| The Fate of the Nation |
 |
 |
 |
| Written by Evan Anthony | |||
| Friday, 26 August 2005 15:53 | |||
|
What a vague and dangerous title is “The Fate of the Nation.” Such phrases get thrown around far to often today by Washington politicians, partisan pundits, and seemingly anyone with a political persuasion. The fate of the nation has rested on the War on Terror, public education, environmental conservation and regulation, elections, and whatever policy or rhetoric is fashionable. While these are indeed important issues, they have become bloated with importance, overshadowing the most important issue of all. I speak of the Supreme Court nominations that are currently in progress. One would not think this, however, given that the Cindy Sheehan nuts and the price of oil are constantly on the major media. But these, and even the War on Terror, are of minor importance compared to the future of the republic of the United States itself. And the Supreme Court does have the power to destroy what is American. In fact, there has been a disturbing trend of judicial activism and sheer neglect of their delegated duty to uphold the Constitution. In the recent Kelo v. New London(1) our property rights have been discarded for the “public good.” We must not fear the War on Terror or any other direct confrontation. But we must fear any silent attack upon our beloved Constitution. We are only beaten when our will, and our rights, are subjugated to such vague notions as “public good”. This is why the Supreme Court nominations are certainly the most vital current event. I, however, fear that partisan politics will prevail. Although all have been seemingly amiable, once it comes down to it, both the Democrats and Republicans will certainly give into their fringe special interests. Groups are already starting to voice their opinion on Supreme Court nominee Judge John Roberts. People of the American way and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, both powerful lobbies, recently gave their reactions to the nomination. As more and more groups denounce or support Judge Roberts, partisanship in Washington will skyrocket. The Democrats haven’t been to successful recently and can not afford to lose any support, even from their radical minority groups. Indeed, the Democrats are slowly demanding more information and questioning Judge Roberts position. Which is a shame, because Judge Roberts seems to be a pretty good candidate. Unlike judges Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Stevens, and Breyer, Roberts has a record of ignoring personal opinions and upholding the Constitution. Of course, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but I have some optimism for him. Really his greatest fault is his hesitation to question precedent, like Roe v. Wade. What I am glad about, however, is that President Bush resisted the cries for a female or minority judge. Our Constitution is too important to play the political correctness game with. Whoever is most qualified and able to resist “interpreting” the Constitution should be nominated, regardless of gender or race. We must not gossip about Cindy Sheena but ensure that the fate of the nation rests on the shoulders of those who would uphold the Constitution and provide an insight into future issues. (1) The Court changed the “public use” in eminent domain to “public good” in a 5 vs. 4 decision, allowing the town of New London to use eminent domain to take the land of homeowners and give to private companies. The “public good” of this transfer was increased tax revenue, a truly disturbing reason. Recently, the town is demanding that the homeowners pay for the time they occupied their homes during the trial (started in 2000).
|