SCOTUS

Whose responsibility is it?

Wed, April 14, 2010 1 Comment by michaeltams

I was having a conversation with Board member and friend Mark just last weekend about the goals of this organization and a general observation about America in the 21st century.

I’ve said before that our broad and rather simply-stated problem is one of responsibility ambiguity. There are all sorts of things that need to get done in the world, and we’ve reached a place as a society that we don’t think critically about whose responsibility it is to see those things through to completion; and, even more alarmingly, many people are likely to default to a sentiment of: that’s someone else’s responsibility, not mine. We’re living more and more in an “I’m getting mine” type of world.

It is as if we have a nation of fully grown people, but no real adults. As an adult (and not a child), one has to deal with the harsh realities of life. We don’t, for example, always get what we want. Things don’t always go our way. We must recognize that we have duties that come before our wants. This is the world that adults live in, where there are rights and responsibilities.

Unfortunately, this quality is rare (and yes, I’m making fairly broad generalizations). Most people want to do what feels good, not necessarily what makes sense. Where I live, a number of residents attended our annual Town Meeting, the once-a-year Township government meeting, hoping to push for something called “clean elections.” While their motives may have been well-meaning (I say “may” for I cannot be certain and they didn’t divulge), the history of election and campaign reform is, put generously, less than stellar. Individuals, as readers are certainly aware, may donate $2,300.00 per individual per cycle for federal elections. PACs and labor unions are exempt from this limit, and as has been widely reported, SEIU gave in excess of $60 million to President Obama in his 2008 campaign. Lest I go too far off course – this post isn’t about campaign finance laws – the point to remember is that we live in expedient times, where critical thinking seems to be a relic of another era.

This inability to deal with the world as an adult is a problem on many levels, not the least of which is the obvious challenge in getting people to first recognize we have a serious problem; second, analyze why and how to fix it; and third making the fix into a reality.

Justice Robert H. Jackson

Which brings me to the following quote, from Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson. Justice Jackson, concurring in part and dissenting in part in the 1950 case of American Communications Association v. Douds, wrote the following:

Progress generally begins in skepticism about accepted truths. Intellectual freedom means the right to re-examine much that has been long taken for granted. A free man must be a reasoning man, and he must dare to doubt what a legislative or electoral majority may most passionately assert. The danger that citizens will think wrongly is serious, but less dangerous than atrophy from not thinking at all. Our Constitution relies on our electorate’s complete ideological freedom to nourish independent and responsible intelligence and preserve our democracy from that submissiveness, timidity and herd-mindedness of the masses which would foster a tyranny of mediocrity. The priceless heritage of our society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and we have no claim to it. It is not the function of our Government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the Government from falling into error (citation omitted).

As people begin to understand that government’s purpose isn’t to stop citizens from making bad decisions, we’ll begin to see a more balanced approach to what “government” will be responsible for, and the interaction of every American with government will evidence that the citizen is the level of government not only charged with the greatest degree of responsibility, but the best-equipped to discharge those duties.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board

Wed, April 30, 2008 Comments Off by michaeltams

Editor’s Note: The following is a guest contribution from Jay Fisher, a friend and fellow Federalist at heart. If you’re interested in writing on the topic of Balanced Government, reach me via the “Contact” page.

Crawford v. Marion County Election Board
Jay Fisher

In a victory for balanced government the United States Supreme Court on Monday held that Indiana’s law requiring voters to show a photo identification was constitutional.

The case, Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, was decided by a vote of 6-3 with the Majority Opinion by Justices Stevens, joined by Justice Kennedy and Chief Justice Roberts. Justice Scalia wrote a Concurring Opinion which was joined by Justices Thomas and Alito. The Opinions can be found here.

The Indiana law requires all voters to show photo ID when they vote in person. It does not apply to absentee voters. The law was challenged by the Indiana Democratic Party that asserted it substantially burdens the right to vote in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Justice Stevens held that Indiana had legitimate interests in passing the law, including reducing election fraud. The burden to a few voters from the ID requirement may be large, but that is not enough to overturn the law.

As usual, Justice Scalia argued incisively and strongly for the Founders view of limited and balanced government. He argued that the Majority Opinion’s holding took an “individual-focused approach.” This will lead to constant litigation as plaintiffs try and see if they can get the Courts to rule that the burden in their case goes too far.

Justice Scalia states:

That sort of detailed judicial supervision of the election process would flout the Constitution’s express commitment of the task to the States. See Art. 1, Sec. 4. It is for state legislatures to weigh the costs and benefits of possible changes to their election codes, and their judgment must prevail unless it imposes a severe and unjustifed overall burden upon the right to vote, or is intended to disadvantage a particular class.

Under the Constitution, election law should be the purview of the States, unless it can be shown that a particular law is discriminatory under the Fourteenth Amendment.

It’s interesting to read Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s argument against the law. He stated that “[T]he fact that every Republican in the Indiana General Assembly supported this law and every Democrat opposed it, speaks volumes about the improper partisan motives behind the photo ID movement.” The Chicago Tribune quotes a law professor opposed to the law because it “defers too much to the power of the states” and could be used by Democrats to enact same day voter registration to hurt Republicans.

What Sen. Reid doesn’t understand is that “improper partisan motives” are not unconstitutional. Because Republicans or Democrats think something is good policy and will help them does not make it a federal case. The Federal Courts don’t exist to overturn all partisan policymaking.

And to the esteemed law professor (and many others I have known) I would suggest that one remember that the Tenth Amendment was supposed to reserve most powers to the States. If Wisconsin wants to have same day registration despite the increased possibilities of fraud while Indiana wants to require photo ID despite the burden on some people that is fine. If the citizens of Wisconsin or Indiana don’t like those laws they can elect legislators to change them. That is the remedy, not to file suit. States should be laboratories of democracy.