Rumination prompted by Barr

This has been a great learning experience. The current administration signals the end of the importance of political parties/factions, the commercialization of hiring public servants, and the illusion that “public servant” is some sort of euphemism.

Barr is actually correct if he postulates that the Constitution, which is addressed to agents of government and issues their marching orders, guarantees no rights because it assumes that the ordinary natural person’s behavior is moral and good.  Agents of government, on the other hand, are restricted by duties, obligations and prohibitions within the Constitution and implementing legislation—with the exception of prosecutors. Prosecutors are on their own because their job was to be merely ministerial—deliver information from the executive to the judicial branch. And  Congress failed to take note of the accretion of power in their hands. That is about to be corrected by a reformed Senate. Which is why Barr is trying to make hay while the sun still shines.

It will not do him any good, because precedent, which the old system relied on to prevent the rise of democracy, is also on its way out. The originalist argument that precedent should over-rule what the Constitution stipulates is non-sensical, based on the suggestion that the framers of the Constitution did not mean what they wrote because what they said was not carried out.

Barr likes the idea of infalibility and speaking ex cathedra. One wonders how much of the appeal of conservatism arises from how little effort is required when the legal curriculum consists of memorizing what lawyers have argued before, regardless of whether justice is served.

Education = memorization is the bane of our existence.  It does, however, favor individuals whose processing capabilities are minimal or non-existent.