The twenty-fourth of May was the Feast Day of Saint Sarah, as a Roman Catholic layman I would like to offer a few thoughts on the importance of Saint Sarah.
First, argue that feast of St. Sarah and its observance by French Catholics reflects an acknowledgement and affirmation of the d feminine aspect of God
Second, Saint Sarah serves as a beacon of hope for those Catholics within the Church whose voices have yet to be heard by Rome and it is by following the example set by her and her parents that on the Day of the Last Judgment we will able to say God that we were faithful to you.
14 May, 2009
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States and Other Judges:
I hate the use of the terms "activist judge," "passivist judge," "strict constructionalist," and "loose constructionalist," to describe the jurisprudential philosophies of judges especially those that serve on the Supreme Court of the United States because, these phrases are attached willy-nilly based upon a superficial reading of their opinions.
An excellent example of the failure of these terms can be illustrated by Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479; 85 S. Ct. 1678; 14 L. Ed. 2d 510; 1965 U.S. LEXIS 2282 (1965). The majority in the case led by Justice William O. Douglas argued that penumbras" and "emanations" derived from those right explicitly set forth in the Constitution implicitly permitted the extension of those protections to include a "right of privacy." Justice Goldberg, a "liberal" justice concurred with the majority using the protections contained in the Ninth Amendment.
The result is interesting because two of the most "conservative' Justices on the court at the time Justices Harlan II, and Byron White also concurred with the result. In their concurrences with the result Justices Harlan II and Byron White both asserted that the protections provided Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment extended by implication to cover a right to privacy. Conversely, Justice Hugo Lafayette Black, the intellectual leader of the "liberal bloc" of Justices on the Court at that time dissented from the majority opinion arguing that Constitutional protections could be afforded to a "right of privacy"
I would argue that the same holds true when such language is applied to Justice Kennedy, a blanket characterization of Kennedy fails to thoroughly account for his record as a jurist. A proper study of his jurisprudential philosophy requires that the review be taken beyond cases such Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), or Lawrence v. Texas, (2006), and be extended into cases involving property rights issues such as "eminent domain."
Indeed, conservatives will be saddened by his loss when his voice is no longer heard in cases involving eminent domain and other property issues or issues related to commerce where he adopted a fiscally conservative position. I would argue that a thorough examination of Justice Kennedy’s record demonstrates that he was a highly qualified and thoughtful justice who sought a "middle road." He was for all intents and purposes a maverick who eschewed a rigid party identification.
Where Judges are concern and in particular Justices are concerned, I think that partisans only focus on those cases that serve to advance their points without giving due regard to the precedents that preceded the case at bar.
As Learned Hand pointed out in 1921 in his opinion regarding Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, Inc., 276 F. 717 (S.D.N.Y., 1921), the Constitution by its nature is a flexible document, which, can and does readily adapt to the changing needs of the Republic.
Now it is argued that these cases are distinguishable, because they arose under an act of Parliament which was not limited by any Constitution. So, indeed they were, and if our Constitution embalms inflexibly the habits of 1789 there may be something to the point. But it does not; its grants of power to Congress comprise, not only what was then known, but what the ingenuity of man should devise thereafter. Of course, the new subject-matter must have some relation to the grant; but we interpret it by the general practices of civilized peoples in similar fields, for it is not a strait-jacket, but, a charter for a living people. Reiss v. National Quotation Bureau, Inc., 276 F. 717 (S.D.N.Y., 1921)
02 May, 2009
Thomas Anthony Heath
I want to share a picture of my nephew Thomas Anthony Heath born yesterday. He weighed in at 4 pounds 2 ounces and was 17 inches long.
01 May, 2009
Justice Souter's Retirement and its Effect on Justice Kennedy
Justice Souter's announcement tody that he plans to retire at the conclusion of the 2008-2009 term after nineteen years of service on the Supreme Court of the United States, while expected has left me reflecting on what his legacy on the jurisprudence of the nation will be and how history will remember him.
While, many conservatives will not be saddened to see him retire either because of his rulings on social issues including abortion.
Cnversely liberals who were infuriated by his holdings on land and property issues such as eminent domain.
For myself I will miss the independent spirit that have characterized his decisions. In sense the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 and Justice Souter at the end of this term has largely divested the Court of moderate centrists who maintain the balance between liberal Justices led by Justice Stevens, and the conservative justices led by Chief Justice Roberts. Of the Justices who remain only Justice Kennedy could be classified as a centrist. Yet, unlike Justices O'Connor and Souter whose voices were strong amd clear.
Most observers would argue that Justice Kennedy's voice was up untill Justice O'Connor's retirement muted to an extent. With the exceptions being Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsyvania v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas .
What I find most interesting about the criticism of Justice Kennedy is the criticism that some observers level at him because, he like Justice O'Connor has been known to refer to international law and foreign sources of law from time to time in his opinions.
The opposition to the use of foreign and international laws in the deliberative process strikes me as quirte bizzare because, Justices have included such precedents in their opinions as far back as 1798. The evidence for the inclusion of such precedent can be found in Justice Chase's references to Sir. William Blackstone and Sir. Richard Woodeson the English jurists in his opinion in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386 (1798).
While, many conservatives will not be saddened to see him retire either because of his rulings on social issues including abortion.
Cnversely liberals who were infuriated by his holdings on land and property issues such as eminent domain.
For myself I will miss the independent spirit that have characterized his decisions. In sense the retirement of Justice O'Connor in 2006 and Justice Souter at the end of this term has largely divested the Court of moderate centrists who maintain the balance between liberal Justices led by Justice Stevens, and the conservative justices led by Chief Justice Roberts. Of the Justices who remain only Justice Kennedy could be classified as a centrist. Yet, unlike Justices O'Connor and Souter whose voices were strong amd clear.
Most observers would argue that Justice Kennedy's voice was up untill Justice O'Connor's retirement muted to an extent. With the exceptions being Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsyvania v. Casey and Lawrence v. Texas .
What I find most interesting about the criticism of Justice Kennedy is the criticism that some observers level at him because, he like Justice O'Connor has been known to refer to international law and foreign sources of law from time to time in his opinions.
The opposition to the use of foreign and international laws in the deliberative process strikes me as quirte bizzare because, Justices have included such precedents in their opinions as far back as 1798. The evidence for the inclusion of such precedent can be found in Justice Chase's references to Sir. William Blackstone and Sir. Richard Woodeson the English jurists in his opinion in Calder v. Bull 3 U.S. (Dall.) 386 (1798).
Governor Perry and Secession
I have descended into the tenth circle of hell, what happening to the State of Texas we had the nutters from the Republic of Texas separatists. Now it is being reported that both Governor Bush in 1994 during his campaign against former Governor Richards, and Governor Perry at various points in their tenure while, it is true that they have done so those incidents were not taken in situ
I would like to make four points in regard to these stories.
First, Texas was annexed to the United Sattes and admitted into the union in December 1845. No secession clause was included in the treaty admitting Texas into the Union. A prior treaty in 1844 which included such a clause failed to pass the United States Senate.
Second, the issue of Texas secession was settled in 1868 when the United States Supreme Court issued it decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)(1868)
Third, the formation of the original Republic of Texas was only an interim measure, The original intent of the majority of the founders who were involved in drawing up the Texas Declaration of Independence in March 1836. General Houston and with his Jacksonian allies wanted to draw Santa Anna across the Sabine River and into Louisiana, where he would then face the combined armies of General Houston, and the Western Department of the United States Army commanded by Major General Edmund Pendleton Gaines. President Jackson and General Gaines favored the idea, while the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Major General Alexander Macomb and Major General Winfield Scott who commanded the Eastern Department opposed the plan. The purpose of the plan was to draw Mexico into a war with the United States so that the United States could acquire through military the Mexican province of Coahuila y Tejas.
It was only the dissatisfaction of the rank and file of the Texas Army that forced General Houston into battle at San Jacinto, and the opposition from the Whigs andthe northern Democrats that prevented annexation immediately after the Battle of San Jacinto.
Fourth, Governor Perry's comments were purely made out of poilitical calculations, specifically the need to align himself with the most conservative elements within the Republican Party in Texas. Governor Perry's standing within the Texas Republican Party made it necessary because on the whole he is less popular with the more moderate elements within the party are looking for other candidates to challenge him in the 2010 gubenatorial primary.
If Governor Perry's only opposition in the 2010 gubenatorial primary were from either Larry Kilgore of the Texas Secession Party, or Debra Medina, Chairwoman of the Wharton County Republican Party, then his renomination becomes more likely.
However, many of the influental moderate and liberal Republicans are looking to Seantor Kay Bailey Hutchison to challenge Governor Perry in the 2010 Republican primary election for the gubenatorial nomination. Senator Hutchison's potential challenge poses a looming obstacle to Governor Perry's desire for a third term as Governor of Texas because, the popular affection and popular support she possesses within Texas, are items to which Governor Perry cannot lay a claim and diminishes the Governor's chances of winning renomination.
I do not mind that both he and Governor Bush before him used the concept of secession for their own political gain. The problem I have with theris speeches are that they demonstrated how little they actually know about the history of the State of Texas. It is my belief that if any individual desires to occupy the statehouse of any state in the Union, then those candidates have a duty and a responsibility to study closely the history of their respective states. In my experience decisions made without due regard being given to the past, are questionable in both content and spirit.
I would like to make four points in regard to these stories.
First, Texas was annexed to the United Sattes and admitted into the union in December 1845. No secession clause was included in the treaty admitting Texas into the Union. A prior treaty in 1844 which included such a clause failed to pass the United States Senate.
Second, the issue of Texas secession was settled in 1868 when the United States Supreme Court issued it decision in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (Wall.)(1868)
Third, the formation of the original Republic of Texas was only an interim measure, The original intent of the majority of the founders who were involved in drawing up the Texas Declaration of Independence in March 1836. General Houston and with his Jacksonian allies wanted to draw Santa Anna across the Sabine River and into Louisiana, where he would then face the combined armies of General Houston, and the Western Department of the United States Army commanded by Major General Edmund Pendleton Gaines. President Jackson and General Gaines favored the idea, while the Commanding General of the U.S. Army Major General Alexander Macomb and Major General Winfield Scott who commanded the Eastern Department opposed the plan. The purpose of the plan was to draw Mexico into a war with the United States so that the United States could acquire through military the Mexican province of Coahuila y Tejas.
It was only the dissatisfaction of the rank and file of the Texas Army that forced General Houston into battle at San Jacinto, and the opposition from the Whigs andthe northern Democrats that prevented annexation immediately after the Battle of San Jacinto.
Fourth, Governor Perry's comments were purely made out of poilitical calculations, specifically the need to align himself with the most conservative elements within the Republican Party in Texas. Governor Perry's standing within the Texas Republican Party made it necessary because on the whole he is less popular with the more moderate elements within the party are looking for other candidates to challenge him in the 2010 gubenatorial primary.
If Governor Perry's only opposition in the 2010 gubenatorial primary were from either Larry Kilgore of the Texas Secession Party, or Debra Medina, Chairwoman of the Wharton County Republican Party, then his renomination becomes more likely.
However, many of the influental moderate and liberal Republicans are looking to Seantor Kay Bailey Hutchison to challenge Governor Perry in the 2010 Republican primary election for the gubenatorial nomination. Senator Hutchison's potential challenge poses a looming obstacle to Governor Perry's desire for a third term as Governor of Texas because, the popular affection and popular support she possesses within Texas, are items to which Governor Perry cannot lay a claim and diminishes the Governor's chances of winning renomination.
I do not mind that both he and Governor Bush before him used the concept of secession for their own political gain. The problem I have with theris speeches are that they demonstrated how little they actually know about the history of the State of Texas. It is my belief that if any individual desires to occupy the statehouse of any state in the Union, then those candidates have a duty and a responsibility to study closely the history of their respective states. In my experience decisions made without due regard being given to the past, are questionable in both content and spirit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)