Patch

Today the Patch was listening to a conservative radio talk show; the host was going on about the Supreme Court's ruling on juvenile death pentely. (And the Christian Right's manna, Roe Verses Wade.) He was ranting about a bunch of old men deciding what the US Constitution is or is not. He said the people should be the ones to decide. On and on the man ranted, his callers were doing the same. The Patch suspects the talking head knows better and just laughs at his listeners all the way to the bank. These people all said that the Supreme Court should be abolished. Now doesn't that make one wonder why there is a Supreme Court? Has ever in history has a greater group of men ever come with something greater then the US Constitution? So a little history from the Patch.

From the web page www.usconstitution.net

"The United States Constitution is deliberately inefficient.
The Separation of Powers devised by the framers of the Constitution was designed to do one primary thing: to prevent the majority from ruling with an iron fist. Based on their experience, the framers shied away from giving any branch of the new government too much power. The separation of powers provides a system of shared power known as Checks and Balances.
Three branches are created in the Constitution. The Legislative, composed of the House and Senate, is set up in Article 1. The Executive, composed of the President, Vice-President, and the Departments, is set up in Article 2. The Judicial, composed of the federal courts and the Supreme Court, is set up in Article 3.
Each of these branches has certain powers, and each of these powers is limited, or checked, by another branch.
For example, the President appoints judges and departmental secretaries. But these appointments must be approved by the Senate. ( Conservatives say the Presidet should have the right to appoint these people without senate approval, but here we see the power of checks and balance ) The Congress can pass a law, but the President can veto it. The Supreme Court can rule a law to be unconstitutional, but the Congress, with the States, can amend the Constitution. (This was what I was listening to, the host was claiming the Supreme Court does not have or should not the right to rule. I believe he said it was not in the Constitution. )
All of these checks and balances, however, are inefficient. But that's by design rather than by accident. By forcing the various branches to be accountable to the others, no one branch can usurp enough power to become dominant. "
( This is why any time one hears a elective official claim speed to pass laws or regulations, voters should resist, most likely the law or regulation won't stand up to review, some special interest will be involved.)The Patch thinks the US Constitution should be taught in all 12 grades of school. Study the Constitution and one will study the History of the United States

The farmers of the Constitution knew of the tyranny of the majority and this separation of powers was to prevent this tyranny. ( And what are Americans trying to do today, concentrate all the powers one person, the President. Americans better bone up on history.)

Terrorism is producing the greatest test in the history of our country against these checks and balances. Laws like the patriot Act and Homeland Security Act attempt to by-pass these checks and balances. We Americans should insist our government on one hand should fight terrorism with all its power, but on the other hand protect our constitutional rights. Hard job no doubt about it, but lose our constitutional rights and what do we have?

The Patch