The Roberts hearings...

One theme that I have heard arise repeatedly during the John Roberts hearing is a comparison to Justice Ginsburg. Many Senators label her as an extremist for certain viewpoints that she supposedly holds, one of which being a Constitutional right to practice prostitution.

While I am largely unfamiliar with Justice Ginsburg's personal viewpoints, as well as her legal opinions, I suspect that she is very extreme on a number of issues based largely on her previous involvement with the ACLU and its radical agenda.

That being said, I find it very troubling that these Republican Senators, who supposedly believe in limited government and individual liberty as articulated by a relatively literal reading of the Constitution, believe the profession of prostititution to be Constitutionally impermissible.

Assuming that Justice Ginsburg's viewpoint is as these Senators suggest, I must agree with her position, although I likely arrive at it from a much different foundation.

The 9th and 10th amendments make clear that only such powers granted to the federal government within the Constitution are within its scope. Otherwise, all powers and rights remain with the States and/or the People of the several States.

Simply put, prostitution is legal according to federal law unless the Constitution specifically suggests otherwise. I conclude that it does not, as it neither prohibits free market capitalism nor sexual relations among free People. Further, if we are to take the stance that a person's body is his own property, it must be subject to the protections clearly outlined in the 5th and 14th amendments.

Sadly, those who categorically dismiss the opinion shared by Justice Ginsburg and I regarding the federal legality of prostitution must do so not because of a strict adherence to the Constitution and its originally intended meaning, but instead do so in an attempt to legislate morality.

Since the so-called "religous-right" provides a large voting bloc for the Republican party, I can only logically conclude that these politicians are ignoring the legal issues surrounding this issue and substituting in its stead the moral value judgments of their constituents.

Such practices are totally consistent with democracy, and as most people of average historical scholarship can appreciate, democracy is a failed government model totally unconducive to the protection of individual rights. In fact, I would go so far as to say that truly democratic governments are completely unable to protect the individual rights of its People since all laws are subject to the whims of the majority. Thus, any person not aligned with the majority opinion has no standing to challenge it, since democracy is nothing more than a majority rule system.

Overall, these hearings constitute nothing more significant than another example of just how broken our federal government is. Instead of challenging Judge Roberts to articulate his understanding of what the Constitution says and means, the Senators were more inclined to discuss trivial minutia related to existing case law, most of which decided on fundamentally flawed Constitutional understanding.

Using the hearings as personal soap boxes from which they attempted to satisfy their various constituencies, the Senators have completely poisoned these entire concept of their role in the nomination and confirmation process. Instead of the Republicans trying to use this week to prevent another David Souter, they chose to toss softballs at Judge Roberts without pressing him on key issues such as private property, gun ownership, free speech versus sedition, the legality of the Patriot Act and the concept of limited federal authority.

Likewise, the Democrats chose not to grill Judge Roberts on specific issues related to Constitutional law, but instead they chose to use the hearings as another venue from which to attack George Bush, ignore the failures of their own policies, as well as the legitimacy of their "living, breathing" Constitutional interpretation.

Predictably, the questions asked and the answers given solidify the preconceived opinions of various groups and individuals on both sides of the debates our country faces today. This does not surprise me in the least because the overwhelming majority of Americans either don't care to participate in the political process, or are unwilling to consider alternative viewpoints other than those found on the Rush Limbaugh show or the editorial page of the New York Times.

Independence and free thought were virtuous at one time in this country. Today, anybody who disagrees with President Bush is labeled unpatriotic. Any black or hispanic person who holds conservative views is labeled as an "Uncle Tom". Very few Americans retain the capacity and desire to engage in free thought and the expression of their viewpoints. Even fewer arrive at those viewpoints by applying reason and logic to the Constitution, the laws of economics, and the laws of human nature.

Such a scenario does not bode well for the future of our nation.