Ballot box cancelled out


    Thelton Henderson, Chief U.S. District Judge, November 27, 1997., slapped a temporary restraining order against the implementation of California State Proposition 209. This referendum, passed by 55 percent of California's voters, has declared race and gender to be off-limits when considering such things as college admission, the awarding of public contracts and hiring practices.

    Judge Henderson boldly, if not arrogantly, stated a principle, foreign to sound historical interpretation in American jurisprudence. He said in his written statement, "Courts must look beyond the plain language of an enactment. The relevant question is whether, in reality, the burden imposed by a law necessarily falls on minorities and women."

    Proposition 209 begins with the plain language, "The state shall not discriminate...." This is part of the "plain language of [the] enactment" that Judge Henderson referred to which he must "look beyond". A spokesman for the California State Attorney General's office commented, "How that amounts to discrimination is impossible to understand. It's like saying two plus two does not equal four."

    What the Attorney General has left unsaid is that any form of sound logic, be it mathematical or political, is never a guideline for our present courts if that logic interferes with their ultimate goal. That long-range goal is nothing less than the fragmenting of American society by pitting one social faction against another. The stress and confusion which results when the freedom of one comes in conflict with the freedom of another drains the energies of both. From this conflict arise intense moral shocks, disenchantments and failures. By this means, a nation's society and culture are worn down so effectively that it is forced to surrender its liberties-- and itself--to those powers who deliberately created that confusion. The name of the game, as it has always been, is power and control--not the well-being of the people.

    The complete opening paragraph of Proposition 209 is, "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, [whom? whites over blacks, male over female? No!] ANY individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting."

    It would require much effort to make that opening statement more color, gender or ethnically blind than it is. Judge Henderson's statement concerning the necessity of reinterpreting that plain language, by "look[ing] beyond" it to "reality", should be adequate evidence for any thinking individual as to the existence of hidden purposes that have nothing to do with fairness and equality. Is it now against the constitution to be fair?

    Proposition 209 appears to be an honest effort at re-establishing a certain equity in public occupations. Judge Henderson's restraining order demonstrates the frailty of a judicial system in which one man can thwart the will of millions. The only thing laws have to do with this hidden agenda is when they can be used to further its cause. If they cannot do so, those laws are either interpreted and twisted to fit that agenda or, if that is not possible, ignored altogether.

    It does not take an intellectual giant to understand that equal rights, and therefore civil peace, are not established or maintained by granting rights to some (minorities) while denying them to others. Is not that the very thing that the words "freedom and liberty for all" are given to address?

    The Man of Nazareth once said, "Woe unto you...for ye...have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy and faith...." Matthew 23:23. Could that also be interpreted to include equity?

    It has been said, "As California goes, so goes the nation." This practice by judges, however, of virtually making law rather than merely interpreting it, is not peculiar to the Sunshine State. It has become the norm for both liberal and conservative to use the courts to thwart the express will of the people when that will runs counter to the desires of the very ones the people have ostensibly voted into office.

    It appears that the American judiciary is employing the same means as do third-world dictators when they do not like the outcome of "free" elections. They declare them void. It has often been seen that when a dictator does this they are frequently removed from power as with Manuel Noriega. Now the Serbian people are trying to bring down the regime of Slobodan Melosovic for the same reason. But when a federal judge nullifies, with the stroke of a pen, the results of "free" elections in a democracy, the people have literally no recourse. To remedy such a situation becomes problematic to the point of impossibility when a dictatorship has become a dictatorship of laws as it has in this country.

    Noriega and Melosivic both declared their country's elections void. Has Judge Henderson done any differently? What is the difference if one's freedoms are eliminated by a merciless tyrant or totalitarian ruler, or if they are removed by the caprice of a judge who simply does not like them or is following another less obvious purpose? The results are precisely the same--except the latter cannot be redressed by a revolution or, as Judge Henderson so aptly demonstrated, by election. The people are then left with a peculiar brand of helplessness. Did they not vote the lawmakers into office? Or as in Judge Henderson's case, did they not vote in the president who appointed him?

    The Serbian Supreme Court upheld Melosovic's nullification of the elections that would have removed him. Has Judge Henderson done any differently?

    The conclusion of this matter can be plainly seen by anyone willing, or courageous enough, to look into it with objectivity. We are in the midst of a dictatorship as real as Serbia's or any other, only it is most artistically camouflaged for the sake of those who still think this is the "land of the free." The electoral process has been abrogated, trashed if you will, by a single individual (or several single individuals). Can we not look beyond the cleverly constructed framework that disguises the dictatorship and see it for what it is? The American people are now willing to endure, under this totalitarianism of laws, what they would have hung King George of England for doing two-hundred years ago, had they the opportunity. While we were distracted, looking for some visible enemy like the former Soviet Union to come in and steal our freedoms, we have been wrapped in a bondage of legislation by the very ones we elected to serve our freedoms. Like Gulliver, while we slept the Lilliputians of Congress have tied us up and stolen our democracy from under our noses.

    "And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through." Luke 12:39.

    Too late! We've lost that for which the world once envied us and there is no getting it back. Those in power will continue to direct the course of any elections and laws to suit their goals. The will of the people is nothing more than a contemptible stench in the nostrils of those who would most undeniably have their way were it not for an outcome ordained by a higher Authority.

    "And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him." Daniel 11:45.

Written 1/97


Go to top

Disclaimer: APFN is not responsible for the accuracy of material on 'The Winds'
and does not necessarily endorse the views expressed within their web pages.

This site is in the public domain.