Masters of Our Own Demise

Share

“In all well-attempered governments there is nothing which should be more jealously maintained than the spirit of obedience to law, more especially in small matters; for transgression creeps in unperceived and at last ruins the state...” – Aristotle

"This is so true that.... to say that the object of the law is to make justice prevail is to use an expression that is not strictly exact. One should say: The object of the law is to prevent injustice from prevailing. In fact, it is not justice, but injustice, that has an existence of its own. The first results from the absence of the second." – Frederic Bastiat, The Law (1848)

Stand in a public forum and say “Patriot Act” and you’re bound to arouse a great deal of animus. Talk about the government taking one man’s property and turning it over to wealthy developers and people shake their heads in disbelief or recoil in horror. Turn their attention to the fact that certain cities declare themselves “safe havens” for illegal immigrants and Americans feel a mixture of anger and betrayal.

It is interesting to me that you are concerned about this. Maybe "interesting" is a bit vague. Perhaps then it is, refreshing yet ironic, that you’re concerned. People tend to look at events with complete tunnel vision. In that sense it is like attempting to view a Monet from a distance of six inches. At that distance all you will see is a random collection of inscrutable dots. But stand back and suddenly those dots begin to take shape and form something more significant. In like manner, when you look not only at the individual issues that cause your concern but the whole of the American canvas you begin to see that the groundwork for the corruption and tyranny that you fear was laid before we were borne and further pillared by “we the people.” We are merely experiencing the consequences of our own Faustian Deal.

Every time the people demanded that the government do more for the public good the government got bigger and more powerful. And as government authority grows, liberty shrinks. But we accepted and welcomed that growth and power because we reasoned that it served the interests of social justice. But every year and every decade brought new errors to be redressed, new wrongs to be righted. And when we could not achieve our desires through the political processes we demanded that the courts impose the proper solutions. To what end? Well the government got bigger and more powerful. And as government authority grows, liberty shrinks. But once again we welcomed that growth and power because we reasoned that it served the interests of social justice. Perhaps former Communist, Stephen Spender had it right, “When men have decided to pursue a course of action everything which seems to support this seems vivid and real; everything which stands against it becomes abstraction…..Your opponents are just tiresome, unreasonable, unnecessary theses, whose lives are so many false statements which you would like to strike out with a lead bullet as you would put the stroke of a lead pencil through a bungled paragraph.” – The God That Failed

Through it all, the people we ridiculed and maligned, those “Conservatives”, insisted that it was not the job of government to do the things we demanded no matter how just, no matter how benevolent, no matter how seemingly “progressive.” They insisted that what we were demanding was unconstitutional. Government that is best, governs least was the logic. They warned that we were leading the country on a dangerous path and that the benevolence we demand will be the tyranny we fear. But we yawned and smiled. This was a foolish and well-known slippery-slope argument. They warned us against Judicial Activism and threats to the Rule of Law. But they were just reactionaries opposed to social progress. “Right-winged extremists” was the epithet of choice. We never considered the fact that extremism in the defence of liberty is no vice. For as C.S. Lewis said, “If you’re on the wrong road progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man.”

So today we are discussing the idea that the government has too much power, abuses its discretion and ignores the will of the people. But remember something: Liberty is never lost all at once in a free and open society. No single President, Congress or judicial decision, can do enough harm to the fabric of liberty and freedom to make it disappear overnight. But each demand that is met establishes a basis for the next Administration, the next Congress or the next judicial decision to successfully breach the walls of liberty, and always in the interests of the public good and social justice. Error built upon error makes for a strong foundation. So liberty is lost steadily and incrementally not at the hands of an all-powerful dictator but at the request of "we the people." We bid salvation from Mephistopheles and he took pleasure in granting our wishes.

Year by year, bit by bit the seemingly impregnable walls of liberty are eroded by a stream of well-intended, egalitarian pursuits.

“Mankind is split into two hostile groups by promises that have no realisable expectations. Yet, an anti-capitalist ethic continues to develop on the basis of errors by people who condemn the wealth-generating institutions to which they themselves owe their existence. Pretending to be lovers of freedom, they condemn several property, contract, competition, advertising, profit, and even money itself. Imagining that their reason can tell them how to arrange human efforts to serve their innate wishes better, they themselves pose a grave threat to civilisation.” – Friedrich Hayek, The Fatal Conceit

Why Does the World Hate America?

Share

This question was put to me by someone whom I believe was sincere in her inquiry which is to say that I do not believe that she was asking a rhetorical question. Often when I hear people discuss this issue their explanations fall upon matters of a temporal and contemporary nature. Those on the Political Right say that others are just envious and jealous of America and it doesn't matter why they hate this country, while those on the Left say that America is an international renegade nation and that George Bush is responsible for ruining America's image. If you believe that the world hates America because of George Bush then you clearly have no idea what was said about Ronald Reagan, Lyndon Johnson or John F. Kennedy. If you believe that the world hates America because of the Iraq War then you have no idea what was said about the Cold War.

Fact is, the general global view of America is an inter-temporal issue and relates to matters that predated the actual foundation of this country. A thorough explanation will require much more than a contemporary understanding of world affairs or the US government, for the problem goes back to the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was one of the greatest periods in the history of man. For the first time in human history man had reached the point where his mind and body were released from the shackles of arbitrary authority. In the words of Peter Berkowitz, "For the first time the principle of enlightenment — that all men had an obligation to think for themselves and government had an obligation to protect their freedom to do so — had come into full view and could be seen clearly by reasonable people as binding on all humanity."

Due to the development of the printing press everyone from the poorest serf to the wealthiest oligarch could partake of information that was now readily available in his/her own language (primarily English, German and French). We also saw the refinement of two currents of thought for which the groundwork was laid during the Renaissance: Liberalism and Socialism. To avoid confusion, the Liberalism of the Enlightenment bears no resemblance to contemporary Liberalism, which is actually Socialism. The closest modern relative of Enlightenment Liberalism or Classical Liberalism is political Libertarianism and to a lesser degree, Conservatism.

Classical Liberalism was an outgrowth of the British/Scottish Enlightenment whereas Socialism was borne of the French Enlightenment. Although Socialism gave way to many different strains such as Solidarity, Communism/Utopianism, Christian Socialism, Feudalism and Mercantilism to name a few, Classical Liberalism developed along a much narrower course. One can find a great deal of disparity in the views of Rousseau, Condorcet, Saint-Simon and Fourier though all fall within the basic philosophical framework of Socialism per se. The views of the Liberals on the other hand were fairly, although not completely, uniform. What you see in the views of Liberals such as Hume, Locke, Smith and Burke is virtually identical. Simply stated, the entire intellectual movement of the Enlightenment was essentially a battle between these two philosophical schools.

In comes the American uprising against British and subsequent founding of a separate and wholly unique political monster: the democratic republic. The founders invested a great deal of time and effort to create a new nation out of the collected wisdom of the Enlightenment. But in the drafting of the Constitution, they fell squarely on the side of the British/Scottish tradition of limited government, individual liberty and rule of law. The Constitution was nothing short of a repudiation of the French Enlightenment philosophy of Socialism. Most of the world believed this new experiment in government would collapse within a rather short period time. Instead the US began to prosper much to the consternation of the French intellectual community. Alexis de Tocequville visited America in an attempt to gain an understanding of why the American experiment worked so well and his Democracy In America has henceforth remained the most thorough explanation thereof. America’s prosperity made it a beacon of liberty and prosperity for the rest of the world and the US population grew as a result thus expanding the territory of the United States from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

Unfortunately America’s glory days were numbered. For during the later part of the 19th Century, America would become embroiled in the international love affair with Utopian Socialism based largely on the works of German theorist Karl Marx which he co-authored with Fredrick Engels half a century earlier, The Communist Manifesto. Even Great Britain abandoned its long Liberal traditions under the influence of the Fabian Society lead by George Bernard Shaw, Sidney Webb and Beatrice Webb. By the early 20th century Socialism was the fastest growing intellectual movement in the world. It had even eclipsed the more Democratic Socialism long dominant in France. But Utopian Socialism remained for the most part a theory not a reality with many failed Communist experiments the world over (i.e. the Owenite commune in New Harmony, Indiana). The Bolshevik Revolution in Russia changed it all. This was the world’s first Utopian Socialist (Communist) government. Socialism swept into the hearts of minds of the German people as well, culminating in the election of Germany’s National Socialist Labour Party (Nazi Party). In America Roosevelt’s (Democrat) New Deal policies gained favour with the electorate although they had repeatedly been rejected by the Supreme Court as unconstitutional. Various communist uprisings in China were threatening to move that country in the direction of an all out Communist revolution. Spain and Italy adopted Mussolini’s brand of Socialism known as Fascism. And the Islamic nations of the Middle East and North Africa were flirting with Stalin’s Communism and Hitler’s Nazism while creating their own unique brand of Socialism. The Socialists were of the belief that international socialism was becoming a reality. And rightly so.

The beginning of World War II however, demonstrated the inability of Socialists to reconcile their many divergent views under a single international banner. But it was the end of World War II that heralded the collapse of this dream altogether.

Stalin had taken control of Russia prior to the war and as a result, control of the international Communist movement which he was directing towards his own purposes. Through his declaration of a Popular Front he was successful in rallying Communists and its Fellow Travellers in nearly every country against those forms of Socialism which he found objectionable, namely Nazism, Fascism, Fabianism and Solidarity/Democratic Socialism. The United States began taking actions to combat the influence of Communists and other perceived threats of interest within its own borders; most of whom were in journalism, academia, entertainment, the arts, literature and the U.S. State Department. These actions included, but was not limited to, investigations by the House Un-American Activities Committee and investigations conducted by Senator Joseph McCarthy (Republican). This movement split the American Socialist community, which had long been at odds over the issue of Stalin, along the lines of the pro-Stalinists and the anti-Stalinists (Trotskyites). The Communists and their international comrades vilified the US while the Trotskyites, though often critical of the tactics used, supported the US in its anti-communist “crusade.” This earned them the derisive label, Neoconservative. Notwithstanding, the anti-Communist movement forced the Communists to relocate overseas, go underground and/or shed their more overt radicalism.

Once the Cold War was set in motion it became official US policy to direct domestic and international efforts toward combating the spread of communism and the Soviet Unions international influence. One of the first confrontations was the splitting of Germany along Soviet and Allied lines and the blockading of Berlin. Then came US operations in Korea. This was followed up by increased involvement in Vietnam. By the 1960’s the US was challenging Soviet influence in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and Central America. But the 1960’s also saw the rise of the NeoMarxist movement. The largest of these movements (in the US at least) was an organization known as SDS or Students for a Democratic Society. SDS though a good deal radical was a organisation almost exclusively concerned with agitating for social change. But when the US changed its conscription policy to wit full-time college students would no longer be free from the draft, SDS became radicalised to oppose the Vietnam War. What began as a criticism of the Vietnam War quickly morphed into a vitriolic attack upon the country itself: its history, its foreign and domestic policy, its institutions, its bona fides. The nature of the attack lead many reasonable people to presume that the anti-Vietnam War Movement had been highjacked by entities whose concerns went beyond US involvement in Vietnam. It ultimately pushed the Trotskyites further away from their Leftist comrades and by the 1970’s most were adopting the Neoconservative label for themselves. As the NeoMarxists took over the Democrat Party the Neocons and many traditional Democrats grew disillusioned with the direction the Party was taking. It was becoming apparent to Sociliasts both in and outside of America that the Democrats were allies to the same degree that Republicans were their devout enemies.

The international Socialist community, particularly the Communists, were becoming more and more fearful of America and its intentions with respect to the USSR. Even US Socialists began to stoke the embers of fear. Although the USSR had been responsible for fomenting Communist revolutions throughout Asia, Africa, South America and Central America, resulting in the deaths of countless millions all in the name of social justice, it was the US that the Socialists feared. In the minds of the Socialists both domestically and internationally the United States was an international pariah, and an arrogant bully whose attempts to halt Soviet expansion would only lead to a global nuclear conflagration. The US was also increasingly demonstrating its impatience with and distrust of one of the Soclialist's most respected institutions, the United Nations.

The election of Jimmy Carter (Democrat) was a moment of hope in minds of Socialists. His rather concilliatory demeanor with respect to the Soviet Union suggested that he might be open to moving America from détente to unilateral disarmament. Finally the world could breath easily knowing that America had come to its senses and would scale back its anti-Soviet ambitions. However the world underestimated Americans' distaste for Communism. Carter’s economic and foreign policies had weakened America militarily, demoralised the American people and alienated many of America's long-time friends and Cold War partners. When Americans elected Ronald Reagan (Republican) to the Presidency in 1980, the world became convinced that the majority of Americans were intellectually unenlightened and incapable of enlightenment, opposed to social justice and dangerously militaristic. Reagan made the mistake of unambiguously articulating his position with respect to communism in general, the USSR in particular. He began a movement to deregulate industries, scale back social welfare, reduce taxes and improve the nation’s defensive and offensive military capabilities. The later included placing short-ranged ballistic missiles in Europe and developing a missile defence system. He formed close relationships with European Solidarists and a host of anti-Communist organizations in South and Central America resulting in his own brand of a Popular Front against Communism. Moreover, he appointed Jean Kirkpatrick, an avowed critic of the UN, as US Ambassador to the UN. Ronald Reagan challenged the Soviets at every turn.

The Left feared that Reagan’s tactics would lead to war. Reagan believed that his tactics would lead to peace for in his own words, “peace is a goal, not a policy.” Reagan’s policies increasingly set America, in the eyes of the international community, on the wrong side of history and progress. His overwhelming re-election victory over Walter Mondale cemented this view of both Reagan and American people.

As a result of Reagan’s policies, the USSR did collapse. This was the end of Soviet Communism but did nothing to shake the faith of other Socialists around the world. In fact, without the constant threat of nuclear war with the Soviets, Socialists in America and elswhere became more dogmatic in their quest to form a more egalitarian world union. Another unfortunate byproduct of the USSR’s collapse was the end of Soviet economic and military aide to Thrid-World nations including Islam. Since these countries depended heavily upon Soviet aide, a dependency which the Politburo & KGB were all too willing to exploit during their reign, the dependent nations had yet another justification for the demagogic accusation that the United States was insensitive, if not hostile, to the interests of the world’s least fortunate people. As Americans continued to show opposition to this movement by giving control of Congress to Republicans in 1994 for the first time in nearly fifty years, impeaching President Bill Clinton (Democrat) and electing another Republican, George Bush, America was seen to be deliberately moving against international currents in social progress and egalitarianism.

Today there is a growing consencus among the world’s Socialists as to what Socialism is, what it seeks to achieve and how it must be implemented. And while there is no official leader of the movement as in the days of the Soviet Union, both the United Nations and the European Union have been vying for the title.

What is the outlook for America? Well, America has continued to stand opposite the world’s view on issues such as the environment, Israel and international social welfare. These positions certainly do not endear the nation to the rest of the world. For world Socialism appears to have an affinity for anyone and everyone who declare themselves an enemy of the United States. Witness the rather unconscionable deference accorded radical Islamists despite the fact that their views stand in stark contrast to everything Socialism purports to represent. While I personally believe that America is currently on the right side of the debate, there is no doubt that her international image has suffered tremendously as a result thereof.

Yes, there exists a plethora of contemporary political abstractions plaguing the image of America (e.g. Abu Ghraib, the Guantanamo Bay Detention Facility, Universal Healthcare, Halliburton), but they all emanate from a single philosophical worldview.It is a sad fact that the world will not see the US as its partner until there is no Republican in the White House and the US changes its official positions with respect to such issues as the environment, Israel and global welfare to a stance more consistent with world or shall we say, Socialist, opinion.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

Share

Laura Schneider, left, one of three victims of a Halloween beating,
and her mother Barbara react to the sentence of probation and home confinement
handed down to one of nine African-American youths in the beatings of the three
white women, outside court in Long Beach, Calif., Friday, Feb. 2, 2007. (AP
Photo/Reed Saxon)

Several years ago I heard, then candidate George Bush, use the expression “The soft bigotry of low expectations” in describing the behaviour and attitudes of Leftists or more specifically condescending White Liberals (sic). He was referring to the fact that Liberals feel, that by holding Blacks and other so-called minorities to lower standards of behaviour and accountability, they are performing an act of social justice. The sad fact is, their low expectations is nothing short of bigotry dressed up to look like altruism.

I was reminded of this when I heard that Juvenile Court Judge Gibson Lee in the Long Beach case involving the group of Black youth convicted of various crimes (with a Hate Crimes enhancement) emanating from a savage attack on three White females on Halloween night 2006, sentenced all but one of the perpetrators to probation. That “one” was given a sentence of house arrest and will have to undergo racial sensitivity training (whatever that means). Were it not for the actions of several good Samaritans who came to the aide of the victims there is no doubt that the attack would have continued until the victims were dead. Said good Samaritans have subsequently been forced to relocate for their own safety.

While I personally believed that all of these savages should have been charged with Attempted Murder the prosecutors instead charged them with the most serious offences short of Attempted Murder. Additionally anyone who knows me probably knows that I find the idea of Hate Crimes to be foolish beyond imagination. All crimes are crimes of hate. But if we have the laws on the books and the courts are charged with upholding these laws is it unreasonable of me to expect that such brutality deserves a harsher punishment than probation, house arrest and racial sensitivity training? It’s as if Judge Gibson is telling these people (and I use the term lightly in this case) to, “come back when you kill someone”? The basic purpose of a hate crime enhancement is to make the punishment more severe. I shudder to think that there could actually be a lesser sentence than that which was given in this case.

This is certainly not the first time I have seen such a blatant miscarriage of justice but it is certainly one of the most egregious. I have come to expect such asininity out of the minds of juries or the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. But I am perplexed, to say the least, as to why Judge Lee handed down such lenient sentences. Were the races of the victims and perpetrators reversed, I have no doubt that (1) this case would have received more media attention including national attention, (2) the race-hustlers and poverty-pimps (i.e. Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton and Maxine Waters) would have been jockeying for position in front of the cameras on a daily basis to denounce this “hate crime”, and (3) the Judge would have been all too willing to punish the criminals to the fullest extent of his authority.

In brief, the Judge found that these ten defendants committed various acts of aggravated battery upon the persons of three female victims with intent to do great bodily harm and that race was a motivating factor (for nine of the ten) in said assault. Need I say more?


This, my friends, is nothing short of “the soft bigotry of low expectations.”

Thank You Mr. Friedman

Share

(July 31, 1912 - November 16, 2006)

Milton Friedman, famed Nobel Prize-winning economist who fathered Monetary Policy, which served as the economic roadmap for US President Ronald Reagan and British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, passed away today at the age of 94.

Friedman ushered in a new thinking in economics by posing a powerful argument against socialist economic policy predicated upon the views articulated by John Maynard Keynes during the early 20th century. Additionally, Friedman like many of the great economists, was a brilliant social theorist as evinced by his most famous works, Capitalism and Freedom and Free To Choose: A Personal Statement which he co-wrote with his wife Rose Friedman. Friedman was a stalwart defender of individual liberty and its concomitant result, free enterprise.

I bid a warm “Farewell” and an eternal “Thank You” to Milton Friedman.

The Proper Limits of Judicial Authority

Share

This is a draft of the dissenting opinion in the matter of PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Although the majority ruled in favor of ordering the State of Texas to grant taxpayer-funded primary and secondary educational benefits to the children of illegal aliens, it is the dissenting opinion that truly gets to the root of the matter of judicial activism and policy-making from the bench. As this court has said, "The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem. Moreover, when this Court rushes in to remedy what it perceives to be the failings of the political processes, it deprives those processes of an opportunity to function. When the political institutions are not forced to exercise constitutionally allocated powers and responsibilities, those powers, like muscles not used, tend to atrophy. Today's cases, I regret to say, present yet another example of unwarranted judicial action which in the long run tends to contribute to the weakening of our political processes."

U.S. Supreme Court
PLYLER v. DOE, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)

457 U.S. 202

PLYLER, SUPERINTENDENT, TYLER INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL.v. DOE, GUARDIAN, ET AL.APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUITNo. 80-1538.Argued December 1, 1981Decided June 15, 1982

CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, with whom JUSTICE WHITE, JUSTICE REHNQUIST, and JUSTICE O'CONNOR join, dissenting.

Were it our business to set the Nation's social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children - including illegal aliens - of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly - and wrong - to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language. However, the Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians" nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom," or "common sense." See TVA v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 194 -195 (1978). We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today.

The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack of "effective leadership" in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders. See ante, at 237-238 (POWELL, J., concurring). The failure of enforcement of the immigration laws over more than a decade and the inherent difficulty and expense of sealing our vast borders have combined to create a grave socioeconomic dilemma. It is a dilemma that has not yet even been fully assessed, let alone addressed. However, it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide "effective leadership" simply because the political branches of government fail to do so.

The Court's holding today manifests the justly criticized judicial tendency to attempt speedy and wholesale formulation of "remedies" for the failures - or simply the laggard pace - of the political processes of our system of government. The Court employs, and in my view abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver. That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others.

I

In a sense, the Court's opinion rests on such a unique confluence of theories and rationales that it will likely stand for little beyond the results in these particular cases. Yet the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is nonetheless disturbing.
I have no quarrel with the conclusion that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to aliens who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically "within the jurisdiction" of a state. However, as the Court concedes, this "only begins the inquiry." Ante, at 215. The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons. Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S. 535, 549 (1972); Reed v. Reed, 404 U.S. 71, 75 (1971); Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 -148 (1940).
The dispositive issue in these cases, simply put, is whether, for purposes of allocating its finite resources, a state has a legitimate reason to differentiate between persons [457 U.S. 202, 244] who are lawfully within the state and those who are unlawfully there. The distinction the State of Texas has drawn - based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies - is not unconstitutional.

A

The Court acknowledges that, except in those cases when state classifications disadvantage a "suspect class" or impinge upon a "fundamental right," the Equal Protection Clause permits a state "substantial latitude" in distinguishing between different groups of persons. Ante, at 216-217. Moreover, the Court expressly - and correctly - rejects any suggestion that illegal aliens are a suspect class, ante, at 219, n. 19, or that education is a fundamental right, ante, at 221, 223. Yet by patching together bits and pieces of what might be termed quasi-suspect-class and quasi-fundamental-rights analysis, the Court spins out a theory custom-tailored to the facts of these cases.
In the end, we are told little more than that the level of scrutiny employed to strike down the Texas law applies only when illegal alien children are deprived of a public education, see ante, at 223-224. If ever a court was guilty of an unabashedly result-oriented approach, this case is a prime example.

(1)

The Court first suggests that these illegal alien children, although not a suspect class, are entitled to special solicitude under the Equal Protection Clause because they lack "control" over or "responsibility" for their unlawful entry into this country. Ante, at 220, 223-224. Similarly, the Court appears to take the position that 21.031 is presumptively "irrational" because it has the effect of imposing "penalties" [457 U.S. 202, 245] on "innocent" children. Ibid. See also ante, at 238-239 (POWELL, J., concurring). However, the Equal Protection Clause does not preclude legislators from classifying among persons on the basis of factors and characteristics over which individuals may be said to lack "control." Indeed, in some circumstances persons generally, and children in particular, may have little control over or responsibility for such things as their ill health, need for public assistance, or place of residence. Yet a state legislature is not barred from considering, for example, relevant differences between the mentally healthy and the mentally ill, or between the residents of different counties, simply because these may be factors unrelated to individual choice or to any "wrongdoing." The Equal Protection Clause protects against arbitrary and irrational classifications, and against invidious discrimination stemming from prejudice and hostility; it is not an all-encompassing "equalizer" designed to eradicate every distinction for which persons are not "responsible." [457 U.S. 202, 246]
The Court does not presume to suggest that appellees' purported lack of culpability for their illegal status prevents them from being deported or otherwise "penalized" under federal law. Yet would deportation be any less a "penalty" than denial of privileges provided to legal residents? Illegality of presence in the United States does not - and need not - depend on some amorphous concept of "guilt" or "innocence" concerning an alien's entry. Similarly, a state's use of federal immigration status as a basis for legislative classification is not necessarily rendered suspect for its failure to take such factors into account.
The Court's analogy to cases involving discrimination against illegitimate children - see ante, at 220; ante, at 238-239 (POWELL, J., concurring) - is grossly misleading. The State has not thrust any disabilities upon appellees due to their "status of birth." Cf. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164, 176 (1972). Rather, appellees' status is predicated upon the circumstances of their concededly illegal presence in this country, and is a direct result of Congress' obviously valid exercise of its "broad constitutional powers" in the field of immigration and naturalization. U.S. Const., Art. I, 8, cl. 4; see Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410, 419 (1948). This Court has recognized that in allocating governmental benefits to a given class of aliens, one "may take into account the character of the relationship between the alien and this country." Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67, 80 (1976). When that "relationship" is a federally prohibited one, there can, of course, be no presumption that a state has a constitutional duty to include illegal aliens among the recipients of its governmental benefits.

(2)

The second strand of the Court's analysis rests on the premise that, although public education is not a constitutionally guaranteed right, "neither is it merely some governmental `benefit' indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation." Ante, at 221. Whatever meaning or relevance this opaque observation might have in some other context, 8 it simply has no bearing on the issues at hand. Indeed, it is never made clear what the Court's opinion means on this score.
The importance of education is beyond dispute. Yet we have held repeatedly that the importance of a governmental service does not elevate it to the status of a "fundamental right" for purposes of equal protection analysis. San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 1, 30 -31 (1973); Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 -74 (1972). In San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, JUSTICE POWELL, speaking for the Court, expressly rejected the proposition that state laws dealing with public education are subject to special scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause. Moreover, the Court points to no meaningful way to distinguish between education and other governmental benefits [457 U.S. 202, 248] in this context. Is the Court suggesting that education is more "fundamental" than food, shelter, or medical care?
The Equal Protection Clause guarantees similar treatment of similarly situated persons, but it does not mandate a constitutional hierarchy of governmental services. JUSTICE POWELL, speaking for the Court in San Antonio Independent School Dist. supra, at 31, put it well in stating that to the extent this Court raises or lowers the degree of "judicial scrutiny" in equal protection cases according to a transient Court majority's view of the societal importance of the interest affected, we "assum[e] a legislative role and one for which the Court lacks both authority and competence." Yet that is precisely what the Court does today. See also Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 655 -661 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting).
The central question in these cases, as in every equal protection case not involving truly fundamental rights "explicitly or implicitly guaranteed by the Constitution," San Antonio Independent School Dist., supra, at 33-34, is whether there is some legitimate basis for a legislative distinction between different classes of persons. The fact that the distinction is drawn in legislation affecting access to public education - as opposed to legislation allocating other important governmental benefits, such as public assistance, health care, or housing - cannot make a difference in the level of scrutiny applied.

B

Once it is conceded - as the Court does - that illegal aliens are not a suspect class, and that education is not a fundamental right, our inquiry should focus on and be limited to whether the legislative classification at issue bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose. Vance v. Bradley, 440 U.S. 93, 97 (1979); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 485 -487 (1970); see ante, at 216.
The State contends primarily that 21.031 serves to prevent undue depletion of its limited revenues available for education, and to preserve the fiscal integrity of the State's school-financing system against an ever-increasing flood of illegal aliens - aliens over whose entry or continued presence it has no control. Of course such fiscal concerns alone could not justify discrimination against a suspect class or an arbitrary and irrational denial of benefits to a particular group of persons. Yet I assume no Member of this Court would argue that prudent conservation of finite state revenues is per se an illegitimate goal. Indeed, the numerous classifications this Court has sustained in social welfare legislation were invariably related to the limited amount of revenues available to spend on any given program or set of programs. See, e. g., Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U.S., at 549 -551; Dandridge v. Williams, supra, at 487. The significant question here is whether the requirement of tuition from illegal aliens who attend the public schools - as well as from residents of other states, for example - is a rational and reasonable means of furthering the State's legitimate fiscal ends.
Without laboring what will undoubtedly seem obvious to many, it simply is not "irrational" for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state. 11 In De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 357 (1976), we held that a State may protect its "fiscal interests and lawfully resident labor force from the deleterious effects on its economy resulting from the employment of illegal aliens." And only recently this Court made clear that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its schools and "the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis." Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 453 (1973) (emphasis added). See also Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 663 -668 (1978). The Court has failed to offer even a plausible explanation why illegality of residence [457 U.S. 202, 251] in this country is not a factor that may legitimately bear upon the bona fides of state residence and entitlement to the benefits of lawful residence.
It is significant that the Federal Government has seen fit to exclude illegal aliens from numerous social welfare programs, such as the food stamp program, 7 U.S.C. 2015 (f) (1976 ed. and Supp. IV) and 7 CFR 273.4 (1981), the old-age assistance, aid to families with dependent children, aid to the blind, aid to the permanently and totally disabled, and supplemental security income programs, 45 CFR 233.50 (1981), the Medicare hospital insurance benefits program, 42 U.S.C. 1395i-2 and 42 CFR 405.205(b) (1981), and the Medicaid hospital insurance benefits for the aged and disabled program, 42 U.S.C. 1395o and 42 CFR 405.103 (a) (4) (1981). Although these exclusions do not conclusively demonstrate the constitutionality of the State's use of the same classification for comparable purposes, at the very least they tend to support the rationality of excluding illegal alien residents of a state from such programs so as to preserve the state's finite revenues for the benefit of lawful residents. See Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. at 80; see also n. 7, supra.
The Court maintains - as if this were the issue - that "barring undocumented children from local schools would not necessarily improve the quality of education provided in those [457 U.S. 202, 252] schools." Ante, at 229. See 458 F. Supp. 569, 577 (ED Tex. 1978). 13 However, the legitimacy of barring illegal aliens from programs such as Medicare or Medicaid does not depend on a showing that the barrier would "improve the quality" of medical care given to persons lawfully entitled to participate in such programs. Modern education, like medical care, is enormously expensive, and there can be no doubt that very large added costs will fall on the State or its local school districts as a result of the inclusion of illegal aliens in the tuition-free public schools. The State may, in its discretion, use any savings resulting from its tuition requirement to "improve the quality of education" in the public school system, or to enhance the funds available for other social programs, or to reduce the tax burden placed on its residents; each of these ends is "legitimate." The State need not show, as the Court implies, that the incremental cost of educating illegal aliens will send it into bankruptcy, or have a "`grave impact on the quality of education,'" ante, at 229; that is not dispositive under a "rational basis" scrutiny. In the absence of a constitutional imperative to provide for the education of illegal aliens, the State may "rationally" choose to take advantage of whatever savings will accrue from limiting access to the tuition-free public schools to its own lawful residents, excluding even citizens of neighboring States.
Denying a free education to illegal alien children is not a choice I would make were I a legislator. Apart from compassionate considerations, the long-range costs of excluding any children from the public schools may well outweigh the costs of educating them. But that is not the issue; the fact [457 U.S. 202, 253] that there are sound policy arguments against the Texas Legislature's choice does not render that choice an unconstitutional one.

II

The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem. Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S., at 74 . See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 624 -625 (1964) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Moreover, when this Court rushes in to remedy what it perceives to be the failings of the political processes, it deprives those processes of an opportunity to function. When the political institutions are not forced to exercise constitutionally allocated powers and responsibilities, those powers, like muscles not used, tend to atrophy. Today's cases, I regret to say, present yet another example of unwarranted judicial action which in the long run tends to contribute to the weakening of our political processes.
Congress, "vested by the Constitution with the responsibility of protecting our borders and legislating with respect to aliens," ante, at 237 (POWELL, J., concurring), bears primary responsibility for addressing the problems occasioned by the millions of illegal aliens flooding across our southern border. Similarly, it is for Congress, and not this Court, to [457 U.S. 202, 254] assess the "social costs borne by our Nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests." Ante, at 221; see ante, at 223-224. While the "specter of a permanent caste" of illegal Mexican residents of the United States is indeed a disturbing one, see ante, at 218-219, it is but one segment of a larger problem, which is for the political branches to solve. I find it difficult to believe that Congress would long tolerate such a self-destructive result - that it would fail to deport these illegal alien families or to provide for the education of their children. Yet instead of allowing the political processes to run their course - albeit with some delay - the Court seeks to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction. It is not unreasonable to think that this encourages the political branches to pass their problems to the Judiciary.
The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is to defer to the political processes, unpalatable as that may be to some.

All, Foley. All the time

Share

Perhaps I am out of fashion with the times but I don’t get this obsession with the “Foley” story. While I admit that I have an almost innate propensity to go in the opposite direction of conventional wisdom and modern social and political currents, I suspect that I am not alone in this view.

What Foley did may have been within the confines of codified laws in both Florida and Wahsington, DC where the “age of consent” is 16 years, but his behaviour violated every tenet of moral and ethical decency and sound judgment. It is a sad fact of our age that what men find acceptable in the law is usually those vices which they themselves wish to partake and since most people wish to do that which conforms to acceptable social norms, one seeks to have the desired vice written into law. That being the said, Foley has resigned and this should have been one-day story.

In comes the media and the Democrat political machine (though it is difficult to distinguish the two).

Democrats have had this information for some time and chose to make it a “news” story on the eve on an election. Much like the Dan Rather story about George Bush’s National Guard service. This accounts for the daily drip, drip of information which serves only to keep the story alive. For Dems this is a welcome distraction from the issues of the day since they were losing ground in that regard. The media is all too wiling to go along with it since it serves their own political agendas and lust for the prurient. What amazes me is that Republicans are once again showing themselves to be easy marks.

Conservatives on talk radio are helping to fuel this story by turning their shows in to “All Foley, All the Time.” I have ceased listening to talk-radio which I love. I cannot abide this daily Foley-Fest.

Enough of it already. Let’s get back to the real issues of this election year.

Americans In Wonderland

Share

A friend recently sent to me a Reuters story on the Bush Administration’s proposed budget for the 2007 fiscal period. The author of the story provided a very “objective” analysis of the President’s proposals in the typical advocacy-journalism manner. In pertinent part, the President is proposing a .05% reduction in discretionary spending with exception of national security items.

If you are a Leftist you’re probably thinking all sorts of nasty things about the President at this point and if you are on the political right, you’re dancing a jig. But before you get too angry or happy you might want to read a little further.

If you have ever read Alice in Wonderland, you are familiar with the following exchange between Alice and Humpty Dumpty concerning the obvious meaning of words:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “itmeans just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”

--- Louis Carrol, Alice in Wonderland.

So remember that we are talking about the government and just as in Wonderland, words don’t always mean what you think they mean.

Where government fiscal policy is concerned, a “cut” isn’t actually a reduction in overall dollars expended on a particular programme. Rather “cut” simply means that there is a reduction in the rate of growth over the previous year’s budgetary allotment (a.k.a. the “Baseline”). That is to say, if the programme is guaranteed an annual increase of 10% over Baseline and the future budget allows for an increase of 8% instead, this is considered – in Washingtonese – a spending/budget cut of 2%. You’re probably thinking: “But that’s an increase of 8%!!” That just goes to show that you are in no way qualified for a career in politics. By the way, all non-discretionary budget items have guaranteed increases.

The reason this system works (most of the time that is) is that the government has the ability to tax. When their shenanigans get out of hand, they simply levy a higher tax to cover the errors. And don’t forget, they can also “borrow” funds from the “Social Security Trust Fund,” which is kept in a secure location where it is protected under the watchful eyes of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

The point is, you can never truly “cut” government spending. As Ronald Reagan said, “The closest we will ever come to eternal life is a government programme.”