John McCain to Barbara Walther & Harriet O’Neill: It’s the Constitution, Stupid!

Texas Supreme Court Justice Harriet O’Neill’s unconstitutional assumption of legislative power in “spearheading” the Texas Permanent Judicial Commission for Children, Youth and Families lends renewed urgency to a brilliant speech by John McCain at Wake Forest University, on May 8, 2008. Text and video excerpts appear below.

A few lines seem targeted directly at Judge Barbara Walther and Harriet O’Neill. Funny that no where in the speech does Senator McCain mention the word “children.” Come to think of it, neither does the Constitution of the United States. The word does, however, appear repeatedly in Hitler’s Mein Kampf. What a coincidence. Hey, Barb and Harriet: Are you listening?

When [the election is] all over . . . the next president will be compelled to make just one promise, in the same words that 42 others have spoken when the moment arrived. The framers of our Constitution had a knack for coming right to the point, and it shows in the 35-word oath that ends with a pledge to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution itself.

This is what we require and expect of every president . . . All the powers of the American presidency must serve the Constitution, and thereby protect the people and their liberties.

In America, the constitutional restraint on power is as fundamental as the exercise of power, and often more so. Yet the framers knew that these restraints would not always be observed. They were idealists, but they were worldly men as well, and they knew that abuses of power would arise and need to be firmly checked. Their design for democracy was drawn from their experience with tyranny. A suspicion of power is ingrained in both the letter and spirit of the American Constitution. . .

For decades now, some federal [and state] judges have taken it upon themselves to pronounce and rule on matters that were never intended to be heard in courts or decided by judges. With a presumption that would have amazed the framers of our Constitution, and legal reasoning that would have mystified them, federal judges today issue rulings and opinions on policy questions that should be decided democratically. Assured of lifetime tenures, these judges show little regard for the authority of the president, the Congress, and the states. They display even less interest in the will of the people. And the only remedy available to any of us is to find, nominate, and confirm better judges. . .

Federal courts are charged with applying the Constitution and laws of our country to each case at hand. There is great honor in this responsibility, and honor is the first thing to go when courts abuse their power. The moral authority of our judiciary depends on judicial self-restraint, but this authority quickly vanishes when a court presumes to make law instead of apply it. A court is hardly competent to check the abuses of other branches of government when it cannot even control itself. . .

Often, political causes are brought before the courts that could not succeed by democratic means, and some federal judges are eager to oblige. Politicians sometimes contribute to the problem as well, abdicating responsibility and letting the courts make the tough decisions for them. One abuse of judicial authority inspires more. One act of raw judicial power invites others. And the result, over many years, has been a series of judicial opinions and edicts wandering farther and farther from the clear meanings of the Constitution, and from the clear limits of judicial power that the Constitution defines. . . .