U.S. Attorney General Gonzalez Defines the Judical Branch

Today, U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez published his remarks to the American Enterprise Institute on his website: http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/speeches/2007/html. He does not like what he refers to as "judicial activism." One hears that term a whole lot today. So, it is nice to find out a what criteria our highest legal official uses in determining what is acceptable and unacceptable roles for the judiciary.

In short, Mr. Gonzales finds three things the judiciary must do that will allow them to remain in good stead with the framers of the constitution. He cites Hamilton in the Federalist Paper 78, "The judiciary from the very nature of its function, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the constitution; because it will be in a position to least annoy or injure them."

Mr. Gonzalez further quotes Hamilton as assuring the states to ratify the constitution, "Don't worry, the courts won't be capable of arrogating to themselves the power of law or policy making."

Mr. Gonzales armed with these quotes and Article 111 of the Constitution provides the American Enterprise Institute a conservative think tank with a definition of what is a good federal judge. In brief, there are three components. The judiciary must be strong and independent.

The judiciary must understand its role to apply the "rule of law," as outlined by the framers of the constitution. Lastly, the best candidate with sterling legal qualifications and the all important "restraint."

Mr. Gonzalez wants judges to be safe from retaliation, budget cuts and enjoy their judicial independence so long as the third branch of government understands its limited role as he defines Article 111 of the Constitution. The judiciary per Mr. Gonzales has no business messing with policy decisions affecting "national security," made by Congress or the President. This strong, no cut and run definition of the role of the co-equal branch of government provides a glimpse of the near future.

So, while the judges, attorneys and everyone tries to define what is a "national security," policy decision. At present it can be dropping a letter in the mail box to boarding an airplane, or being detained for an indeterminate time for possible links to "suspicious people." Some of us will look to see what Jefferson, Adams, Washington and some others had to say about "restraint."