The First Amendment

With the hearings taking place over Elena Kagan, there is naturally much discussion regarding the Constitution. One of the most contentious issues is always the First Amendment. The First Amendment is widely known as the amendment where we find the rights to free speech and privacy: two of the the rights most commonly wrestled over. It is the amendment in which abortion and flag burning are anchored. Privacy and speech are important, even vital to democracy. But as important as they are, they are not sufficient. There is another part of the First Amendment: the right to petition government for the redress of grievances. The right to petition government is one of the most important rights we have. It allows us to challenge government and seek remedy for those things we find burdensome or onerous. It is arguably the cornerstone of democracy. It is also the right most often eclipsed in the discussion over the First Amendment.

Every time a right is discovered or expanded by the court, political discourse on the matter ends and the issue is removed from public debate. The matter is settled and cannot be revisited except by the court itself. The public can longer petition the government for change. They certainly cannot petition the court. Redress is no longer available. If there is a grievance, it must be endured. Democracy shrinks as one more issue is removed from the public realm and placed beyond the reach of voters.

The right to petition government is vital to democracy because it gives those unhappy with law or policy the opportunity to change it. The Constitution guarantees that right. No loss is permanent in politics. Each election is a new occasion for the public to avail itself of that right and seek change. Democracy cannot exist without it. To that end, it is the job of the court to ensure that right is protected and available to all people. But what is to be done if the court itself abridges that right? What can be done if the court nibbles away at what the public can and cannot petition? Nothing.

It was never meant for us to take our grievances to the Supreme Court. That is what the statehouse is for. One of the most important jobs of the court is to ensure fair and equal access to the statehouse. But increasingly, access to the statehouse is not enough. People are impatient. Many cannot wait for the statehouse to come around to their point of view. Results are demanded. Political losses have become confused with the abridgement of rights. There is a fear and distrust of democracy among those who rely on courts to secure their political goals. Where democracy is feared and distrusted, it cannot endure.

When the court shifts from determining what the government can and cannot do to what the government ought or ought not do it confuses means with ends and so enters the realm of policy. Society is led down a path to wherever the logic and reasoning of the court takes it. The people must hold their breath every time the court convenes and hope for the best. Indeed, hope is often all they have when it comes to the court. There is no recourse if a decision made by the court runs contrary to the will of the people.

In unrelated news, in its latest release, the Congressional Budget Office announced that, despite the passage of President Obama's health care reform bill and the hundreds of billions spent by the administration to prop up the economy, the national debt will continue to rise. It turns out that the new health care plan passed by Congress will not save money after all. At least it will not save the government money anyway. As it stands, government debt will be be 62 percent of the annual economic output in the U.S by the end of the year. It is predicted to rise to 87 percent by 2020. According to testimony by CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, such a level of debt would be unprecedented. Worse still, it is predicted that the debt will be 109 percent of the GDP by 2025.
We needn't be alarmed though. President Obama is expecting a plan on Wednesday from the deficit commission he appointed. I am sure that as long as the plan does not entail curbing his ambitions or his appetite for big government, Obama will be happy to go along with it, provided, of course, that any painful cuts or reductions can be put off at least until after his reelection. In any event, Obama will be gone before the economy collapses under the weight of the debt. At least I am sure he hopes so.

Tax Breaks

The debt commission appointed by President Obama is scheduled to present its report on containing the national debt later this year. The debt commission is a bi partisan panel created to formulate strategy on dealing with the massive and growing national debt. The debt stands at $13 trillion and is growing fast.

If I had any say in the matter, I would suggest one simple plan. I would not raise taxes or cut spending. I would simply end every tax break, exemption, and subsidy in the nation. There would be no tax shelters, no breaks for children, no business write offs, no subsidies or exemptions: absolutely nothing for anyone. Every one would have to pay the full amount of what they owed each year, every year: every one, with absolutely no exceptions whatsoever.

I would recommend this plan not because I think it is fair. It is not. Nor would it make any significant headway in bringing down the debt: at least not anytime soon. I recommend this because it would be an effective way of bringing home to people how much government costs. If more people experienced how much government truly costs, they might just want less of it. That would be a meaningful first step in getting federal spending under control.

And therein lies the rub. People want more government than they are willing to pay for.

It Has to Be Some One's Fault

On Saturday, a branch fell from a tree in Central Park and killed a 6-month-old girl. The girl and her mother were posing for a picture in the park when the branch fell. The mother was critically injured. A law suit is already in the works.

The incident, according to the New York Times, was the latest in a string of "deadly episodes" in the park. Branches have been falling from trees in the park, "plummeting" to the ground and injuring passers by. According to accounts, there was no indication that the branch was a danger. It was "large and healthy" according to one official. Accidents have been occurring with "alarming frequency" according to the article. No numbers were given.

There is debate in New York City over who is at fault for the accident. The city admitted it did not know who was responsible for the tree. "The investigation is ongoing" said park spokesman Vickie Karp. The Central Park Conservancy, a private group that has maintained trees in the park since 1998, is also under scrutiny. Someone has to be responsible for that tree and its branches.

It was a tragic accident, no doubt about it. But it was a freak accident. So was the previous accident where, after an unusually heavy snow, a snow laden branch fell and killed a man. In the case of the woman and her baby, the branch fell from a tree that gave no indication that it was unhealthy or dangerous. It was one of the thousands of trees in the park. Notwithstanding the rarity with which branches fall from healthy trees, the odds of someone standing under a branch with their baby when it happens is hardly worth even considering. Central Park covers 136 acres. There are over 26,000 trees in the park. Each of those trees has many branches. The city of New York is not only responsible for those 26,000 trees, they are responsible for each and every branch on those trees.

The odds of being struck by a falling branch are extraordinary. It is frequently assumed that the greater the odds against something happening, the more likely someone is behind it when it does. Where the ancient Greeks and Romans saw the machinations of the gods when tragedy struck, modern Americans see liability. There can be no other explanation. It is believed that branches simply don't fall from trees and kill people. But they do. Just not very often. According to the Tree Care Association, there were 407 tree related deaths across the nation between 1995 and 2007. That is less than the number of people killed by lightening. About 90 people a year are killed by lightening.

I read of a case years ago where a man sued God for a misfortune he suffered. He actually won the case (God didn't show up for the trial). The judge congratulated the man on his victory and wished him luck in collecting. Perhaps the man ought to have sued the government instead.

Trees and branches fall all the time. But it is felt they should never fall on people. When it happens, someone should pay. There is already talk of the "death traps" lurking throughout Central Park. How many more trees and branches are going to have to fall on people before the government does something about it? Not many.

In unrelated news, a 12 year old boy at Benjamin Franklin Middle School in New Jersey suspected of being behind a case of cyberbullying was deemed innocent. A key in this determination is that the boy is a poor student and is unable to spell or form correct sentences. The text messages received by the girl were more or less grammatical: a feat beyond the young boy's ability. I suppose the good news at Benjamin Franklin Middle School is that one of their students is not stalking or harassing a young girl. The bad news is that they have a 12 year old boy who cannot spell or form sentences. All things considered, I suppose Benjamin Franklin came out ahead.