May 22, 2012

This Day In Legal History: Of Governments And Hammers

Tomorrow is September 25. So what, you ask?

Only three more months to finish that Christmas shopping and get all the holiday cards addressed and signed.

Actually, September 25 provides a more interesting confluence of events.

On that date  221 years ago, the First Congress of the United States of America proposed a series of amendments to the Constitution. Uncharacteristically for Congress, the legislative product got shorter as it went along. 

Seventeen amendments were trimmed to 12 in the Senate, of which 10 were ratified by three quarters of the states. 

Yes--those 10. The Bill of Rights--a document originally intended to create a "fed free" zone of liberty with words like, “Congress shall make no law . . . .”

(**An 11th, now known as the 27th Amendment prohibiting a Congress from raising its own pay, was finally ratified in 1992--hat tip to Judge Brister**)

Astounding by modern standards that Congress would ever draft a sentence beginning with the words, “Congress shall make no law.”  But they did, because folks believed that the new federal government was a potential threat to liberty if its power were not expressly limited.

But there’s some irony here too because sometimes a strong federal government is the only effective guarantor of liberty. On this same date 53 years ago, federal power enabled the Little Rock Nine to finally enter Central High School

Interesting that the local public schools in Little Rock developed their own desegregation plan even before Brown v. Board of Education--liberty not being the sole province of the federal government. Yet, the local government did not have the horsepower to carry it out all by itself.

Before the Little Rock Nine could finally start school, it took the orders of Federal District Judge Ronald Daviesenforcing the plan. It also took President Eisenhower nationalizing the Arkansas National Guard--a body which had been used only days earlier by Arkansas’ governor to frustrate desegregation.

So, maybe government, especially a powerful, central government is bad.

Except when it is good. 

Or perhaps its not as simple as a stump speech.  Maybe government is like a hammer, a tool which is equally capable of smashing windows or sculpting marble, depending upon who holds it and how it is handled.

© 2012 Andrews Kurth LLP

About the Author

Partner

Kendall is a board certified civil appellate specialist who has represented clients in state and federal appellate courts such as the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth and Federal Circuits, the Supreme Court of Texas and many intermediate courts of appeal. His practice includes a variety of complex commercial, medical malpractice and toxic tort matters, as well as a particular focus in disputes involving employee benefits, managed care and ERISA. The disputes commonly require complex written and oral advocacy on such topics as ERISA...

713-220-3981

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.