Elgin Hushbeck – Question 5 Reply 3 – The Justice System
One of the huge problems with this discussion is that you are extremely sloppy with the presentation of your claims, frequently without any clarifying examples, such that I am often left wondering if you are really that wrong, or if you actually mean something other than what you seem to say; but if so, what else is rarely clear. For example, you mentioned that “We live in a Republic of laws” and that “our Founders hated democracy and instead placed us within a Republic.” Then you go on to claim that I think our present system “is a democracy.” So the natural understanding of this is that you are claiming that I believe in direct democracy, the type of democracy that the founding fathers argued against.
While this would be the natural understanding, it suffers from the problem that it is completely wrong. In fact, in my book, I detail the problem of direct democracy, why the founders opposed it and were correct to do so, and why they thought a Republic a superior system. Given this, your comments are either wrong, or they simply do not make sense.
As for us living in a Republic of Laws, unfortunately that is now past tense, and least in its normal sense of living in a Republic that is under the Rule of Law. The Rule of Law is not some vague abstract concept, but a pretty well defined one. At its core is the concept that everyone is both equal before the law, and all are under it. It also includes the idea that the law itself is something clear and understandable. Something we can all follow. This is hardly the case today.
The law now is so vast and complex as to be completely beyond comprehension. Even Lawyers must specialize. Thus by definition we cannot all be equal under the law, because some can afford the lawyers for whom the law is not something that we all live under, but something they can use as a tool, to be manipulated and for those rich enough or with the right connections, even shaped.
At one time, one could point to the Constitution, but sadly it is largely of only historical significance. Numerous examples of this could be given, but the simple fact is that the Supreme Court has become a yearly constitutional convention such that today it really does not matter what the Constitution does or does not say; it only matters what a majority of 5 justices on the court says it means. Thus the court acts more as a council of kings, than a court. Thus it should not be of any surprise that it is now the site of huge political battles.
Still more damaging to rule of law is the clear double standard that exists. Administration officials repeatedly give, in the words of James Clapper, the” least untruthful” response and nothing happens. People have gone to jail for lying to Eric Holder’s employees, but he was not truthful with Congress and nothing happens.
Frankly, while many members of this administration and the executive branch have not been truthful, and there is no doubt that laws were broken, but rather than punished, some of the key figures have even been promoted. In the end, I really do not expect anything to happen. The Democrats, their supporters and the mainstream media will protect them. There will be some heat for a little while, but at some point we will be told that it is old news and it will be allowed to quietly go away. For all intents and purposes, the administration is above the law.
In fact one of the key words of defining this administration is lawless. If the administration wants something done, and Congress fails to act the way they want, they just do it themselves. Thus for example, even though Congress was making progress on the Dream Act, or more likely to undercut Senator Rubio who was close to working out a compromise, Obama did it by Executive order, even though in the process he created a new legal category, but without any actual legislation to support it, something that until now was considered impossible. Under the rule of law it would be. Again many other examples could be given.
So where is the Rule of Law? We are not governed by the rule of law, but by whatever you can get away with. This depends, not on the law, but on how strong your supporters are, and how far they are willing to go.
Thus even after the Inspector General found wrong doing; even after the IRS admitted that it has been wrong; even after clear evidence that laws were broken; even after all the subsequent statement in conflict with each other and with the truth; Even with at least one official taking the 5th; you claim that “The IRS did its job and should be commended.” Such a statement says nothing about the IRS, but instead speaks only to your objectivity.
Sadly we have the Chicago machine come to Washington. If you are in the machine’s good graces, they will throw benefits of various sorts your way. One of the reasons the stimulus bill was so ineffective is that it was aimed more as rewarding supporters than any actual stimulus. On the other hand, if you oppose the administration, you could have the FBI, ATF, OSHA, IRS, or any numbers of other government agencies descend on you, as has happened.
As for the example of a Senator pleading with Sebelius to grant a waiver, you seem to have missed the point entirely, which was that these decisions should not be a part of the political process in the first place.
That you are factually incorrect and thoroughly confused about what I am actually arguing does not mean that I am not properly addressing the issue. Perhaps if you attempted to try and understand a point before resorting to personal attacks you could responds a bit more coherently. After all I am reliably informed that you have read my book and as such should not be making such elementary mistakes about what I actually believe.
Finally, as for Scriptural support for the death penalty, it is the only law found in all 5 books of Torah, which in and of itself says something about how important it is, and that it cannot just be written off as part of the law. I think it is also being referenced in Romans 13:1-4. Act 25:10-11, is more neutral given the context, and instead takes it as a given, but it is hardly a condemnation of the death penalty.
