Posted by Eugene Volokh:
>From Prof. Rick Garnett on Why He Supports Fred Thompson for President:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199296736
From [1]Prof. Rick Garnett -- please see [2]here for more on this
feature:
A candidate for President should present to the voters a reasonably
attractive personality, experience and evidence of sound judgment,
a clear-eyed understanding of the challenges and opportunities our
Nation faces, and an array of plausible, sound policy proposals.
(Fundraising prowess and skeleton-free closets are nice, too.) He
or she should also -- and this is crucial -- understand and
appreciate the close, rich connection between the enjoyment of
human liberty and the structural features of the limited government
for which our Constitution is a blueprint.
An eminent scholar of constitutional law, echoing James Madison and
many other luminaries, has observed that "[t]he genius of the
American Constitution lies in its use of structural devices to
preserve individual liberty." I agree. And, in my view, the
candidate who seems most inclined, and best prepared, to honor this
"genius" is Sen. Fred Thompson.
Every candidate has a stump speech and each has floated, endorsed,
and promised -- ideally, without contradiction or inconsistency --
a dizzying array of programs, initiatives, and -- of course --
"changes." Informed voters realize, though, that so much of what
presidential candidates propose and embrace is, to a great extent,
beyond the practical capacity of Presidents to get done. A
candidate can say -- and they all do -- that he or she will "reform
health-care" or "restore traditional family values" or "defend our
borders", but sophisticated citizens understand that a President's
ability to deliver these goodies is constrained by Senate rules,
powerful House Committee chairpersons, the stock market's
performance, and the like.
We need to ask, then, not only about a candidate's grab-bag of
wonkery and litany of bullet-points, but also about his or her
animating commitments. Sen. Thompson has staked out what I think
are realistic and responsible positions on a wide range of
important issues. More important, though, he has developed and
shared, in a way that goes well beyond candidates' usual sound-bite
sloganeering, the "first principles", which arise "out of the
documents of Nation's founding and the wisdom of the ages", and
that "guide [his] approach to the issues that are crucial to our
Nation's future." (Go to the campaign web site, and see for
yourself.) This exposition is one that, in my view, commends Sen.
Thompson's candidacy to all of us who value the rule of law and
cherish our Constitution's particular "genius."
Sen. Thompson understands -- as did the Framers -- that (in his
words) "[g]overnment must be strong enough to protect us, competent
enough to provide basic government services, but limited by the
delineated powers in the Constitution." To achieve and maintain
such a government -- in a way that protects and respects human
freedom -- is, of course, no small challenge. Our constitutional
response to this challenge reflects the considered belief that, as
the Supreme Court has put it, "liberty of the person inheres in
[constitutional] structure." Put differently, and as Chief Justice
Rehnquist observed, this "constitutionally mandated division of
authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our
fundamental liberties."
These are not airy abstractions, far removed from real-world,
"kitchen table" concerns. Our President must understand -- and I
believe Sen. Thompson does -- the Constitution's end (human
freedom) and means (federalism, separation of powers, and limited
government). This matters more, all things considered, than the
extent to which his canned debate answers please dial-turning
focus-group members. "Our Constitution," he recognizes,
"innovatively guarantees our liberties by spreading power among the
three branches of the federal government, and between the federal
government and the states."
(For more from Sen. Thompson on this point, go [3]here.)
Now, among the President's most important responsibilities --
second only, perhaps, to his national-security duties and his
obligations as Commander in Chief -- is the identification,
nomination, and support of Executive officials and federal judges
who understand the Constitution's "innovative" design and their own
role in its service. They must be willing to enforce the
Constitution's limited-government and separation-of-powers features
and, at the same time, respect the limits on their own powers.
Federal judges must appreciate -- they must really believe -- that
the Constitution protects freedom not so much by authorizing them
to resolve divisive moral and policy questions as by structuring
government in a way that facilitates the enjoyment of ordered
liberty.
No doubt, the valuable assistance Sen. Thompson provided during the
confirmation of our new, excellent Chief Justice both confirmed and
deepened his understanding of the importance of good judges. And,
once again, Sen. Thompson's clear statement of "principles"
justifies our confidence: "A free and independent judiciary that
interprets the law by adhering strictly to legal text and respects
its limited role in our system of government is essential to our
security and freedom, and we need judges who understand that role
if we are to preserve our republic and freedom."
Finally, this last statement adds texture to Sen. Thompson's firm,
consistent, multi-faceted commitment to the dignity of human life,
which has earned the respect and endorsement of a wide range of
pro-life groups and individuals. Some might wonder whether Sen.
Thompson's pro-life views are in tension with his
limited-government principles. They are not. Quite the contrary, in
fact. At the end of the day, no political community can be what
ours aspires to be if it excludes children in the womb entirely
from the law's protection. Even a limited government limits private
violence. Putting aside the merits of the moral question, though,
there exist few greater insults to the freedom-protecting
structural features of our Constitution than the Supreme Court's
gross and arrogant overreaches in the Roe and Casey decisions. Only
a presidential candidate who sees -- as Sen. Thompson does -- these
rulings for what they are can, at the end of the day, be taken
seriously as a friend of ordered liberty through limited
government.
References
1. http://law.nd.edu/faculty/facultypages/garnettr/
2. http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2007_12_30-2008_01_05.shtml#1199295694
3. http://www.fred08.com/Virtual/Federalism.aspx
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
