Ideology Before Competence

In a previous article,Iwrote that Governor Schwarzenegger could vastly improve his conduct ifonly he obeyed the injunction "Don't just do something, stand there!"However, given the actions of the Democratic members of California'sLegislature, Schwarzenegger's previous blunders havenot had a good week, at least where logical consistency is concerned.From the Democrat's absurd budget proposal to their blatant violation of the balance of power,they seem intent on tearing down the solemn edifice of constitutional state government and replacing it with a veritablelegislative/judicial Tower of Babel.

Or perhaps the phrase "tower of babble" would be more appropriate, especially given their most recent offense. According to the Los Angeles Times, California Attorney General Jerry Brown has actually put forward a legal brief intended to prove that he should not have to do the job he was elected to do. If this is "change we can believe in", then I don't want to believe in it for much the same reason I don't want to believe in ghosts or the Loch Ness Monster.

The facts of the case are as follows: Jerry Brown is, as we allknow, a liberal Democrat. However, as attorney general, he is taskedwith enforcing the laws passed by the governing bodies ofCalifornia - namely, the Legislature and the voters themselves.Normally, given the overwhelmingly blue nature of this state, these twojobs are unlikely to conflict. Unfortunately, a little controversialproposition by the name of Proposition 8 was passed this November, andnow faces a legal challengewhich, despite their dubious jurisdiction, the California Supreme Courthas decided to hear. Since Jerry Brown is tasked with defendingCalifornia's laws, it is his job to mount a legal defense ofProposition 8 before the court, and to appeal the decision ifit doesn't go his way.

Unfortunately, Mr. Brown is not just any liberal Democrat, but the kind who is apparently incapable ofthinking outside his comfort zone. From Mr. Brown'spoint of view, supporting a backwater bill like this is apparently too painful to even think about, much less have an obligationto do. As such, Mr. Brown has filed a legal brief alleging that he hasno responsibility to defend the bill because "the amendment processcannot be used to extinguish fundamental constitutional rights withoutcompelling justification."

Mr. Brown's logic runs this way -- becausethe California Supreme Court has already declared that marriage is a right, the voters therefore have no right to amend theConstitution to take away that right. This is a cute argument, exceptfor one problem -- there is absolutely no reason to believe that any right,even a fundamental one, is protected from removal by an amendment. Given that the United States Congress was able to suspend thearguably more fundamental right of habeas corpus and have thatdecision validated in Ex Parte McCardle,it seems flatly obvious that any trained lawyer, Jerry Brown included,would (and should) know better than to expect a court to stand in theway of the balance of power.

So Mr. Brown's legal objection is plainly an absurd one. Butthe unfortunate part of the whole business is that his objection quiteobviously has nothing to do with law and everything to do with personalpolitics, which have no place in Mr. Brown's official capacity as attorney general. As already stated, Mr. Brown's job isto uphold the laws of the state, and if he didn't wantthat job, he absolutely should not have run for election.

The call of ambition frequently outweighs the call ofduty where men like Mr. Brown are concerned, which means that we arevery unlikely to see any sort of real debate over Proposition 8 untilsomeone bound by the state Constitution and not the laws ofcocktail liberalism is placed in his post.