Idyll Reflections

The Age of Liberty: Do read President Bush's speech to the National Endowment for Democracy. It shows a powerfully optimistic vision and sensibility.

That's Some Hall Pass: If you want to see something pretty frightening, check out this story about a drug raid at Stratford High School in Goose Creek, South Carolina. The video is especially disturbing. Of course, though police dogs "indicated" the presence of drugs in twelve bookbags, no drugs were found, despite the students in the hallway being forced to lie on the ground with fourteen officers ready with drawn guns. Was/is the supposed drug problem bad enough in the school to warrant a fruitless crackdown on the legally innocent?
What is especially troubling, however, in my opinion, is Principal George McCrackin's (the perhaps-truth of a name!) response to student concerns: "I'm sure it was an inconvenience to those individuals who were in the hallway, but there is a valuable experience there." There certainly is: the experience of tyranny can remind those students of how precious liberty is and how worthy it is to fight for it. While I don't know the full context of this situation yet, this certainly isn't a good start.
(Thanks to Matt Drudge for bringing my attention to this story.)

A Potentially Troubling Development: Though I always had mild suspicions of the Patriot Act, this news story does potentially increase my fears. It's one thing to be quick and dirty when there is a clear and present danger to the nation's security and well-being; its quite another to use the name of the act to go after more run-of-the-mill corruption. Of course, the facts revealed later might show how such a use of the Patriot Act was appropriate in ways beyond the mouthing of the law. Hopefully, time will tell. In any case, however, the future of the Patriot Act continues to be shrouded in fog.

Safety and Freedom: Check out this piece in the Chronicle of Higher Education about a professor's inflammatory comments. It has some interesting turns, though few are particularly new.

How Supreme?: This article by Sandy Schulz touches upon a trend that I myself have noticed and been concerned with in recent Supreme Court decisions. The links in the article are especially helpful. It is very dangerous for the Supreme Court to start to privilege the views of "other countries" over our own national laws simply because such an approach can quickly lead to tyranny; following this method, the justices could conceivably cite from whomever they felt like. We would not have an interpretation of American laws but a projection of whatever the justices felt like. (Of course, the justices may have made the "right" decision in a given ruling, but this decision should be based on the right judicial reasoning. The legislature need not confirm to the same standard of judicial reasoning and should not; it is not solely a judicial body.) Continuing with a citation of foreign sources, why doesn't the Court take into consideration the views of Saudi Arabia on the separation of church and state? How about China on search and seizure or Germany or South Africa on free speech? Clearly, the opinions of the jurists of other nations can be very helpful in informing the sensibility of our own lawpeople and offering a context within which to place a law. Certainly, the history of law can be especially useful. However, such an "informing" can only go so far before it becomes the snap of an order. The words of our Constitution and laws should not be dissolved of meaning in order to appease the "conscience" of our judicial activists/frustrated legislators.
In passing, I really should note how intriguing Ruth Bader Ginsburg's speech is on this issue; its argument demonstrates a number of the prejudices and rhetorical sleights of hand that might be used to support such notions of international dominance of the individual nation. Her citation of Taney (of Dred Scott infamy) as a supporter of strict interpretation of the Constitution is amusing; perhaps she is trying to inflame passions in order to occlude the fact that a number of more distinguished Americans have held that view. The way in which she draws support for the idea of comparative jurisprudence from the framing language of founding documents (which seems closer to a legislative task to me) is also very telling. Also, it is striking to note that so much of what Ginsburg takes as early support for a comparative perspective emphasizes that the country should take into consideration the views of other "civilized" nations. Such notions would seem to run counter to the pure multiculturalism espoused by many likely supporters of such a comparative perspective today; it implies that there is such a thing as civilization (as opposed to barbarism). Also, I think she does not fully take into account the (amazingly heroic) notions of the time of the founding of this nation in the shaping of its language of the laws of nations and mankind.
There is also a sense of the naive in her remarks; it is as though the "world community" (whatever that is) is always in the right and that it should always be followed after. You must forgive an American individualist, but I do not see how the mass of opinion being in agreement upon a point makes it necessarily right. Need Justice Ginsburg be reminded that, at the time of the Civil War, quite a bit of European opinion was profoundly racist and supported slavery in the South? Should the American North have, in that case, undone its "lone ranger" mentality in favor of achieving a wider consensus within the international community? The fact that we are living in a post-1960's world does not imply that the majority is always right. An even more dangerous idea is the notion that judges should endlessly subvert laws of their own nation in favor of those of another in the name of "right." Yes, at times such choices in favor of right must be made, but we should not so easily forget or discount the wisdom of the law and law-making. Nor should we so easily surrender our own consciences to those of another people in favor of the cloak of conforming community.

Bits and Pieces: Well, I continue to be busier than I have expected. Nevertheless, I hope to start posting again, if only a few impressions here and there. Still, what I can offer, I will when I can.