Civics 101 For Hate-monger Republicans
Oklahoma Representative Thad Balkman (Republican), cried piteously about a court ruling from 19th May: "It's another case of an activist court trying to legislate from the bench. It's unfortunate that a single judge is trying to rewrite the law."
This is utterly contemptible hogwash from start to finish, and here's why:
In a democratic, republican system of government, such as exists in the U.S., there is what is called a Separation of Powers. Every level of government -- municipal, state, and federal -- is subject to this concept. Under the Separation of Powers, the government is divided into three branchs:
- Executive: the office of the highest elected member of that government: mayor, governor, president; the function of which is to ratify or veto laws put before it by the:
- Legislative: which branch proposes, debates, and passes or rejects proposals for laws, or amendments to or the repealing of already extent laws; each of which is subject to critical review by:
- Judicial: which branch interprets those laws which are passed by the various legislatures and ratified by the various executives, and considers the fitness thereof by testing them against the constitution.
The Judicial branch has no authority or wherewithal in any way, shape, or form, to "legislate" or rewrite laws. Moreover, a 05 Jan court ruling by the 10 Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that precept and the Separation of Powers. Also be it noted that in order to form a more perfect union, it is necessary for this branch to be removed from political maneuvering, manipulation, or intimidation. To support this, there is in place a principle called Judicial Independence. In effect: to ensure that justices are better able to effect "justice", they are completely autonomous and unaccountable for their rulings, so long as they themselves do not violate any laws or codes of ethics.
The sole purpose of the courts is to maintain a level playing field and to be a last resort in the petitioning of government for a redress of a grievance.
So squealing little hate-monger Balkman told a lie. A damned lie. A damned odious lie!
But out of what motive or background?
This utter falsehood was either stated deliberately or from simple ignorance of basic American Civics.
If it was uttered with a reckless disregard for the truth, then Balkman is a vile blashphemer before the Eighth Commandmant: Thou shalt not bear false witness. He has also, in my not so humble opinion, perpetrated slander against Judge Cauthron. Now, you might be saying that he did not specifically name Judge Cauthron, but he did sufficiently identify the Judge, " . . . a single judge is trying to rewrite the law", and imputed to that judge an act of judicial malfeasance or misconduct; to whit: that he violated the Separation of Powers.
If this baseless falsehood was the result of abject ignorance, then Balkman isn't really in any better position. He's elected to public office, for crying out loud! How can an elected official be so purblind ignorant of his function in public office as to make a statement that is so totally at odds with the political reality of his community, state, and country?!
In either event, it was Balkman who has violated the Separation of Powers and the principle of Judicial Independence by making an utterance the sole purpose of which is to bring the judicial branch under the sway of the executive, and political maneuvering, manipulation, or intimidation thereby.
So, here's what I propose:
- Judge Cauthron should sue Balkman for libel. If it turns out that Balkman did in fact slander the judge, he should be dismissed from office on the grounds of contempt for due process and democratic governance; and dismissed with prejudice, meaning that he would be forbidden to work in any public function, whether elected, appointed, or employed.
- Any legislation that does not pass constitutional muster as a failure of human rights, should be grounds for immediate recall of those elected officials who voted in its favor for they're having gone forsworn in not defending the constitution. (Although that measure might very well violate the Fifth Amendment, as they would necessarily implicate themselves by how they voted.)
- Candidates for public office, at any level, should be required to pass an examination composed of essay questions pertaining to the basic civics that should be public knowledge (passing grade to be not less than 85% and maybe higher), and any elected official who displays ignorance of civics while in office should immediately be suspended without pay until he can demonstrate a proper level of knowledge and that he is fit for candidature and re-election at the next vote. The examinations, being government documents, will be public property.
- At the very least, the American corporate press should put this cry-baby's feet to the fire and demand that he explain himself for either his blasphemy, his slander, or his ignorance.