Friday, October 28, 2005

The Next Nominee

Now that the unpleasantness of the Harriet Miers nomination is behind President Bush, where does he go from here? It is a lock that whomever he nominates will be excoriated by the Democrats and left-wing interest groups, so why not go for broke? Pick the fight he should have picked when he chose Miers.

And here is a question I hope, wistfully, that will be asked by one Senator during the upcoming confirmation hearings: What are your thoughts on the 18th and 21st Amendments?

If one needed any proof that the Constitution works as the Framers designed it to work one need look no further than Prohibition. Those who favored temperance (damn them) didn't go before the Court in an attempt to convince five Justices that somewhere in the Constitution alcohol was proscribed; they instead availed themselves of the amendment provision, and through the state and federal legislatures changed the law of the land. In the same way, proponents of the manufacture, importation, and sale of alcohol (bless them) had the previous law invalidated by a subsequent amendment.

Why isn't this same approach applied to abortion? Why are those who favor or oppose the procedure disinclined to have a law passed allowing it or forbidding it? Might such a law, like those relating to prohibition, be subject to the will of the electorate and changed? Of course. But isn't that the whole point of having a republic in the first place?

Are we as a nation willing to be governed by nine unelected quasi-legislators?


Post a Comment

<< Home