Equal Treatment Under The Law?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by PoliticalChic, Sep 21, 2012.

  1. PoliticalChic
    Offline

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,686
    Thanks Received:
    15,593
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,824
    From Glenn Greenwald's “With Liberty and Justice for Some; How the Law Is Used to Destroy Equality and Protect the Powerful”.....

    1. The central principle of America’s founding was that the rule of law would be the prime equalizing force; the founders considered vast inequality in every other realm to be inevitable and even desirable….

    a. Law was the one exception; no inequality was tolerable. It was the sine qua non ensuring fairness.

    2. The concept has made its way into our clichés: equal before the law, justice is blind, no man is above the law, a nation of laws, not men.

    3. What the founders feared most was that a centralized federal government would erode liberty,...The Constitution was the attempt to prevent that.

    4. The founders recognized that, unless the law was applied equally, the Constitution would become merely a suggestion, compliance being optional.

    5. The central dispute in Marbury v. Madison was whether the courts had the authority to subject officials in the executive branch to their rulings.



    6. And...From "Common Sense," Thomas Paine:

    "But where, say some, is the King of America? I’ll tell you, friend, he reigns above, and doth not make havoc of mankind like the Royal Brute of Great Britain. Yet that we may not appear to be defective even in earthly honours, let a day be solemnly set apart for proclaiming the Charter; let it be brought forth placed on the Divine Law, the Word of God; let a crown be placed thereon, by which the world may know, that so far as we approve of monarchy, that in America the law is king. For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be king; and there ought to be no other.


    Then, there's this:

    7. "The House Ethics Committee has completed a report clearing Rep. Maxine Waters of all ethics charges after nearly three years of investigating the California Democrat.....members of the secretive Ethics panel said they were prepared to issue a report finding the lawmaker innocent of allegations that she tried to secure federal money during the financial crisis for a bank in which her husband owned stock.

    8. [Chief of staff]a letter of reproval for using his position to assist One United Bank, where Waters’s husband owned $350,000 in stock. The letter would reprove Moore for allegedly using his office for personal gain, dispensing favors and bringing discredit against the House.

    9. If Waters is cleared, it would all but guarantee that the veteran lawmaker will take over next year as the top Democrat on the House Financial Services Committee. Rep. Barney Frank (Mass.), who has been the top Democrat there, is retiring."
    House panel set to clear Rep. Maxine Waters of ethics charges - The Hill - covering Congress, Politics, Political Campaigns and Capitol Hill | TheHill.com



    Related:

    10. "A House ethics panel has determined there is no evidence that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) violated congressional rules when she called Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson in 2008 on behalf of minority-owned banks, despite her husband’s financial stake in one troubled institution."
    Maxine Waters cleared of House ethics charges - 2chambers - The Washington Post


    JDLR
     

Share This Page