Role of Law
Too Many Honorables? By Mary K. Mewborn
Whether it is the roster of the Board of Governors of the Smithsonian Institution or the benefit committee of a typical Washington charity gala, there are always a number of names preceded by "Honorable,'' instead of the usual Mr., Mrs., Miss or Ms. How this came about in a country whose Constitution expressly forbids the granting of titles amuses some and irritates others. At the very least its widespread usage raises some eyebrows.
Traditionally the British use the "Hon.'' (originally abbreviated from "The Right Honorable Magnificence of Nobles''), to identify certain family members of hereditary barons and earls, i.e., their daughters, younger sons and the younger sons' wives. In America, however, such inherited titles were rare among the early colonists, and after independence there was no king to grant new ones.
That did not mean this country developed along totally egalitarian lines. Even in a democracy it was only natural that ways had to be found to distinguish the elite from the hoi polloi, the rulers from the ruled. The conferment of titles, although prevented by the Constitution, was effectively achieved by political success.
Petition circulates to stop Albany appearance of controversial former sheriff | WNYT.com
President Hubert Humphrey once said, "The right to heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously."
Can you hold copyright in federal law?
Why Do Legal Documents Like Terms Of Service Agreements Often Include All Caps?.
How Corporate America Shut the Courthouse Doors to Average People
.
Should Police Be Allowed to Restrict Who Votes?
After the wake of many close elections, one has to wonder if we need more restrictions on voting, to ensure that dangerous people, who don’t fully understand the consequences of voting don’t vote. It’s quite possible that George Bush won in 2000, not because of his abilities to lead our country, but because voters were just plain stupid.
Some have proposed to give local police forces the unilateral authority to decide who gets to vote and not vote on election day. It could be a very simple and straightforward procedure — the chief of police in every town could sign a sheet of paper to make it unlawful for anyone to vote whose name appears on the list.
Why have tough evidence based standards to keep people from voting? Why bother to get a court order, showing a person is mentally unfit to vote? Or if we insist on requiring court involvement, shouldn’t courts be able to keep anyone they want to from voting?
Certainly requiring evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt of a crime committed or about too be committed is too high of a standard. That could allow a lot of people who are of questionable mind to vote in elections. Indeed, even one voter, throwing an election could lead to a totalitarian regime to take over our country. We certainly don’t need any more tragedies like George Bush getting elected.
People make similiar arguments about gun control, so why not voting? Doesn’t this sound very democratic and fair to give government lots of arbitrary control over who can vote?