Don't you think the Dow would stop dropping if we had a President who would stop signing pork bills? -- Chris Matthews 2:20
Get outta town! HT: InstapunditPolitics
Posted by John Kranz at March 5, 2009 12:59 PM
That sends a shiver up my leg.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 5, 2009 2:23 PM
Touche, Refugee!
Not to defend Obama, but I'd add "... and a Congress that would stop sending them to him" to that quote. I've had to defend past presidents' spending habits on the basis that all spending bills originate in the House, and I owe it to this guy to be consistent; nonetheless, there's a clear synergy here between an executive branch saying "send me a spending bill so I can sign it" and a legislature happy to oblige him. A plague on both their houses.
Just to stir the soup, if a state were to secede, what legal obligation would it have for any portion of the massive Federal debt being incurred? And if the answer were "why, none, of course," then would that not be a powerful economic incentive for a state to essentially get out from under the debt, obtain a clean slate, and stick everyone else with the tab?
Your point is taken, Keith, but Matthews's context in the story makes signaling out the president as fair as it is leg-tingle inducing. (Sad really, that's a spark of the old Chris Matthews who was worth watching).
@Keith Calhoun: The block grants, tax payments, credits and generally incestuous interconnectivity would keep lawyers busy longer than splitting up the Beatles -- the Feds would have the 11th Amendment to hide behind. I'd make sure to have plenty of ammunition.
I've probably mentioned it before in comments, and I know I have on my blog, but here's how the original federal model of taxation worked. Most Americans aren't aware that the first income tax wasn't instituted until Lincoln's presidency, let alone the original proportional model.
The census wasn't just for statistical curiosity and to determine Congressional representation. It was also to determine a state's share of the federal budget. If a state had 10.9123% of the population, then its legislature had to pony up 10.9123% of the federal budget. How it raised money was up to the state, but isn't it funny how such a system makes states compete with each other on the basis of tax burdens and tax structure? Additionally, rich and poor states alike would never want pork-filled federal spending. They all had to pay a proportional share. Imagine West Virginia residents actually having to pay for the roads the federal government builds for them! (Which wouldn't have happened originally, anyway, because that was not deemed a proper function of the federal government. It was purely a state matter.)
The Constitution's prohibition against a state paying in anything but gold or silver coin was precisely for the purpose of taxation. Otherwise a state could print up as much worthless paper money to meet its obligations.
As I commented recently, secession was very much viewed by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers as a sacred right. The colonies did, after all, secede from Great Britain. If a state didn't want to be a part of grotesque federal spending, it could then secede and say to its former Union, "Spend whatever the hell you want. We want no part of it."
Perry, I don't think you can extrapolate from Jefferson, one of the most radical of the founders, to say "the founders" approved of secession. Jefferson famously wanted to regularly "water the tree of liberty with blood of patriots and tyrants."
Madison and Monroe were rather famously against nullification and feared secession. In the next generation, even the slave-holding Jackson and Tyler spent their Presidencies fighting to keep the Union intact (yes, Tyler changed after).
Monroe was not one of "The Founders" I speak of. He was very much "after the fact" when it came to the colonies' secession from Britain, and the formation of the new government.
Madison, of course, was there from the start of the Constitution's ratification. Though he had a principal part in forming the national government, he still very much prized a state's sovereignty over a federal compact. This was the man who wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
With the Ninth and Tenth Amendments saying what they do, how can a state be denied its right to secede? Or did the states come from the union, as Lincoln tyrannically argued, rather than the other way around? Not until Jackson (who was not perfect) and later presidents was it argued that states didn't have a right to secede. Remember that it was the northeast Federalists, those in favor of a stronger national government, who were threatening that their states would secede if the national government were too oppressive.
You're also confusing the act of secession with the right to secession. Few want the country to break up (that was Madison's fear, NOT the fundamental right of secession) unless there's no better solution. The colonists did not openly rebel until all their remonstrations were proven futile. But in the times that try men's souls, dissolving political associations becomes necessary and just.
You say that Madison opposed nullification, but nullification of what? What he said was that a state cannot nullify the Constitution, i.e. the specific document that the states had ratified. But should a state not be able to nullify something that the federal government does which is unconstitutional or what the Constitution does not give federal jurisdiction over (e.g. left to the states or the people)?
You can regard Jefferson as radical for what he said, but he was correct: liberty cannot be gained or preserved with compromise.
@Perry: After the fact? Mr. Monroe was a prominent delegate to the Virginia State Ratification Convention. (And an anti-federalist to boot!) I do not how much more involved you could expect him to be in the formation of the young Republic's new government. (Certainly he did more than Jefferson, who was away in France at the time.)
And to be more on point- Perry, I think you are missing the point. No one here has disputed a state's right to secession. Quite a few have disputed a state's right to nullification.
Now we have talked about this before. My objections to nullification are listed at the bottom of that post, as is your riposte. So that we do not have to cover this ground again, I suggest we skip to where we left off.
Let us start with the proper authority for the nullification of laws: the judiciary. It is with the judiciary the responsibility lies for the determination of the legality of congress’ edicts. You have stated that this concept began with Marbury vs. Madison, and that I am but a sheep for mindlessly accepting Marshall’s power-grabbing decision. This view is in ignorance of history. The framers knew and argued for a judiciary with the powers recognized in Marbury.
Consider the words of Philadelphia Convention heavyweight James Wilson as he argued for the Constitution during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
“I had on occasion, on a former day, to state the power of the Constitution was paramount to the legislature acting under that Constitution; for it is possible that the legislature, when acting in that capacity, may transgress the bounds assigned to it, and an act may pass, in the usual mode, notwithstanding that transgression; but when it comes to be discussed before the judges,--when they consider its principles, and find it to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, --it is their duty to pronounce it void.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 204. Bold Emphasis added.)
And here is Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia and New York Ratifying Convention delegate, writing as Publius, in Federalist No. 78:
“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power...
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
These are but two examples I have marked in books that I own. If you wish me to, I could scour the internet for more such quotations, as I know Ellsworth and more than a few Virginia Federalists (not the least being named Marshall) used similar arguments in the Connecticut and Virginia Ratification Conventions. In all cases, those who voted for the Constitution knew exactly what the role of the judiciary should be. It is clear that by its very nature the judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution.
The same cannot be said for the states. I find it funny that you fault a SCOTUS whose primary role is to interpret laws “because the Constitution does not explicitly say so” and yet gladly hand that power over to the states, despite the fact that the Constitution is just as silent on this matter. Perhaps you own a special copy of the Constitution that contains an article detailing the manner by which states have the authority to interpret federal laws?
This brings up the central problem with Calhon-style nullification: despite Jefferson’s protests to the contrary, the Constitution was never a compact between the states. Rather, it was a document ratified by WE THE PEOPLE, and gained its authority not by the states of its Union, but by the people residing thereof. James Wilson detailed this excellently in his remarks to the Pennsylvania convention:
”State sovereignty, as it is called, is far from being able to support its own weight. Nothing less than authority of the people could either support it or give it efficacy.... In this country, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power resides in the people at large; that they have vested certain proportions of their power in the state governments; but that the fee-simple continues, resides, and remains, with the body of the people.
...
If we go a little further on this subject, I think it shall be seen that the doctrine of original compact cannot be supported consistently with the best principles of government…. Because a contract once entered between the governor and governed becomes obligatory, and cannot be altered without the consent of both parties. The citizens of United America, I presume, do not wish to stand on that footing with those to whom, from convenience, they please to delegate the exercise of general powers for the sustaining and preserving of the Union... The people fetter themselves with no contract.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 255. Bold Emphasis added.)
Wilson spoke of a plain truth: the Constitution is not a compact between states, nor a compact between the states and the federal government. If either of these were true then Lincoln’s war would have been justified. He would be correct in stating that the Southern states had no right to break the compact they made with Union without the Union’s consent.
All of this leaves us with an essential question: what happens when the judiciary errs? Who shall watch the watchmen? If we have decided that the states cannot do this, that leaves one other option- the citizens themselves.
I have one gripe with the way you phrase this concept. You stated, ”It is the right and duty of anyone, whether a private citizen or government official, to nullify a bad law.” I have already discussed why the judiciary is the sole branch of government with the authority to nullify laws; I shall now discuss the implications of private citizens with the power of nullification.
The implications of this notion are – to be frank – dangerous. Indeed, I can think of no quicker way to erode the rule of law than this. In essence, your view of the Constitution is not all that different than those progressives championing their Living Constitution. In your case, no law is binding. Every citizen chooses which laws he does not think to be Constitutional (i.e. every law he dislikes), and ignores it.
Think about what you are advocating here. As with Living Constitution theory, your would have the Constitution cease its role as the legal document governing the conduct of the federal government, it soon degenerating into the mere opinion of those reading it. The only practical difference between the two philosophies is that progressives concern themselves only with the opinion of the nine justices on the SCOTUS, while your viewpoint will have 300 million individual interpretations of what the Constitution should mean.
Does this destruction of nullification mean that citizens have no method of redress when the government begins to approach their rights? Of course not. There are two options on the table for any citizen who feels a law to be unjust and dangerous. (Hint: nullification is not one of them.)
The first is civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, in writing his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” outlined the proper way to conduct such a response to an unjust law:
“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
The second response is rebellion. If rights are being trampled upon and the Constitution no longer serves to check the federal government, every man can work above the Constitution and exercise his right to protect himself from oppression. But make no mistake, this is not nullification. It is the renouncement of a corrupt government entirely. If you shoot a police officer for illegally entering your house, he loses both the ability to infringe on your privacy and the ability to protect you from criminals. So it is with government. You cannot elect to break laws that do not strike your fancy and yet hold true to the rest. You are abandoning the entire system. If and when such action is necessary, the Constitution (and all legal laws who use it as their foundation) no longer has any authority from you at all.
Thus, we have two choices when confronted with an unjust law. You can break it and accept the legal consequences for doing so, or you can withdraw your consent for a government that creates unjust laws all together.
Thanks, tg, for beating me to a swift defense of James Monroe. Dude fought at Yorktown and served as a foreign emissary to Presidents Washington and Jefferson. Nobody wou;d seriously ascribe the intellectual heft of a Jefferson his direction, but nor would I disqualify his opinion.
Our own "Era of Good Feelings" may be as short-lived as Monroe's, however. I take a third tack on nullification. I'm a big fan of Lysander Spooner and consider individual jury nullification as a foundation of liberty.
I certainly don't see it as reserved to the judicial branch, though in our history of tripartite government, they have been the most reliable (not unlike being the smartest of the Three Stooges).
That sends a shiver up my leg.
Posted by: Boulder Refugee at March 5, 2009 2:23 PMTouche, Refugee!
Not to defend Obama, but I'd add "... and a Congress that would stop sending them to him" to that quote. I've had to defend past presidents' spending habits on the basis that all spending bills originate in the House, and I owe it to this guy to be consistent; nonetheless, there's a clear synergy here between an executive branch saying "send me a spending bill so I can sign it" and a legislature happy to oblige him. A plague on both their houses.
Just to stir the soup, if a state were to secede, what legal obligation would it have for any portion of the massive Federal debt being incurred? And if the answer were "why, none, of course," then would that not be a powerful economic incentive for a state to essentially get out from under the debt, obtain a clean slate, and stick everyone else with the tab?
Posted by: Keith at March 5, 2009 3:00 PMYour point is taken, Keith, but Matthews's context in the story makes signaling out the president as fair as it is leg-tingle inducing. (Sad really, that's a spark of the old Chris Matthews who was worth watching).
@Keith Calhoun: The block grants, tax payments, credits and generally incestuous interconnectivity would keep lawyers busy longer than splitting up the Beatles -- the Feds would have the 11th Amendment to hide behind. I'd make sure to have plenty of ammunition.
Posted by: jk at March 5, 2009 3:45 PMI've probably mentioned it before in comments, and I know I have on my blog, but here's how the original federal model of taxation worked. Most Americans aren't aware that the first income tax wasn't instituted until Lincoln's presidency, let alone the original proportional model.
The census wasn't just for statistical curiosity and to determine Congressional representation. It was also to determine a state's share of the federal budget. If a state had 10.9123% of the population, then its legislature had to pony up 10.9123% of the federal budget. How it raised money was up to the state, but isn't it funny how such a system makes states compete with each other on the basis of tax burdens and tax structure? Additionally, rich and poor states alike would never want pork-filled federal spending. They all had to pay a proportional share. Imagine West Virginia residents actually having to pay for the roads the federal government builds for them! (Which wouldn't have happened originally, anyway, because that was not deemed a proper function of the federal government. It was purely a state matter.)
The Constitution's prohibition against a state paying in anything but gold or silver coin was precisely for the purpose of taxation. Otherwise a state could print up as much worthless paper money to meet its obligations.
As I commented recently, secession was very much viewed by Jefferson and other Founding Fathers as a sacred right. The colonies did, after all, secede from Great Britain. If a state didn't want to be a part of grotesque federal spending, it could then secede and say to its former Union, "Spend whatever the hell you want. We want no part of it."
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 5, 2009 4:35 PMPerry, I don't think you can extrapolate from Jefferson, one of the most radical of the founders, to say "the founders" approved of secession. Jefferson famously wanted to regularly "water the tree of liberty with blood of patriots and tyrants."
Madison and Monroe were rather famously against nullification and feared secession. In the next generation, even the slave-holding Jackson and Tyler spent their Presidencies fighting to keep the Union intact (yes, Tyler changed after).
Posted by: jk at March 5, 2009 5:07 PMMonroe was not one of "The Founders" I speak of. He was very much "after the fact" when it came to the colonies' secession from Britain, and the formation of the new government.
Madison, of course, was there from the start of the Constitution's ratification. Though he had a principal part in forming the national government, he still very much prized a state's sovereignty over a federal compact. This was the man who wrote, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite."
With the Ninth and Tenth Amendments saying what they do, how can a state be denied its right to secede? Or did the states come from the union, as Lincoln tyrannically argued, rather than the other way around? Not until Jackson (who was not perfect) and later presidents was it argued that states didn't have a right to secede. Remember that it was the northeast Federalists, those in favor of a stronger national government, who were threatening that their states would secede if the national government were too oppressive.
You're also confusing the act of secession with the right to secession. Few want the country to break up (that was Madison's fear, NOT the fundamental right of secession) unless there's no better solution. The colonists did not openly rebel until all their remonstrations were proven futile. But in the times that try men's souls, dissolving political associations becomes necessary and just.
You say that Madison opposed nullification, but nullification of what? What he said was that a state cannot nullify the Constitution, i.e. the specific document that the states had ratified. But should a state not be able to nullify something that the federal government does which is unconstitutional or what the Constitution does not give federal jurisdiction over (e.g. left to the states or the people)?
You can regard Jefferson as radical for what he said, but he was correct: liberty cannot be gained or preserved with compromise.
Posted by: Perry Eidelbus at March 6, 2009 3:17 PM@Perry: After the fact? Mr. Monroe was a prominent delegate to the Virginia State Ratification Convention. (And an anti-federalist to boot!) I do not how much more involved you could expect him to be in the formation of the young Republic's new government. (Certainly he did more than Jefferson, who was away in France at the time.)
And to be more on point- Perry, I think you are missing the point. No one here has disputed a state's right to secession. Quite a few have disputed a state's right to nullification.
Now we have talked about this before. My objections to nullification are listed at the bottom of that post, as is your riposte. So that we do not have to cover this ground again, I suggest we skip to where we left off.
Let us start with the proper authority for the nullification of laws: the judiciary. It is with the judiciary the responsibility lies for the determination of the legality of congress’ edicts. You have stated that this concept began with Marbury vs. Madison, and that I am but a sheep for mindlessly accepting Marshall’s power-grabbing decision. This view is in ignorance of history. The framers knew and argued for a judiciary with the powers recognized in Marbury.
Consider the words of Philadelphia Convention heavyweight James Wilson as he argued for the Constitution during the Pennsylvania Ratifying Convention:
“I had on occasion, on a former day, to state the power of the Constitution was paramount to the legislature acting under that Constitution; for it is possible that the legislature, when acting in that capacity, may transgress the bounds assigned to it, and an act may pass, in the usual mode, notwithstanding that transgression; but when it comes to be discussed before the judges,--when they consider its principles, and find it to be incompatible with the superior power of the Constitution, --it is their duty to pronounce it void.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 204. Bold Emphasis added.)
And here is Alexander Hamilton, Philadelphia and New York Ratifying Convention delegate, writing as Publius, in Federalist No. 78:
“Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power...
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.”
(The Federalist Papers, 1987 Penguin Books ed., pg. 438. Bolded emphasis added.)
These are but two examples I have marked in books that I own. If you wish me to, I could scour the internet for more such quotations, as I know Ellsworth and more than a few Virginia Federalists (not the least being named Marshall) used similar arguments in the Connecticut and Virginia Ratification Conventions. In all cases, those who voted for the Constitution knew exactly what the role of the judiciary should be. It is clear that by its very nature the judiciary’s role is to interpret the Constitution.
The same cannot be said for the states. I find it funny that you fault a SCOTUS whose primary role is to interpret laws “because the Constitution does not explicitly say so” and yet gladly hand that power over to the states, despite the fact that the Constitution is just as silent on this matter. Perhaps you own a special copy of the Constitution that contains an article detailing the manner by which states have the authority to interpret federal laws?
This brings up the central problem with Calhon-style nullification: despite Jefferson’s protests to the contrary, the Constitution was never a compact between the states. Rather, it was a document ratified by WE THE PEOPLE, and gained its authority not by the states of its Union, but by the people residing thereof. James Wilson detailed this excellently in his remarks to the Pennsylvania convention:
”State sovereignty, as it is called, is far from being able to support its own weight. Nothing less than authority of the people could either support it or give it efficacy.... In this country, the supreme, absolute, and uncontrollable power resides in the people at large; that they have vested certain proportions of their power in the state governments; but that the fee-simple continues, resides, and remains, with the body of the people.
...
If we go a little further on this subject, I think it shall be seen that the doctrine of original compact cannot be supported consistently with the best principles of government…. Because a contract once entered between the governor and governed becomes obligatory, and cannot be altered without the consent of both parties. The citizens of United America, I presume, do not wish to stand on that footing with those to whom, from convenience, they please to delegate the exercise of general powers for the sustaining and preserving of the Union... The people fetter themselves with no contract.”
(Collected Works of James Wilson, pg. 255. Bold Emphasis added.)
Wilson spoke of a plain truth: the Constitution is not a compact between states, nor a compact between the states and the federal government. If either of these were true then Lincoln’s war would have been justified. He would be correct in stating that the Southern states had no right to break the compact they made with Union without the Union’s consent.
All of this leaves us with an essential question: what happens when the judiciary errs? Who shall watch the watchmen? If we have decided that the states cannot do this, that leaves one other option- the citizens themselves.
I have one gripe with the way you phrase this concept. You stated, ”It is the right and duty of anyone, whether a private citizen or government official, to nullify a bad law.” I have already discussed why the judiciary is the sole branch of government with the authority to nullify laws; I shall now discuss the implications of private citizens with the power of nullification.
The implications of this notion are – to be frank – dangerous. Indeed, I can think of no quicker way to erode the rule of law than this. In essence, your view of the Constitution is not all that different than those progressives championing their Living Constitution. In your case, no law is binding. Every citizen chooses which laws he does not think to be Constitutional (i.e. every law he dislikes), and ignores it.
Think about what you are advocating here. As with Living Constitution theory, your would have the Constitution cease its role as the legal document governing the conduct of the federal government, it soon degenerating into the mere opinion of those reading it. The only practical difference between the two philosophies is that progressives concern themselves only with the opinion of the nine justices on the SCOTUS, while your viewpoint will have 300 million individual interpretations of what the Constitution should mean.
Does this destruction of nullification mean that citizens have no method of redress when the government begins to approach their rights? Of course not. There are two options on the table for any citizen who feels a law to be unjust and dangerous. (Hint: nullification is not one of them.)
The first is civil disobedience. Dr. Martin Luther King, in writing his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” outlined the proper way to conduct such a response to an unjust law:
“In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”
(“Frequently Requested Documents: Letter From Birmingham Jail.” Bold emphasis added.)
The second response is rebellion. If rights are being trampled upon and the Constitution no longer serves to check the federal government, every man can work above the Constitution and exercise his right to protect himself from oppression. But make no mistake, this is not nullification. It is the renouncement of a corrupt government entirely. If you shoot a police officer for illegally entering your house, he loses both the ability to infringe on your privacy and the ability to protect you from criminals. So it is with government. You cannot elect to break laws that do not strike your fancy and yet hold true to the rest. You are abandoning the entire system. If and when such action is necessary, the Constitution (and all legal laws who use it as their foundation) no longer has any authority from you at all.
Thus, we have two choices when confronted with an unjust law. You can break it and accept the legal consequences for doing so, or you can withdraw your consent for a government that creates unjust laws all together.
Posted by: T. Greer at March 7, 2009 4:06 PMThanks, tg, for beating me to a swift defense of James Monroe. Dude fought at Yorktown and served as a foreign emissary to Presidents Washington and Jefferson. Nobody wou;d seriously ascribe the intellectual heft of a Jefferson his direction, but nor would I disqualify his opinion.
Our own "Era of Good Feelings" may be as short-lived as Monroe's, however. I take a third tack on nullification. I'm a big fan of Lysander Spooner and consider individual jury nullification as a foundation of liberty.
I certainly don't see it as reserved to the judicial branch, though in our history of tripartite government, they have been the most reliable (not unlike being the smartest of the Three Stooges).
Posted by: jk at March 8, 2009 12:19 PM | What do you think? [8]