Inaccurate arguments don’t deserve to be bolstered
EDITOR:
Mr. Flick’s basic premise in his last two letters seems to be that the Judicial Branch of government was never meant to be co-equal with the Executive and Legislatives branches.
While one could, indeed, present an argument to that effect, it is highly inaccurate to use the Declaration of Independence, Marbury vs. Madison, and Dred Scott vs. Sanford to prove the premise.
The “judicial abuse and misuse of jurisprudence” Mr. Flick finds in the Declaration of Independence were not an indictment of the judiciary. In each case, the referenced abuse was a charge against the king — an executive not a judge — for corrupting the judicial system and manipulating it to unfairly punish the colonists. Since no charges were leveled against the judiciary, itself, it was highly inaccurate to use the Declaration of Independence as proof that the Founding Fathers never meant for the judiciary to be a co-equal branch of government.
In his first letter, Mr. Flick wrote that Thomas Jefferson annulled Marbury vs. Madison. In his second letter, he seems to offer the fact that Marbury never received his credentials as proof of his earlier assertion. Whether or not Marbury received his credentials is totally irrelevant. What is relevant about John Marshall’s decision, which many regard as the most important in our history, is that it established the principle of judicial review. Since judicial review is still in effect today, it was highly inaccurate to claim that Thomas Jefferson annulled Marbury vs. Madison.
In his first letter, Mr. Flick further argued that Abraham Lincoln annulled Dred Scott vs Sanford. Dred Scott was a slave who sued for his freedom after he was taken to live in a state where slavery was prohibited. The Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent were not citizens of the United States and thus had no right to sue in a federal court. The 14th Amendment, enacted in 1868, granted citizenship to freed slaves. Since Abraham Lincoln was assassinated in 1865, it was highly inaccurate to claim that he annulled the Dred Scott decision.
Finally, since I spent more than 30 years teaching school in Anderson County and remain actively engaged in education, it is highly inaccurate to say that I hold education in ridicule. It has been my experience that people often cite their degree(s) to add weight to their arguments. Highly inaccurate arguments do not deserve to be bolstered by affixing a degree to the author’s name. Perhaps this is why an unflattering definition of Ph.D. is sometimes used.
Susan Fowler
Clinton