Democracy Demands Wisdom
Attorney Andrew Cohen analyzes legal issues for CBS News and CBSNews.com.
First, Sarah Palin couldn't name a single United States Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed. During that same interview, she showed a frightening lack of understanding about the nature of the Bill of Rights in the framework of our Constitution. Next, the Republican vice-presidential candidate declared that the Vice President "runs" the United States Senate. And now she's wondering aloud whether the media violate the First Amendment - and her First Amendment rights - when they criticize campaign strategy.
These flat-out-incorrect, borderline bizarre assertions would likely get Gov. Palin run out of any self-respecting law school or political science department in the country. And they are part of the reason why a growing number of Americans - the figure was 59 percent in the last CBS News/New York Times poll - believe she is not prepared to be president. What is astonishing about that figure, however, is not that it's large and getting larger; it's that roughly four out of 10 Americans apparently still believe that she is qualified to take over the executive branch should something happen to 72-year-old John McCain.
If, as the old saying goes, democracy demands wisdom, than what does this 40 percent figure say about the state of our democracy (and the state of our historical, legal and political wisdom) as the 2008 campaign winds to a close? Do people not understand the reasons why Palin's legal conclusions are so objectively wrong? Do they understand but not care? Do they understand, and care, but feel that they'd rather have her in office anyway? I can't answer those questions - no one can. But I can humbly note here why it is profoundly disturbing that any national candidate for elected office would know so little basic information about such vital topics as the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights.
Let's start with the Supreme Court questions. One month ago, Katie Couric asked Gov. Palin: "Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?" Now, you should know that some conservative legal scholars have already answered this question with a "no," arguing that the "right to privacy" is not specifically contained in the language of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. These folks generally have tended to excoriate the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who in a 1971 case about contraceptives somehow found "emanations" of a privacy right within the "pneumbras" of other parts of the Constitution.
Palin did not mention any of that and I don't blame her. It's pretty dense legal stuff (even though criticizing Douglas' overreach might just be the best legal argument anti-abortion activists have). Instead, Palin answered: "I do. Yeah, I do" and then added in the context of the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, that she believes "that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."
I don't know what that means. But Palin got a chance to clarify when Couric then asked her to name a Supreme Court decision with which Palin disagrees. Palin answered: "Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric tried again: "Can you think of any?" Palin responded: "Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." You follow? Good, because I couldn't. This is the sort of gibberish from Palin that has made Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey even more famous than she was before.
Now, it's bad enough that a candidate for vice president of the United States couldn't name Plessy v. Ferguson, the case which ratified the odious "separate but equal" doctrine under the law, or the Dred Scott case, which stamped blacks as property and not people, or any of the Depression-era cases which blocked child-labor laws and so forth. Most decent high school students could name you at least one of those cases. Heck, even most prime-time television viewers could name you the "Miranda" case about the right to remain silent.
Worse, however, is Palin's lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. The drafters of the Bill of Rights included its individual protections because they were fearful of local prejudices and injustices. This explains why the people of Wasilla, Alaska, for example, cannot simply vote to execute anyone they believe is a witch. That vital distinction is our laws seems foreign to Palin. If she understands it she has yet to communicate it to the public.
The same grassroots ignorance arose again a few weeks ago when Palin told a group of school kids that the vice president "runs" the Senate. This is flat-out wrong and a perversion of the concept of separation of powers. Even Lyndon Johnson, one of the most influential Senators in history, essentially got run out of the Senate when he became John F. Kennedy's second-in-command. And, contrary to Palin's latest error, the First Amendment is designed to preclude the government from enacting laws that infringe upon the rights of citizens to speak freely. It is not designed to protect government officials from what they perceive to be unfair criticism.
I believe that Palin made these silly statements because she truly does not know any better - I guess five different colleges in six years, ending with the University of Idaho, doesn't buy you as much as it used to - and because her handlers couldn't even conceive in their darkest, most skeptical moments that they would have to give her a high school-level briefing about basic constitutional concepts. This is a credit to them and a shame to her. Just as it is a credit to the 59 percent of you who apparently have judged Palin for her lack of coherence about the law - and a shame to the rest who apparently are quite comfortable defining down into parody the litmus test for high public office. You want good governance? Elect smart people. Democracy demands wisdom not just from the elected but from the electorate.
By Andrew Cohen
Copyright 2009 CBS. All rights reserved. First, Sarah Palin couldn't name a single United States Supreme Court decision with which she disagreed. During that same interview, she showed a frightening lack of understanding about the nature of the Bill of Rights in the framework of our Constitution. Next, the Republican vice-presidential candidate declared that the Vice President "runs" the United States Senate. And now she's wondering aloud whether the media violate the First Amendment - and her First Amendment rights - when they criticize campaign strategy.
These flat-out-incorrect, borderline bizarre assertions would likely get Gov. Palin run out of any self-respecting law school or political science department in the country. And they are part of the reason why a growing number of Americans - the figure was 59 percent in the last CBS News/New York Times poll - believe she is not prepared to be president. What is astonishing about that figure, however, is not that it's large and getting larger; it's that roughly four out of 10 Americans apparently still believe that she is qualified to take over the executive branch should something happen to 72-year-old John McCain.
If, as the old saying goes, democracy demands wisdom, than what does this 40 percent figure say about the state of our democracy (and the state of our historical, legal and political wisdom) as the 2008 campaign winds to a close? Do people not understand the reasons why Palin's legal conclusions are so objectively wrong? Do they understand but not care? Do they understand, and care, but feel that they'd rather have her in office anyway? I can't answer those questions - no one can. But I can humbly note here why it is profoundly disturbing that any national candidate for elected office would know so little basic information about such vital topics as the Constitution, the separation of powers, and the Bill of Rights.
Let's start with the Supreme Court questions. One month ago, Katie Couric asked Gov. Palin: "Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?" Now, you should know that some conservative legal scholars have already answered this question with a "no," arguing that the "right to privacy" is not specifically contained in the language of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. These folks generally have tended to excoriate the late Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who in a 1971 case about contraceptives somehow found "emanations" of a privacy right within the "pneumbras" of other parts of the Constitution.
Palin did not mention any of that and I don't blame her. It's pretty dense legal stuff (even though criticizing Douglas' overreach might just be the best legal argument anti-abortion activists have). Instead, Palin answered: "I do. Yeah, I do" and then added in the context of the abortion case, Roe v. Wade, that she believes "that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that."
I don't know what that means. But Palin got a chance to clarify when Couric then asked her to name a Supreme Court decision with which Palin disagrees. Palin answered: "Well, let's see. There's, of course in the great history of America there have been rulings, that's never going to be absolute consensus by every American. And there are those issues, again, like Roe v. Wade, where I believe are best held on a state level and addressed there. So you know, going through the history of America, there would be others but …
Couric tried again: "Can you think of any?" Palin responded: "Well, I could think of … any again, that could be best dealt with on a more local level. Maybe I would take issue with. But, you know, as mayor, and then as governor and even as a vice president, if I'm so privileged to serve, wouldn't be in a position of changing those things but in supporting the law of the land as it reads today." You follow? Good, because I couldn't. This is the sort of gibberish from Palin that has made Saturday Night Live's Tina Fey even more famous than she was before.
Now, it's bad enough that a candidate for vice president of the United States couldn't name Plessy v. Ferguson, the case which ratified the odious "separate but equal" doctrine under the law, or the Dred Scott case, which stamped blacks as property and not people, or any of the Depression-era cases which blocked child-labor laws and so forth. Most decent high school students could name you at least one of those cases. Heck, even most prime-time television viewers could name you the "Miranda" case about the right to remain silent.
Worse, however, is Palin's lack of understanding of the Bill of Rights as a bulwark against the tyranny of the majority. The drafters of the Bill of Rights included its individual protections because they were fearful of local prejudices and injustices. This explains why the people of Wasilla, Alaska, for example, cannot simply vote to execute anyone they believe is a witch. That vital distinction is our laws seems foreign to Palin. If she understands it she has yet to communicate it to the public.
The same grassroots ignorance arose again a few weeks ago when Palin told a group of school kids that the vice president "runs" the Senate. This is flat-out wrong and a perversion of the concept of separation of powers. Even Lyndon Johnson, one of the most influential Senators in history, essentially got run out of the Senate when he became John F. Kennedy's second-in-command. And, contrary to Palin's latest error, the First Amendment is designed to preclude the government from enacting laws that infringe upon the rights of citizens to speak freely. It is not designed to protect government officials from what they perceive to be unfair criticism.
I believe that Palin made these silly statements because she truly does not know any better - I guess five different colleges in six years, ending with the University of Idaho, doesn't buy you as much as it used to - and because her handlers couldn't even conceive in their darkest, most skeptical moments that they would have to give her a high school-level briefing about basic constitutional concepts. This is a credit to them and a shame to her. Just as it is a credit to the 59 percent of you who apparently have judged Palin for her lack of coherence about the law - and a shame to the rest who apparently are quite comfortable defining down into parody the litmus test for high public office. You want good governance? Elect smart people. Democracy demands wisdom not just from the elected but from the electorate.
By Andrew Cohen
Recommended
- Many British Muslims Put Islam First
- Top Twelve Most Patriotic Songs Ever
- American dystopia more reality than fiction
- Who Lives The American Dream?
- Why I'll take Bill Gates over Steve Jobs every time
- Here's Why People Don't Buy Global Warming
- Ready For A Woman President?
- Is This What Success Looks Like in Afghanistan?
Clearly, this interview is the best thing that ever happened to Katie Couric in the evening news.
This is evidence of the liberal media bias of CBS and Couric.
Posted by KristianInAL
Cashed your state welfare check yet, Kristian?
Alaska, the ONLY state where every citizen is a welfare queen.
Mark A. Baker
Didn''t Biden say "VP is the tie-breaker in the Senate"? Isn''t that right? If I decide to become the new Agriculture commissioner and don''t know anything about farming, agriculture, or what the job entails, should the voters take me seriously? If someone asks me what I don''t like, I''ll either tell them or say I like them all? How hard is that? If her idea of what the 1st amendment is were correct, wouldn''t she and MCCain have violated Obama''s 1st amendment rights by criticizing him? The fact that so many people are wild about her is because they think, or don''t tdo much thinking, the same as her. And as a Black city guy, small towns ain''t exactly been loving to me when i''ve had to pass through. "Real America" indeed.
Posted by KristianInAL at 10:34 AM : Nov 02, 2008
Give me a break. Those were not media elite questions. They were basic civics issues. The role of the VP? The basic functioning of the first amendment? Any high school student should know the answer to those.
Furthermore, any Governor should know how the first amendment works, given that the first amendment applies to the states.
Instead many cling to what they choose to believe regardless of the facts. Even worse, facts are denigrated as biased if they disagree with what people choose to believe.
Stupidity compounded. That is the state of affairs.
The base of the Republican party thinks Sarah Palin is fantastic.
Need I say more.
It''s become quite apparent from the many ''abuse of power'' scandals that keep popping up, one after another, in Gov. Palin''s wake, that she never really even did her homework on the role of a state Governor, let alone delve into national Constitution issues.
So far she''s displayed a knowledge of government no deeper than that of your average grade-schooler.
Talk about "on the job training" carried far TOO far...