Lies the government told you by Andrew Napolitano (best e reader for epub TXT) 📗

The Supreme Court’s decision in Roe also had a profound effect on the rest of the country. It not only invalidated the Texas statute, but also forced twenty-one states to amend their abortion statutes. Roe v. Wade is a prime example of how a little judicial activism can certainly go a long way. Due to the tremendous impact of the Supreme Court’s opinions, it is important to prevent this utter disregard for the Constitution.

A less popular, yet exceedingly ridiculous example of judicial activism occurred in the case of Missouri v. Jenkins, a case that dragged on for eighteen years. In this case, beginning in 1977, United States District Judge Russell G. Clark, sitting in the Western District of Missouri, acted as a legislator and school superintendent in handling the case before him. Judge Clark held the Kansas City School District liable for segregating its schools, and created a plan for the District to revamp its schools, through which he greatly overstepped his judicial power.

The District spent $61 million to respond to the desegregation order, but Clark was not satisfied.29 Clark developed a scheme to improve the school system at a cost of $1.6 billion!30 To pay for the improvements, Judge Clark ordered the city to increase property taxes on its citizens by 91 percent!31 He also ordered the State of Missouri to increase income taxes by 25 percent!32 A court of appeals panel struck down the income-tax increase, but unfortunately did not find anything troubling about the property-tax hike.33

Clark’s improvement program was also extremely unnecessary, in addition to being wildly unconstitutional. His plan called for drastic remodeling to the schools, Olympic-sized swimming pools, zoos, gymnasiums, and “learning resource” centers.34 Judge Clark also required that the schools fund salary increases and remedial education programs. Luckily, in 1995, after nearly two decades of Judge Clark’s abuse, the Supreme Court of the United States, by a slim, 5 to 4 margin, decided that mandating increased salaries and funding for remedial programs was an abuse of power.

Wake Up!

During the recent recession in the United States, the Supreme Court was too soft in analyzing government actions that were surely against the law. For example, at the end of President George W. Bush’s second term in office, and at the very beginning of President Barack Obama’s first term, the federal government decided that it would take an extremely active role in bailing out companies that were deemed “too big to fail.”

One of the industries that got special treatment, particularly during the Obama administration, was the auto industry. In June 2009, the government dashed to complete Chrysler’s bankruptcy court proceedings so that it could merge with Fiat, an Italian auto company.35 The bankruptcy blatantly wronged Chrysler’s secured creditors who, under settled law, are first to be paid in the event of a bankruptcy.36 The secured creditors in this bankruptcy, however, received less per dollar than the United Auto Workers, an unsecured creditor that also gained 55 percent ownership of Chrysler.37 The Supreme Court approved the bankruptcy, taking a time-out from its function of defending freedom, property, contracts, and other good stuff that the Constitution keeps from the government’s grasping hands.

Conclusion

It is clear that judges should not act as “judicial activists” and bring their legislative agendas to the bench. However, there are many instances where judges can act as “constitutional activists,” to uphold the Constitution and our freedoms. As former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas stated in his autobiography, “The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.” Only a constitutionally activist Supreme Court can assure that it does so.

* I am loath to cite Hamilton for any purpose because he is the father of Big Government and devoted the last years of his wretched life to undermining the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But, just like a stopped clock twice a day, on this point he is correct.

Lie #4

“Every Vote Counts”

The 2000 American presidential election will be remembered as one of the most glaring examples of the federal judiciary infringing upon the fundamental right to vote. The Supreme Court of the United States, in Bush v. Gore, took the election out of the hands of the Florida voters and, in a 5 to 4 decision, essentially decided the election in favor of then-Texas Governor George W. Bush. Some have gone so far as to call the decision criminal.1 How did it happen? We have a very complex history of voting rights in our country.

The United States government is not a direct democracy, in which the majority of its citizens have the right to govern, but a democratic republic in which the people exercise only some degree of influence on government decision making. Article IV, Section 4, of the United States Constitution requires that “[t]he United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” According to James Madison, in The Federalist, No. 57, “The elective mode of obtaining rulers is the characteristic policy of republican government.”2 Today, it is widely accepted that a necessary component of this republican form of government, and a basic human right, is the right of the people to vote for their representatives. In fact, the people’s right to vote is the most effective mechanism to hold government officials accountable and ensure that they act in a manner consistent with their constituents’ freedom.

The right to vote is so important to us that we use it as a primary criterion in grading other democratic governments. The new Iraqi Constitution, the text of which was influenced by the United States, highlights the right to vote. Among other references to voting and the rights of voters, Article 20 of the Iraqi Constitution states that “[t]he citizens, men and women, have the right to participate in public affairs and to enjoy political rights including the right to vote, to elect and to nominate.”3 The right to vote is