Inconvienent laws
\Who would have ever thought that President Bush and the University of Michigan had so much in common?
On the right side of the aisle, we have President Bush. President Bush decided that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA) was inconvienent, and didn't want to follow it. Despite the clear language of the law, which provides instructions for when electronic surveillence can be performed without a court order, the President claimed that being Commander-in-Chief trumped the law, so he disregarded it.
On the left side of the aisle, we have the University of Michigan. The University decided that Proposal 2 was inconvienent, and didn't want to follow it. Despite the clear language of the law, which states that it takes effect December 23, the University claimed that it was "unfair", and persuaded a court to allow it to disregard the law, at least until next July. The University is currently studying ways to disregard as much of the law as it can.
The right side of the political spectrum believes that President Bush is doing the right thing in disregarding the law, because President Bush is doing it for a good cause -- fighting terrorism. The left side of the political spectrum believes that the University is doing the right thing in disregarding the law, because the University is doing it for a good cause -- promoting diversity. In other words, both sides believe that the end justifies the means.
I find it a very disturbing trend that government entities are attempting to circumvent the law because the law isn't what they want. First of all, the government is there to implement the law. Second, while I don't like the idea of government lobbying to change the laws for its benefit, the government can lobby the appropriate parties (Congress for Federal laws, voters for state constitutions) to change the law. Going around the law because the government doesn't like it undermines the very nature of our Constitutional system of government.
On the right side of the aisle, we have President Bush. President Bush decided that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillence Act (FISA) was inconvienent, and didn't want to follow it. Despite the clear language of the law, which provides instructions for when electronic surveillence can be performed without a court order, the President claimed that being Commander-in-Chief trumped the law, so he disregarded it.
On the left side of the aisle, we have the University of Michigan. The University decided that Proposal 2 was inconvienent, and didn't want to follow it. Despite the clear language of the law, which states that it takes effect December 23, the University claimed that it was "unfair", and persuaded a court to allow it to disregard the law, at least until next July. The University is currently studying ways to disregard as much of the law as it can.
The right side of the political spectrum believes that President Bush is doing the right thing in disregarding the law, because President Bush is doing it for a good cause -- fighting terrorism. The left side of the political spectrum believes that the University is doing the right thing in disregarding the law, because the University is doing it for a good cause -- promoting diversity. In other words, both sides believe that the end justifies the means.
I find it a very disturbing trend that government entities are attempting to circumvent the law because the law isn't what they want. First of all, the government is there to implement the law. Second, while I don't like the idea of government lobbying to change the laws for its benefit, the government can lobby the appropriate parties (Congress for Federal laws, voters for state constitutions) to change the law. Going around the law because the government doesn't like it undermines the very nature of our Constitutional system of government.
posted by David at 12/21/2006 09:36:00 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home