Special Needs-Based Governance
Legalizing Special-Interest Rule
Our federal sense of justice, more and more imposed upon ordinary citizens, is morphing into a collective of shifting special interests. At the heart of the shift is the use of injustice to justify further injustice and retribution. I want to cover three current examples as the indicator of things to come.
The indictment of Governor Rick Perry, the statements of AG Holder in Ferguson and the administrations subversion of the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court Decision are three contemporary examples of the shifting sands of justice. Our Constitution was meant to set boundaries, but the Supreme Court has over the last 50 years erased those boundaries in the name of special interests to the point of virtually eradicating them.
18 governors have been convicted for criminal violations over the past 50 years. Of those 18, 17 convictions were related to the improper solicitation or use of funding, directly or indirectly. One conviction involved drunk driving. In every single case save the last, the evidence demonstrated that the governor misused the power of their office for their own personal gain.
On Thursday, the instigators of the criminal indictment against Governor Rick Perry wrote an impassioned defense of their reasoning. Their central tenet states “it was the governor’s threats—not his veto—that broke Texas law prohibiting an official from using the power of his or her office to coerce another official into taking an action.” The action, in this case, being resignation and the threat being the withholding of funding from a department.
That the instigators are funded by trial lawyers should come as no surprise. Lawyers have been stretching the interpretation of laws for centuries. What makes the current practice so dangerous is that the foundation of legal interpretation is being insidiously warped for political purposes.
Our country was founded on principles that recognize an inherent power beyond ourselves. As such, we distinguished between two separate bases of criminal liability. The first is based on action that is malum in se, or wrong in and of itself. Murder falls into that category. The second is based on action that is malum prohibidum, or wrong because we say so. Classification was based on faith. We know that murder is wrong because it is in the Bible and the Torah.
Over the past 50 years, lawyers have done an exceptional job of leveraging the distinction in category of offense for their benefit. For example, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act was originally passed to allow for the criminal prosecution of organized crime in 1970. Since its passage, the statute has been used as a club against all sorts of organizations, including Pro-Life groups. The seizure of bank accounts has been used against far-ranging targets, including businesses found to be violating local law.
Governor Perry is being persecuted because of his opposition to special interests. The special prosecutor is aligned with those special interests and wants to extend the law to cover his special interests. To do so will then open up a Pandora’s box for all parties in the future.
AG Holder recently stated “I am the Attorney General… but I am also a Black Man“. Somehow, the color of his skin negates the function of his office. He is allowed to cater to the interest of race in politics and is openly using his office in pursuit of a special-interest agenda. The view of most of our society at this moment is that there are communities of the poor that are organized around self-identified racial, cultural and ancestral lineage.
In the realm of statistics, there are heated debates in progress surrounding two facts: self-identified black males have both a much higher incarceration rate and also a much higher dropout rate than any other self-identified racial group. Regardless of causality, there is a problem. Pointing one’s finger at the police as the core issue oversimplifies it. No one wants the police to use deadly force absent a reasonable belief of necessity. How we determine causality and outcome, though, should not be dictated by special interests.
The federal government and the Supreme Court have stepped in frequently over the past 50 years to declare winners and losers in the battle over minority interests. We have extended the boundaries of the Constitution in ways that would make most scholars cringe, unless of course they favor the special interests involved. What we now have is a legion of lawyers who litigate against anyone opposing their special interests. It is crushing the spirit of the entrepreneur and the common man.
After the Hobby Lobby case, you would expect some relief based on the decision. Instead, the government has stepped right in to try and force the same outcome by redirecting the responsibility. Of course, the insurance company will raise their rates, but they will have to rename the reason to something in compliance with law. Child’s play for a CFO.
Catering to special interests is great for politicians and lawyers. It keeps the money flowing. It also locks in groups for voting purposes. The self-identified homosexual population within the United States is roughly 3.8 percent. This bloc is generally progressive, but has conflict in some cases with other blocs. Throughout the United States there are billions of dollars being spent in terms of advocacy in one direction or another related to this bloc. It is mind-boggling the degree to which the minority is empowered to control the majority.
Special-interest litigation leads to bizarre outcomes. We originally enshrined in the Constitution that we should not establish a state religion, and yet now Atheists have enshrined a state religion. They sue everywhere and anywhere to eliminate faith. What threatens them so much about faith? Hard to fathom. Our Supreme Court started us down this path with the Lemon case and we have been on a road to ruin ever since.
We are not even allowed to have a special interest in the case of being Citizens. In that case, we are not allowed any priority or special consideration. Why have a nation if there is no place for nationalism? Odd, indeed.
Our sole remedy legally now is to vote into office like-minded politicians and to place into the White House someone who will nominate conservative Justices. The signs are fairly positive for November, but we then have a two-year jog toward replacing this ill-conceived cabal of like-minded special interests. I hope they nominate Ms. Warren and take a picture of her burning a Washington Redskins jersey.