You’ll remember that the “Princess and the Pea” is a child’s story by Hans Christian Anderson about a Prince who wanted to marry a “real Princess.” The Queen decided to test one of the candidates by placing a pea under a stack of twenty mattresses and twenty feather beds. The Princess when asked the next morning how she had slept replied:

‘Oh terribly bad!’ said the princess. ‘I have hardly closed my eyes the whole night! Heaven knows what was in the bed. I seemed to be lying upon some hard thing, and my whole body is black and blue this morning. It is terrible!’

Now, why a man would ever want to marry a woman this high-maintenance is beyond me, and this begs the question: Why would we ever want a man as high-maintenance as John F. Kerry to be our President?

In fact, as I write this post, Susan Estrich is on Fox’s Special Report with Brit Hume talking about the fact that Kerry just had to get a manicure before the debate. If that’s not “Princess and the Pea”- high maintenance, I don’t know what is. What? Is he afraid he’ll snag his podium with a hangnail?

Others have more ably described Kerry’s propensity for princely deportment. Howie Carr wrote about the Real John Kerry and his reputation for refusing to wait and, instead, barging ahead of people in line belligerently querying those who protest: “Do you know who I am?” Mark Steyn pokes fun at Kerry for his insistence on flying his hairdresser, Christophe, out to cut his hair when campaigning in the boonies.

Kerry’s preoccupation with the minutia of physical appearance and personal comfort is “Princely” but it sure isn’t “Presidential.”

I reach the conclusion that going to Iraq and staying the course is in our interest. As well as protecting and achieving our interests, we must also leave a legacy of individual liberty, stability and friendship to the Iraqi people. Our competitors, the Baathists, terrorists, France, Germany and Russia do not couple their designs on Iraq with such noble motives. For our sake, and the sake of the Iraqis, our only exit strategy should be victory.

• Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
• Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
• Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
• Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention.
• Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.
• Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
• Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
• Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
• Balance a criminal suspect’s fair trial rights with the public’s right to be informed.

(emphasis added)

One of the most applicable parts is the admonition to “recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort” and that “pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.” There is no doubt in my mind that the media has become a willing tool of the terrorists out of thoughtless arrogance. One definition of “arrogance” is “that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power.” There has been ample evidence coming to light, such as the Rathergate incident, that media views itself as a major power in the selection of the next U.S. President. In its quest to elect John Kerry, it thoughtlessly ignores the safety of the Iraqis who struggle to build a free Iraq. Instead, it engages in reckless fear mongering which serves no purpose other than providing talking points for John Kerry, whose use of these stories is even more mendacious.

Albert Schweitzer said: “Ethics is nothing else than reverence for life.” How appropriate his definition is in this context. Now more than ever, it is time that we hold the Media accountable to its own Code of Ethics.

Hat Tip: Beldar
The Flinch

I finally received and watched my copy of Stolen Honor, the documentary created by Carlton Sherwood. I usually don’t cry during movies, but I experienced some definite eye-watering during this one. The movie features testimony by brave men who were POW’s during John Kerry’s treacherous Senate testimony. These men truly possess courage and it shows. I came away with the deepest respect for them. John Kerry is merely a holograph compared to them.

The documentary expands on the facts contained in Unfit for Command chronicling Kerry’s testimony and, especially, his two trips to Paris to meet with the enemy. This, by far, was the most disturbing part of the book to me. Here is a man who ate with, slept near and was on the same team as men who were still in danger in Vietnam. The safety of his “Band of Brothers” and the safety of American POW’s were obviously trumped in Kerry’s mind by his ambition to become a political force.

This poses the question of whether or not John Kerry has the capacity for compassion and empathy for individual human beings. Expressing compassion for groups is insufficient. As Paul Johnson chronicles in his excellent book, Intellectuals, there have been plenty of influential people who have championed groups of people such as the poor. After spending a day engaged in such “championing”, these men would return to their homes to neglect and brutalize their friends and families. The most disgusting example brought to light in Intellectuals is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Robespierre called Rousseau: “…the one man who, through the loftiness of his soul and the grandeur of his character, showed himself worthy of the role of teacher of mankind.” Meanwhile, Rousseau was dumping his newborn children on the steps of the State Orphanage. Given the conditions of the orphanage, he was knowingly abandoning them to an almost certain death. Rather than experiencing shame for his actions, he “formulated” a theory of education to be later embraced by totalitarian governments. His children were not “real people” to him. They were mere constructs to be used in his writings.

I recalled this chapter from Intellectuals while I was watching Stolen Honor because of one particular scene. It was a scene that features Joan Baez standing in front of American POW’s in Vietnam singing Joe Hill. I fast-forwarded to the scene multiple times in abhorrent disbelief.

Joan Baez is a woman who fancies herself to be committed to “nonviolence, peace, and the human dignity of all people.” One would assume that she is committed to these ideals because she cares about individual people. As far as I am concerned she failed the most important test of that assumption that she has or ever will face. She stood there singing an insipid song in her beautiful, angelic voice while confronted with real people who happened to be her own countrymen trapped in hellish circumstances that she was obliviously making worse. What was she thinking?! Was she thinking about the men themselves and what they were going through? Or, were these brave men merely cardboard characters populating the background of a personal drama starring herself as a gentle, loving, peaceful and righteous person. If this is any indication, the POWs plight did not seem to register with her. So here she was, seemingly unfazed in the presence of other human beings in obvious distress, who wouldn’t look her in the eye and who were in the hands of our enemy.

John Kerry obviously viewed his fellow serviceman in the same manner. He created his own little drama starring himself explaining to U.S. Senators, in round and melodic tones almost as pleasing as Joan Baez’s voice, how his fellow servicemen were akin to the barbarous armies of “Jingus” Khan. While purporting to be doing this on behalf of American Soldiers so that none of them would be the “last man to die for a mistake”, he caused immeasurable harm to real people experiencing the hell of combat and POW camps.

There is, I am sure, some psychological explanation for this failure to have real awareness of and empathy for actual human beings. The explanation is beyond me. I don’t really care to know. I simply want to have the ability to discern people like this and to prevent them from having any power over me.

This is one important reason explaining why I will vote for George Bush instead of John Kerry. I don’t care to be one of the characters in John Kerry’s self-aggrandizing drama about being President of the United States.

Stones-Cry-Out comments on this article by UCLA law professor, Eugene Volokh that is also linked by Instapundit. The article concerns the recent bill passed by the House of Representatives which would remove jurisdiction from Federal Courts regarding the Pledge of Allegiance: “No court created by Act of Congress shall have any jurisdiction, and the Supreme Court shall have no appellate jurisdiction, to hear or decide any question pertaining to the interpretation of, or the validity under the Constitution of, the Pledge of Allegiance . . . or its recitation.” About that action and Professor Volokh’s criticisms of it, Rick at Stones-Cry-Out writes the following:

And perhaps the House’s action yesterday was not wise as
suggested by Volokh. But, I wish I could talk to that
professor one more time, if not to just gloat a bit. Well
maybe that’s wrong.

I’m no lawyer (yet), so I’m not in any place to argue whether
the House is right, or if Volokh is right. Regardless, I still
think it was a bold move by Congress. What say the Smart Guys?

One of Rick’s commentors answers that question via a history published by the Washington Times. Yes, Congress has used the Article to check the Judicial Branch.

This history is also discussed in the book, The Supremacists: The Tyranny Of Judges And How To Stop It by Phyllis Schlafly. I recently read this book and found it extremely informative and useful because it not only chronicles the rise of judicial activism, it also articulates a plan for combatting it. The book is clearly written for the lay person as opposed to the attorney. To me, this does not diminish the value of the book at all. In fact, it accomplishes one of what I believe should be a purpose of the blogosphere: the demystification of the legal system. It is my opinion that whereas lawyers should be preservers of representative government and individual liberty, we have instead become High Priests mystifying the “masses” with legalese and self-righteous pontifications in order to retain status and power (and the money that comes with same) As Ms. Schlafly (who is a lawyer) states in her book: “We must stop the judicial supremacists who have been systematically dismantling the architecture of our unique, three-branch constitutional republic and replacing it with an Imperial Judiciary. Since the legal community has a vested interest in the status quo, this task must be undertaken by grassroots Americans. (emphasis added) We must raise a mighty demand that Congress do its duty.”

Ms. Schlafly suggests ten steps to combat the “Imperial Judiciary”. One of the steps concerns the topic of this post, the legislation of exceptions to court jurisdiction. Professor Volohk does not dispute the position taken by Ms. Schlafly that Congress has the power to so limit jurisdiction. Rather, he debates the efficacy of doing so with respect to the “under God” phrase in the Pledge of allegiance. (I cannot discern whether he thinks “jurisdiction-stripping” is bad in all circumstances) It is his opinion that the law “might have the perverse effect of jeopardizing the “under God” rather than preserving it.” He reasons that state supreme courts may hold the phrase to be unconstitutional under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and that other state supreme courts may follow suit by relying on the precedents set by the former because “courts throughout the country tend to try to interpret the U.S. Constitution consistently with the decisions of other courts.” Thus, his conclusion is that the states would accomplish the outlawing of the words “under God” in the Pledge. He also believes that the U.S. Supreme Court will uphold the phrase and that recourse to the Court is the safer bet. I’d like to discuss both of those points and ask Professor Volohk a few questions.

I am not a constitutional lawyer (although I am a lawyer) like Professor Volohk, so I don’t know upon what evidence he bases his opinion that the states would follow each other in outlawing the phrase. It does sound reasonable on its face. However, I believe that if the Texas Supreme Court ever had the audacity to hold the phrase “under God” to be unconstitutional based on the opinion of say, the Californian Supreme Court or the Massachusetts Supreme Court, the Texas Justices would be “ridden out on a rail” the next day.

The Texas Justices are directly elected. Many jurist and lawyers are critical of the election of judges because it injects “politics” into the judiciary. Years ago, 60 Minutes actually did an expose on Texas Judges suggesting that the system is corrupt because of campaign contributions by Plaintiff’s Personal Injury Lawyers and/or Insurance Companies (in a follow up) I, personally, prefer the system of electing judges at the state level, regardless of the risk of money “corrupting” the system. I like the fact that the citizenry can get rid of a judge who is arrogant or corrupt or a rabid ideologue. In fact, who is more dangerous, a “Good ole Boy” who likes money, and therefore can be reasoned with, or an ideologue like Ruth Bader Ginsberg who has the bench for life and upon whom the general citizenry has little influence? I digress and this is a debate for another day.

Let’s get back to Professor Volohk’s argument that removing the courts’ jurisdiction regarding the Pledge of Allegiance may jeopardize the phrase “under God” because of the actions of state supreme courts. Phyllis Schafly addresses this issue of state supreme court activism in the context of the Defense of Marriage Act. She supports Congressional legislation preventing Court action on both the Pledge of Allegiance and on the Defense of Marriage Act. Acknowledging the actions of the Massachusetts’s Supreme Court with regard to same-sex-marriage, Ms. Schlafly admits that the DOMA will not prevent state supreme courts from allowing the issuance of same-sex-marriage licenses, “but it would mean that the federal government would not have to recognize those licenses and that the federal courts could not be used to force other states to recognize them.” (Page 125) She goes on to assert, “Massachusetts may yet figure out a way to deal with its own judicial supremacists.” Since the The Supremacists went to press, it appears that Massachusetts is working on doing just that.

So, I would pose the following question to Professor Volohk on this point: If state supreme courts do jeopardize the phrase “under God” with activist rulings, why can’t state legislatures rein in those courts with constitutional amendments and/or limitations on the jurisdiction of those courts?

Finally, Professor Volohk performs a risk/benefit analysis on this instance of jurisdiction-stripping. It is his conclusion that it is safer to leave this particular decision in the hands the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that “most commentators assume, based on the opinions and oral arguments in the earlier Pledge case, that if the Supreme Court faced the issue again (without the procedural problem that caused the Justices to dismiss the earlier case), they would uphold the words, rather than striking them down.” Again, I defer to Professor Volohk’s greater knowledge of these cases, the commentaries and of constitutional law in general.

However, I agree with Ms. Schlafly that it is imperative to directly confront and face down these Judicial Supremacists now. Federal Courts are more and more rapidly eroding our system of self-government by their decisions on the Pledge, marriage, taxation and other topics. Furthermore, I have more confidence than does Professor Volohk in the ability of the citizens of individual states to influence their own representative bodies and to stop the Judicial Supremacists on their own state courts. So, I would ask Professor Volohk: How would you battle Judicial Supremacy and on what issue would you begin the fight?

Limiting jurisdiction of Federal Courts is not unusual. I am a health care lawyer who represents long-term care providers such as nursing homes in actions that the State and Federal governments take against them. Although, actions by these governments can deprive my clients of property (money), their due process rights are abbreviated at the behest of Congress in return for allowing these providers to participate in the scheme. Therefore, they have very limited recourse to State or Federal courts in these disputes.

Because I believe that Judicial Supremacists are undermining our representative form of government, I have no problem with the concept of limiting jurisdiction of the courts–and I believe that doing so is constitutional. So, I say, why not start confronting them with “jurisdiction-stripping” of their ability to rule on the Pledge issue? Although I am not diminishing the importance of the words “under God”, isn’t this a better issue to begin with than marriage? Why not make this issue the “point man” before deploying the rest of the troops in the battle against the increasingly “Imperial” Judiciary?