Sunday, September 4, 2005
It's amazing what good writing can do in few words. It can explain concisely and hammer home a point that the more verbose failed to deliver. This piece is an example of good writing. I must admit, for whatever reason, Will puts across a good explanation of the 'conservative' view of judicial interpretation that I 'knew' but maybe for whatever reason didn't fully 'get.'
George Will: Questions for Sen. Schumer
But in 1995 the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 was unconstitutional because what the act criminalized -- possession of a firearm in or near a school -- was purely intrastate in nature and its effect, if any, on interstate commerce was negligible. The principal dissent, by Justice Stephen Breyer, argued that a gun might produce violence that would affect the economy by, among other things, injuring the learning environment, resulting in a less productive citizenry.
Do you, Sen. Schumer, support that reasoning? If so, does not Congress have the power to promote a healthy and productive citizenry by requiring flossing and regulating homework? Does it matter to you that the original intent of the commerce clause was to ensure the free movement of goods and services among the states? Do you think that Madison, the foremost Framer of the Constitution, misunderstood the Constitution?...
Update: I started getting hits from the Washington Post after posting this and noticed that they've got a Technorati powered "Read what bloggers are saying about this" box accompanying the column. Very interesting. Good for the Post, and sorry I didn't have more to say about it.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Court Power.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/4674
Oh, you can be SURE if SHUMER were in charge, we'd have that nanny state making sure we all flossed and did our homework and practiced the piano and washed behind our ears.
It's heading that way regardles, but at least it will take longer with Republicans in charge.
Will is, indeed, a superb writer and an even better thinker. And that's why he can get away with tripe like this. If the issue was really this clear cut, we wouldn't be having a (nearly equally divided) national debate about it. And notice that he's chosen his examples with care. By this logic, yes, the majority (indeed the unanimous) opinion in Roe v. Wade should have been Rehnquist's dissent, as Will would prefer. But also by this logic, the unanimous opinion in Brown v. Board of Education should have upheld the "separate but equal" doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson.
After all, surely the Supreme Court was in a better position in 1896 (when it decided Plessy) to interpret the intent of the framers of the 14th Amendment than was the Warren Court in 1954. Curiously, he didn't mention that case.
Will is a good pundit, and his writing shows that. He is a sturdy soldier for the "Republican" position. However, I fail to see his point in this article. Is he merely recapitulating his standard rhetoric against the slowly growing powers of the judicial branch? And is this growing power a result of Democratic domination? If we look at the composition of the Supreme Court over the last 50 years, how many justices were appointed by Republicans? Much more than half. What can we logically infer from this?