CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
In the aftermath of Saddam Hussein’s capture by the US 4th Infantry
Division, almost all of the Democratic presidential hopefuls issued
standard messages of congratulations to the troops. These messages
were well deserved, and not doubt sincere. But what I do not
understand is why none of them went so far as to congratulate
President Bush. After all, every one of them has been citing
Saddam’s continued elusiveness as a failure of the President and
his administration. So if not finding Saddam is a personal failing
for the President, why is finding him not a personal victory,
worthy of praise and congratulations?
I am, of course, not saying that the President should take the
credit for this victory away from the troops who so rightly deserve
it. But this is an example of two unfortunate phenomena that have
become all too prevalent in our nation’s political discourse. First
is the continued moving of the proverbial goal posts for leaders
and officials. The second is the inability of political candidates
to say anything positive about the person against whom
they are running. Members of both parties have been guilty of this
in the past, and it is time that these negative and
counterproductive tactics were laid to rest.
— Nick J.
Chicago, Illinois
LEGAL MODESTY
Re: William Tucker’s Shifting
Alliances on Tort Reform:
Respectfully, Mr. Tucker is off-beam. Having wasted the best
eleven years of my life in the study and practice of law, I can say
a tort law exists in order to restitute those who have suffered
loss, injury or damage as a result of negligence that the defendant
knew or ought to have known would cause loss, injury or damage.
There should be no “what ifs” or “might have beens” in the practice
of tort law. Essential steps to reform are:
1. Scrap punitive damages. Tort exists to recompense actual, not
putative, loss. All that punitive damages does is inflate the size
of the award, leading to more appeals, increasing the cost of the
process and the jackpot payable to the brethren.
2. Provide specific damages for specific injuries to specific
jobs. If a manual worker loses their little finger, that is much
more of a career-threatening injury than the same injury to an
office worker.
3. Rediscover the law and keeps the lobbyists out. Since when
did the Constitution become a means of enriching lawyers? Or is
that too naive a question for a Scotsman to ask?
4. Recover the cost of litigation more aggressively. In my
jurisdiction, the lawyer is responsible for the payment of costs,
not the client.
Conservatives like me will always complain that Yasser Arafat
has got rich by ripping off aid, not, as one commentator has said
“by inventing a new browser.” The trial lawyers haven’t invented
new browsers either. They should be remunerated accordingly. God
knows what an improved world we would have if we had modest
lawyers.
— Martin Kelly
Glasgow, Scotland
Regarding tort lawyers switching sides: In Texas, we are seeing
tort lawyers sponsoring candidates for office in the Republican
primary, particularly for District Court Judge. This is occurring
because in many counties in Texas now, the Republican primary is
the election. This is also true for statewide judicial races. The
Republican Party activists are horrified by this and so far it
seems that the tort lawyer types have been unsuccessful. However,
money talks so it will be a constant battle to retain control of
the courts.
— Michael Bergsma
QUE CELLA?
Re Paul J. Cella III’s Shut Up,
They Explained:
Concerning the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which the
Supreme Court recently approved, Paul Cella writes that
“legislation so brazenly in violation of the clear intent of the
Constitution is grounds for the impeachment of a judge or
executive, and the censure and democratic removal of a legislator.”
Mr. Cella notes that in addition to the Supreme Court which found
this blatantly unconstitutional legislation to be constitutional,
the bill had previously been passed by Congress and signed into law
by President Bush. So, by Mr. Cella’s logic, the President, five
Supreme Court justices, and a majority of the House and Senate
should be expelled from office.
I don’t say this to make fun of Mr. Cella. I agree with him that
only strong disciplinary measures can stop the present juggernaut
leading to the destruction of the Constitution. But the sheer
number and ubiquity of the offenders in this case shows the
impossible scope of the problem. It’s not just a handful of
violators we have to discipline, which would be difficult enough
(since federal judges and legislatures have never been removed from
office merely for approving a piece of legislation, even if of
doubtful constitutionality), but the U.S. government as such. And
how we go about doing that, I haven’t the foggiest. But we have to
start somewhere. Perhaps Sandra Day O’Connor could be impeached and
removed for saying that Supreme Court decisions relating to the
U.S. Constitution will henceforth be based in part on foreign
law.
— Lawrence Auster
New York City
The United States Supreme Court has finally convinced me, the
country I have loved all my adult life, has been taken over by the
inmates. It is a sad day beyond my ability to comprehend when this
court ignores the Constitution they are sworn to uphold. The
congress and the president (not capitalized by design) I
understand, but do not forgive for the this gag on our right to
speak about their performance.
When I took the oath to protect and defend the Constitution of
the United States of America as an officer in the USAF, I made that
promise with feeling and conviction. Unfortunately, those who are
chosen to represent us look upon their oath as just a few words on
a scrap of paper, with no meaning. I am filled a great sadness for
the country in which I grew up. Who is left to defend our freedoms,
if not the United States Supreme Court?
— Steve Corwin
San Jose, CA
“In short, officers of all three branches of our Federal Republic
violated oaths taken before God to uphold our Constitution, or at
least acted with inexcusable irresponsibility against the spirit of
those oaths. These officers will suffer no penalty for this action:
those vulnerable to it will not be impeached; those subject to it
will not be cast out of office in the next election (at least not
for this reason). Nothing much will happen.” — Paul J. Cella
III,
12 December 2003
At what point do we take stock and determine if the U.S.
Constitution is still in force? If it no longer binds the federal
government, we need to shout the news loudly and repeatedly from
the rooftops, in the press, on TV and radio, and across the
Internet, making sure that all are aware that we are once again a
lawless nation and that those who occupy space in Washington, DC,
have been fired and are not eligible for rehire.
— Mark Yannone
2004 Libertarian candidate
U.S. House of Representatives for Arizona’s District 3
Everybody I know who is aware of this so called Campaign Finance
Reform bill is just as appalled and upset as you are. The fact that
we do not have web pages for blogs or write for other webzines does
not mean that we are not concerned.
I see this a lot. People who write articles on the web seem to
think they are the only ones who think the way they do or hold the
values they hold. Not so.
I have written congresspeople. I have talked to the people I
know. Even my local councilman. What else can one do? This trashing
of the Constitution has been going on for years and seems to be
increasing rapidly…exponentially.
Thanks for your article.
— Mary
Nashville, Tennessee
So now that Congress, President Bush and the Supreme Court of the
United States have thrown the First Amendment of our Constitution
into the trash, can we finally, once and for all, tell the ACLU
where to stick it in regards to the separation of church and state
which was never there to begin with?
Bring out your posters of Jesus and get them hanging in the
schools as fast as you can folks! They can’t stop you now!
And since the politicians and judges won’t impeach themselves
for obviously breaking their oaths to uphold the Constitution, can
we consider them fair game to hunt, stuff, and hang over our
mantles?
Either way I’m going to keep my guns cleaned and my ammo locker
stocked. They’ll be after the Second Amendment next as they go down
the list to shred them all (or what’s left of them).
— Greg Barnard
Franklin, Tennessee
REAL AND UNBALANCED
Re: Shawn Macomber’s Raging
Bully:
I saw the Carville and Matalin on the speakers tour at a recent
industry convention. It was like watching a carnival sideshow.
“Hurry, hurry, come and see the mighty Carville who used to eat
Republicans in one bite. Feared and powerful.” Now just a shill
playing the Ricky and Lucy circuit. Perhaps when he goes to the
great beyond, he can be stuffed and donated to the Smithsonian to
be next to the great woolly mammoth.
— Aftan Romanczak
Norcross, Georgia
Note to Shawn Macomber: If you are going to write fiction, it has
to be believable. Even Stephen Glass knew that.
We are supposed to believe that Shawn met a “hardcore
Republican” who is now a Democrat because of tax cuts? We are
supposed to believe that someone showed up at a Carville pep rally
who doesn’t know who Rush Limbaugh is?
Keep it real.
Regards,
— Glen Hoffing
Shawn Macomber replies: I couldn’t
believe it myself, but it’s true, all true.
THANK YOU
Re: R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.’s Robert
Bartley, RIP:
RET — Thanks for writing the piece on Bob Bartley. Few qualify
to write about him, fewer still could actually do it.
— Andrew Keirns
A WASTED COLLEGE DEGREE
Re: Enemy Central’s “F
Troop”:
I am so glad that you all are so intellectual and can spread
your intellectualism as thick as cream. But for this poor old
college grad, I must be a failure.
I have not an iota of understanding about your verbal acrobatics
about Dean, Gore (the bore) and the rest of the article just
read.
—unsigned
REUNITED
Re: George Neumayr’s Soft-Brained
Supremes:
Fantastic article on the supremes and an excellent
summation/reminder of conservative principles. It reminds me of the
Spectator of old. Are you by any chance the George Neumayr
who was at the NJC in the fall of 1994?
— Scott Smith
RIGHT OF WAY
Re: Unsigned’s letter in Reader Mail’s German
Drive:
“Unsigned” suggests that the problem with “passing lane parkers”
is that the signs say “Slower Traffic Keep Right,” and wonders
whether changing the signs to read “Keep Right Except to Pass”
might help.
Here in Georgia the passing lane signs do indeed say “Keep Right
Except to Pass,” and the compliance is not noticeably better. Of
course, here in Georgia, tailgating is so commonplace that even
police cars do it, and the word for people who only drive the speed
limit is “scenery.” So we may not be a representative case.
— Kevin McGehee
Coweta County, Georgia
