Our past lives in the shadows were things are not always clear, not even to ourselves. There are times when what is remembered were our intentions, not our actions. We do tend to justify our actions with our motivations. I do believe that the majority of us act in good faith. Yes there are those among us that act only in regard to their own wants. That is the reason for law, to punish those that would act contrary to accepted behaviors. I don't see law as a deterrent, I view law as punishment. Those that study law call it retributivism. Punishment is administered in response to the commission of a crime. The degree of punishment proportional to the crime committed. I don't believe making laws in and of itself serves as the deterrent. Much like telling a child, don't do that, if the action is repeated punishment must follow. The " law " serves as a warning only, an explanation of consequence. To be effective that consequence must be swift and consistent. Behaviors are learned based on personal experiences. Truly it is a risk and reward sort of thing.
I believe it is for that reason our constitution provides for a presumption of innocence. That can be found in the Due Process clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The constitution had been ratified in March of 1789. Following the initial excitement of that accomplishment there were those that were still upset. They were known as the anti-federalists and expressed grave concerns about the power of government. In response to that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution in 1791. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. Following the civil war the 13,14 and 15 amendments were added. Known as the civil war amendments they protect the people from the power of the states. The constitution and its' amendments remain today as the supreme law of the land. A presumption of innocence is necessary to the republic.
All of that lives in the shadows today, although much light is shed upon it. That past is subject to interpretation. We must assume innocence when interpreting that document and its' subsequent amendments. We must judge the results, not the intent. As to motivation that was clearly and precisely explained in the preamble. Indeed, thirteen years earlier those same men that composed the Constitution had declared, " when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. " It seems clear to me with that declaration of a " decent respect for the opinions of mankind " the motivation was made clear. They went on to explain that government should derive its' just powers from the people. The summation was preceded by these words, "To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. " The facts were listed for anyone to determine the validity of the claims being made. The trust was placed in the " respect for the opinions of mankind " and that trust would be rewarded. I submit that that trust was rewarded by the very " Nature's God " that entitled them to declare such.
And so today the senate will vote of the confirmation for a supreme court justice. A justice who has had to face accusations from the past. A past cast in shadow and doubt. There must be the presumption of innocence. Indeed, isn't that what is required of every judge as a prerequisite to assuming the role of judge? Isn't that what you would expect of him were you on trial? He must be extended that guarantee. The accusations were heard and investigated. There is no corroborating evidence. By a preponderance of the evidence innocence must be declared. The facts have been submitted to a candid world. The world owes its' candid opinion to Judge Kavanaugh. An opinion influenced only by fact, not political bands. Unbiased. unprejudiced and just.
I believe it is for that reason our constitution provides for a presumption of innocence. That can be found in the Due Process clauses in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. The constitution had been ratified in March of 1789. Following the initial excitement of that accomplishment there were those that were still upset. They were known as the anti-federalists and expressed grave concerns about the power of government. In response to that the Bill of Rights was added to the constitution in 1791. The Bill of Rights protects the people from the government. Following the civil war the 13,14 and 15 amendments were added. Known as the civil war amendments they protect the people from the power of the states. The constitution and its' amendments remain today as the supreme law of the land. A presumption of innocence is necessary to the republic.
All of that lives in the shadows today, although much light is shed upon it. That past is subject to interpretation. We must assume innocence when interpreting that document and its' subsequent amendments. We must judge the results, not the intent. As to motivation that was clearly and precisely explained in the preamble. Indeed, thirteen years earlier those same men that composed the Constitution had declared, " when in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. " It seems clear to me with that declaration of a " decent respect for the opinions of mankind " the motivation was made clear. They went on to explain that government should derive its' just powers from the people. The summation was preceded by these words, "To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world. " The facts were listed for anyone to determine the validity of the claims being made. The trust was placed in the " respect for the opinions of mankind " and that trust would be rewarded. I submit that that trust was rewarded by the very " Nature's God " that entitled them to declare such.
And so today the senate will vote of the confirmation for a supreme court justice. A justice who has had to face accusations from the past. A past cast in shadow and doubt. There must be the presumption of innocence. Indeed, isn't that what is required of every judge as a prerequisite to assuming the role of judge? Isn't that what you would expect of him were you on trial? He must be extended that guarantee. The accusations were heard and investigated. There is no corroborating evidence. By a preponderance of the evidence innocence must be declared. The facts have been submitted to a candid world. The world owes its' candid opinion to Judge Kavanaugh. An opinion influenced only by fact, not political bands. Unbiased. unprejudiced and just.
No comments:
Post a Comment