a good thing?

    RE: “It’s not the courts’ business to define different kinds of speech. It’s not the courts’ business to say what speech is politically correct and what is verboten. It’s up to the legislatures to say some speech is libelous, riotous, assault, unlawful in public for morality, treasonous, etc. The courts have the duty to adjudicate any disputes within that narrow window of discussion.”

    I couldn’t agree with you more on this James… but wasn’t it the legislature that said Turner’s prayer was inappropriate? As you proscribe, didn’t they place the limits and O’Connor just upholded them? I think all the roles are exactly in line with what you want… you just don’t like O’Connor’s vocabulary – this “government speech” thing. So you don’t like her words – so what. The legislature told Turner he couldn’t pray like that when he was praying on their behalf, and O’Connor said “you have to do what the legislature said”… isn’t that what you wanted James? Now I’m getting confused about your position! How is that legislating from the bench, if the court simply upholds the laws of a duly elected body… isn’t that what they’re supposed to do?

    RE: “Because of their sensitivity to the excesses of the English Civil War and Cromwell’s New Model Army – the Founding Father’s spoke less as sectarian Protestants than as generic Evangelical Christians.”

    Being from the same late 17th C era, this statement reminds me – I wanted to congratulate you guys on a great blog title – “Bacon’s Rebellion”. Really stirs up the spirit of ’76… 1676, that is.

  17. Larry Gross Avatar
    Larry Gross

    I’m afraid that folks put way too much stock in “original” documents – whether they be the Constitution or the Bible or other works.

    Isn’t it interesting that many of the strict “constructionists” adherents of Constitutional interpretation are themselves strong believers in the Bible as the “truth”?

    Any cursory student of the Bible knows that what is in the Bible and what is not in it – was determined – not by the folks who wrote the words but by others who decided what words to include or not.

    It’s the same deal with the Constitution.

    In both cases – one is left with trying to understand what was selectively included or not – why there seem to be apparent contradictions at times – and finally.. trying to understand what the original intent was.

    I put great stock in the words of both but I also cannot ignore that both were produced from an imperfect process that resulted in documents that are far from perfect and DO require a judicial process – and a legislative process to further define them – as “living” documents – not words in stone that can never be changed.

  18. dkuehn Avatar
    dkuehn

    thankyou larry

    I can never understand why for some peopple upholding the “intent of the founders” (which I support) seems so contradictory to the idea of a “living document” (which I also support). News flash – they intended it to be a living document… that was the intent of the founders, and the words (such as in the 14th amendment and the commerce clause) provide the latitude for people develop our understanding of the Constitution over time without trampling on American liberties.

    Blood of patriots and tyrants, anyone? The founders were full supporters of change and re-evaluation, just as much as they were uncompromising on the primacy of liberty.

  19. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Dk: The 1787 Constitution, as amended, isn’t written in Middle English. It means what it says.

    Please enter a contract with me where you give me a lot of money and the terms are that it is a living document – and I get to decide the future intent.

    Don’t presume to read emotions in my posts – like anger – or you will be writing about feelings like a Liberal.

    The 14th Amendment’s protection of individual, not group, rights from the power of the states is admirable. But, that is all it is. The 14th Amendment doesn’t create a right for abortion – as the former KKK Supreme Court Justice Blackmun made up , whole cloth. There was never any future intent that such nonsense – damage to the Constitution, the Republic and the Nation should come from SCOTUS when the 14th Amendment was written.

    The District Court and the Court of Appeals should have denied Turner’s suit without comment. Without making up a category of speech. Without making up rules for this new category of speech.

    The Constitution provides the mechanism to make it a living document – its called amendments.

    Please make a contract with me, play a game, establish any rules as a living document where I get to interpret the intent in the future.

  20. dkuehn Avatar
    dkuehn

    James –

    RE: “The 1787 Constitution, as amended, isn’t written in Middle English. It means what it says.”

    Of course… but two different people can interpret the same text differently. Its also full of words like “necessary”, “proper”, and “reasonable”, which can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. So I agree with you completely that it “means what it says” – and in lots of places that meaning is completely unambiguous. But in other places its more ambiguous. Admitting that doesn’t mean you don’t have respect for the Constitution! And “necessary”, “proper”, etc. aren’t Middle English either! They’re simply context-based.

    RE: “Please enter a contract with me where you give me a lot of money and the terms are that it is a living document – and I get to decide the future intent.”

    No contracts are perfect and all contracts come to the point where the appropriate course of action is not clearly elaborated in the contract. Its called an “ex post holdup”. That’s why we have contractual arbiters. The good contracts provide the flexibility for parties to the contract to equitably work out what needs to be done at an “ex post holdup”. That’s all that’s meant by “living document”. Its not an issue of “I get to decide”. FOR THE MOST PART (there are some pitiful exceptions out there) these judges aren’t just making things up. So its not an issue of YOU deciding the terms – its an issue of a joint interpretation of the terms when unforseen future circumstances make the appropriate action unclear. That happens ALL THE TIME with contracts.

    RE: “Don’t presume to read emotions in my posts – like anger – or you will be writing about feelings like a Liberal.”

    Haha – sorry to read into it. I’m picking up on another emotion now… I think its annoyance? Anyway – I don’t consider myself a conservative, but I don’t consider myself a liberal either. And I’m certainly comfortable with writing about feelings.

    RE: 14th Amendment, KKK Blackmun, abortion, etc.

    Look – a very clear case can be made for bringing the 14th amendment into cases like this because my taxes would go to support any established state church and that would be a coercion to support a religion that I don’t consider my own. Sounds like a violation of my free expression to me. You’re welcome to disagree with that and make a case, but you can’t say “There was never any future intent”. You can say “I don’t think there was any future intent”, because the fact is we have to interpret these things as a society. Blackmun has a shady past – fully granted. Roe v. Wade was based on terrible, terrible legal arguments – also granted. I think abortion should work like gay marriage does now – every state should decide, and we’ll admitedly be left with a patchwork of positions on it.

    RE: “Without making up rules for this new category of speech.”

    WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT! The STATE made the rules. O’Connor said Turner had to follow the STATE’S rules. O’Connor didn’t add one iota to the rules about what could be said or not said. How in the world did they set any rules on speech?

    RE: “a living document where I get to interpret the intent in the future”

    You have a bizarre understanding of the concept of a “living document”. Why should you get to interpret anything? The point is we all do – not just you.

  21. James Atticus Bowden Avatar
    James Atticus Bowden

    Adjudicating if the legislature or executive branch took “necessary” or “proper” actions in their Constitutional duties is an exercise in restraint . It deals with parameters of actions. As opposed to just making things up – like abortion on demand.

    Sorry you missed the metaphor on contracts. Explaining it takes the fun out of it. In the metaphor the contracting party giving money is The People, and the party making up the new intent – alone – is the Judiciary.

    We can agree on the social issues of abortion and homosexual marriage that they are issues for state legislatures, not courts.

    Read the decision on Turner. Didn’t O’Connor wax ineloquently about what government speech is and isn’t?

    The Constitution isn’t a living document. It says what it says. If you want to change it, then amend it.

  22. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    This thread is getting confusing. Let’s go back to first principles. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison, not Thomas Jefferson. Let’s see what Mr. Madison actually wrote:

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”.

    16 words apply to religion. Not exactly an opus. Six words define freedom of speech. This guy didn’t waste a lot of parchment on details!

    But we know that Madison was influenced by the Virginia Bill of Rights – written by Fairfax County resident George Mason (note: also NOT written by Thomas Jefferson). That Bill of Rights has 12 rights. Let’s see what Mr. Mason wrote:

    “That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.”.

    Hmmm….hard to argue about the “Christian forbearance” point. Mr. Mason was pretty explicit on that. In fact, Mr. Mason’s willingness to burn ink and quill provided a number of rights that were more understandable than Mr. Madison’s copy some years later. For example:

    “XIII That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power.”.

    And, my personal favorite:

    “III That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of government that is best, which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and that, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”.

    Can you imagine the weasels in the General Assembly living in a world where the people “…hath an indubitable, unalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.”.

    I have my opinion of what manner of reformation, alteration or abolition would be most conductive to the public weal – and it ain’t term limits. Anyway, unfortunately this one didn’t make it through the years so I’ll just have to stick with carping about the GA here on Bacons Rebellion.

    Oh yeah … did the founding fathers base the Constitution on Christian beliefs? It sure looks that way. When the state censors a preacher by limiting what he can say – does that equate to making a law that abridges the freedom of speech? It seems that way to me.

    What should be done about a Supreme Court that makes up imaginary words and thoughts in the US Constitution? See: Article III of the original Virginia Declaration of Rights.

  23. dkuehn Avatar
    dkuehn

    James –

    RE: “Adjudicating if the legislature or executive branch took “necessary” or “proper” actions in their Constitutional duties is an exercise in restraint . It deals with parameters of actions. As opposed to just making things up – like abortion on demand.”

    And as we’ve concluded, you and I both agree that Roe is bad law. So let’s not skew the discussion by bringing that up as an example that’s representative of most court decisions or the court decisions that I’m defending – because we already know I agree with you on Roe. The point is, when a court decides what is “necessary” and “proper” for the legislature or executive to do, there is very little in the language of the constitution to constrain one judge to come to the same conclusion as another judge. “necessary” and “proper” have to be open to interpretation and these and other “open to interpretation” portions of the constitutions ensure that the meaning of the constitution for American society changes over time. you’re right – amending it is another way to change it. but if you have something like “necessary and proper”, and the interpretation of “necessary and proper” changes over time, you can be damned sure the constitution will change over time! and in my opinion, that kind of change was entirely premeditated by the founders.

    RE: “Sorry you missed the metaphor on contracts. Explaining it takes the fun out of it. In the metaphor the contracting party giving money is The People, and the party making up the new intent – alone – is the Judiciary.”

    Sorry the fun was sucked out of it for you – but it didn’t have to be. Your metaphor was crystal clear – it was just bad. It didn’t consider the impeachment of judges, the fact that judges themselves are constrained by precedent and the Constitution itself, the fact that prosecutors get to decide what cases even come up in many instances, the fact that judges rely on the executive branch to enforce decisions, etc. Your “metaphor” suggested that you would get to rewrite the terms of our contract after the fact, and its just a bad metaphor plain and simple. The judiciary doesn’t pull this stuff out of thin air (some egregious cases obviously excepted – and even in those there’s some half-hearted attempt to rely on precedent). Your attempt to characterize the judiciary in this way isn’t logical or helpful.

    This whole string is really disheartening. It’s like watching King George III cling to the language of the English Bill of Rights as he’s burning down and pillaging Boston.

Leave a Reply

Read More