Several weeks ago, one of my Facebook friends messaged me, asking me if I would be willing to read a book that his company is publishing and write a review on my blog. Sure, I replied.
After several days, Elgin Hushbeck's tome Preserving Democracy arrived in the mail. Being a pastor who lends an eye and an ear to current events at every level, my antennae went up. I began to read, and re-read. I was impressed.
Hushbeck really did his homework, for the most part. He vividly described the Roman Republic--before it became an empire under the rule of the emperors--losing its way with regard to the level of democracy it tried to establish. The manner in which the Romans lost their republic are lessons for today's American citizen to carefully study.
Do not, however, presume Preserving Democracy to be merely a historical narrative of a form of government. Hushbeck constructed his book to be educational in a refreshingly realistic fashion, explaining how a free market society is to function as well as the inherent dangers of significant government intervention.
Hushbeck addressed a number of other issues in the book as well: the relationship between the legislative and the judicial branch, and how the judicial branch has risen in power that was never intended by the nation's founding fathers. He points out that the Founding Fathers actually saw the judicial branch as being the weakest of the three branches of government; the other two branches could simply choose to ignore the judicial branch if they were to so choose. That perspective has changed 180 degrees in 220+ years; now both branches are compelled to submit to the judicial branch, lest they be seen as ignoring the law.
It is that attitude that played into the lawsuit filed in federal court in 2009 regarding Article 1, Section 7.5 of the California state constitution, also known as Proposition 8 in its campaign phase. The rationale in play with this action is that the expressed will of over 7 million voters could be rendered meaningless by the opinion (and a little addition to--errr, a new, innovative, interpretation of the United States Constitution) of one single judge, or five justices. On August 4, 2010, we discovered thanks to one judge that sexual orientation is a protected minority group that is on a par with race and gender--the implication being that sexual orientation is as hereditary as race or gender. We also discovered that only certain people are allowed to vote their conscience or their values: those whose values agree with those of the judicial branch.
What to do with the runaway judicial branch?
I tend to agree with one of Hushbeck's ideas: limit who can bring lawsuits. Those lawsuits that would effectively transfer the enforcement powers of the government into the hands of individuals (read: judges) should be banned. The legislative and executive branches of government could pass such laws. But it will never happen.
The reason? Money. Follow the money.
The government is comprised mainly of lawyers. Lawyers who make their money in courtrooms--filing lawsuits. Lawyers voting to take money out of their own pockets? Not going to happen.
But I digress--to a degree. Back to the book.
I like what Hushbeck has written. He has done his homework. He has worked systematically and arrived at solid conclusions. He "gets it." Anyone reading Preserving Democracy will learn something new, and pick up a little inspiration in the process.
0 comments:
Post a Comment