THE SANDBOX Great American Conversations With The Alumni of RHS Issue 120 ~ January 24, 2001 Still Catching Up: The SANDBOX has recently been taking a timeout to allow your moderator catch up on other important business. Even if inspired by events since past, your thoughts and ideas are no less valuable, and in some cases offer great historical perspective to all of us to consider. Contents: Rolling Blackouts - Could It Happen Here? Sandra Genoway (Jeneaué) Spruksts (62) The Rule of Law versus The Rule of Lawyers Dick Epler (52) Florida Supreme Court says recount rules need to come from the Legislature Dick Epler (52) ------------ Subj: Rolling Blackouts - Could It Happen Here? Date Submitted: 12/25/2000 From: Sandra Genoway (Jeneaué) Spruksts (62) fashdes@prodigy.net [Please note date this letter was written, and what has happened since -mod]. Dear Bombers, Well, for all of you *not* living in the Puget Sound region, we have been informed by our local news networks that our temperatures will be plummeting, starting Saturday night, and that we could also have about one or two inches of snow. SNOW -- the word that causes panic in every Seattle-area driver's heart. Even a few inches of wet, icy "snow" can reek havoc, causing many slippery slopes impossible to drive or walk on. If that wasn't bad enough! They are also telling us that, first, Californians will be experiencing "rolling blackouts" due to a lack of energy supply and that, second, that these blackouts may extend up to the Puget Sound region. I have heard that certain "elements" of Californians were successful in blocking the building of enough *nuclear power plants*, and much of anything else that can efficiently produce large-scale electrical supply, during the 1970's, 80's and 90's, due to environmental "concerns." So, now that California has too many people living in it for the amount of electrical power it produces or that it receives from states (including Washington's WPPSS No. 2 Power Plant electrical supply on the BPA power grid), there will be "rolling blackouts" (periods of times when specific areas will have the power turned off so that other areas can have power during "peak" times) and these blackouts will also be extending to the Puget Sound Region. We have recently been asked by the Governor to conserve electrical use starting Saturday, December 10, since there will be a power shortage to California AND Washington (not Oregon ?) when the subzero/deep freeze temperatures hit. Also, the cost of natural gas has already gone up and will be going up even more along with electricity. And, they want to remove the dams on the Snake and Columbia Rivers!! Does that make anyone suspicious, as to what is *really* going on? I don't think it is going to help the salmon that much if the dams are removed. There are other processes that have yet to be tried to help the fish. All the time that my dad (who was a biologist) worked for GE and Battelle at Hanford while I was growing up, I never heard that the fish numbers were decreasing because of the dams on the Columbia River. The ranchers and farmers in the Columbia Basin and elsewhere in Eastern Washington will surely lose much of the irrigation water and electrical supply they need to grow their crops, if the dams and irrigation systems are tampered with, and I have heard and read that they are not too happy about that possibility. While working at Hanford, I learned that projected future electrical supply studies showed that more energy sources needed to be developed, nationwide, and there were predicted shortages, if these electrical needs were not met. These projected needs were for predicted future industrial and residential needs, based on an influx of new population to Washington State, and elsewhere. However, if there really are electrical shortages now, how come we are just now, all of a sudden, experiencing the blackouts? I do not recall this happening last year. California does not have the extremes of winter temperature ranges that Washington State has, and does not require the same kind of electrical service. You would think that blackouts in California would occur in the summer during hot weather temperature peaks; not in the winter. I guess the shortages during the winter months are from the Northwesterners using more electricity and gas to heat their homes and offices during cold weather temperatures, and that puts the extra drain on the whole BPA grid. I know this argument has been raging for many years, about sharing electrical and water supply with California from our Columbia River and nuclear power plants, and I guess some people have been afraid that this day was coming! Sandra Genoway (Jeneaué) Spruksts (62) ~~~~~ Moderator's Note: The following two items from Dick Epler, written earlier, give historical perspective to the recent turbulent elective process in Florida. Subj: The Rule of Law versus The Rule of Lawyers From: Dick Epler (52) depler@ortelco.net Date Submitted: December 9, 2000 This last Friday, the Florida Supreme Court awarded Gore 383 additional votes (on top of what they previously awarded on November 26th), reducing Bush's lead from 537 votes to 154 votes. The court then mandated an immediate manual recount of any "undervotes" not already counted in Florida, of which 9000 are from Miami-Dade County alone. No one doubts this is an attempt by the Florida court to give the election to Gore. Consider that this was all ordered without knowing whether any of the manual recount votes were legal (i.e., Constitutional) per the US Supreme Court's decision. Indeed, in it's December 8th ruling, the Florida Supreme Court didn't even mention the superior court's set-aside ruling, which bumped the Bush lead back up to the originally certified count of 900+ votes pending a future ruling. Now, with the "safe harbor" date of December 12th looming for the certification of electors, the goal set by the Circuit Judge Lewis is to have the new numbers to the Secretary of State by 2PM Sunday afternoon. Presumably that provides a few hours for subsequent judicial review by Bush (in the interests of fairness, you know) before the electors have to be certified. The endgame, of course, is to be ahead when the clock runs out. However, you need to know, none of this has anything to do with "the will of the people" or a desire to "count every vote." If the Democrats have their way, our President will be determined by a relatively small collection of votes from a fairly dysfunctional group. Here, I'm reminded of what Einstein is reported to have said when asked his opinion of democracy. He said: "Democracy can be a good thing, but I'm not sure I agree with the notion that two idiots are really better than one genius." Perhaps it's poetic justice that in this election, Gore might be elected by one of his own, i.e., someone obviously technologically-challenged. Yet, I'd be surprised if most of the Nation, Democrat and Republican alike, aren't a little disturbed that our President could be decided by the "undervote," i.e., where the voter's preference was "none of the above." Worse, however, is the implied notion that an "undervote" anywhere in the nation will always favor a Democrat is also troubling, and I wonder what Gore knows about these kinds of voters that I don't. Has the Democratic Party really changed that much in the last decade or so? Maybe, though I hope the metamorphosis isn't totally complete. Our founding fathers wanted a nation where the Rule of Law prevails, rather than the Rule of Men, as was the case in Europe in the eighteenth century. Their governing concept was simple: A Constitution and a Bill of Rights would form the basis for organizing a government that would preserve certain inalienable rights for the citizens. All other law would be subservient to this rather elegant Document. It wasn't supposed to be perfect, but basically it worked as intended for almost 200 years. Only recently have we begun to deviate significantly from the Constitution. Detractors want a "living Constitution" that can be conveniently interpreted to fit a desired outcome. And so we have gradually degenerated into a nation where the Rule of Lawyers prevail rather than the Rule of Law. It's a tradeoff. Law that is clear and unambiguous that everyone can understand, like the Constitution and the Ten Commandments, tends to make lots of powerful people uncomfortable, but makes the administration of justice relatively easy. Where the law is well known, people don't need lawyers to settle differences. On the other hand, law that is convoluted and confusing and hard to understand works against those who are not members of the bar (an inside club) while inviting selective justice. Over time, we've gradually migrated to the latter position. Indeed, it's gotten so bad that I doubt any of us can get through a week without breaking numerous laws, assuming we're involved in doing something useful. But we don't worry because we think we're not important enough for the authorities to prosecute. Until one day, in the middle of the night, there's a knock on the door … The world has been through this before. When Justinian, the First, became Emperor, in AD 527, he found the law of the Roman Empire in a state of great confusion, resulting in a huge waste of human and natural resources. Immediately after his accession, he appointed a commission to deal with all the imperial law (called constitutions). The 10 commissioners went through all the law, selecting those that had practical value, cutting all the unnecessary stuff, eliminating contradictions, and then adapting all the provisions to the circumstances of Justinian's time. The resulting Codex Constitutionum (Justinian Law) was formally decreed two years later in 529, and ALL other law not included in this document was repealed. In the interests of justice, I'm beginning to think our Nation needs to do something like that now. But if we don't feel the urgency, I suspect it's primarily because we believe we can afford the resulting waste a little longer. And yet, this election may provide some motivation for a legislative review of our Election Law at least in Florida. As you might guess, I have suggestions, but I'll leave that for a later time. Since Jim Vache (64) brought it up, it might be useful to note the distinction between political and legal questions. In a Republic like ours, political questions are supposed to be resolved by that branch of Government with the largest representation of the electorate, i.e., the House of Representatives. That's the branch of government charged to make law to affect the citizenry. The courts (whose members are appointees, not electees) are prohibited from deciding political issues. Courts are supposed to decide legal issues based on existing statutes, case law, the presentation of fact (the record), or generally some combination. In areas where statutes conflict or new situations not previously covered arise, judicial restraint is appropriate. That is, the court simply decides it has no jurisdiction, implying that it will be up to the legislature to correct. When court activists attempt to justify the rulings of the Florida Supreme Court to "make new election law," many reference the landmark case of Marbury v. Madison (1803) as establishing the doctrine of judicial review. Yes, that Court declared a law passed by Congress as unconstitutional, but in so doing, it also exercised judicial restraint in refusing to usurp a power reserved by the Constitution to the executive branch involving political appointments (read the opinion to understand). The Court simply said it had no jurisdiction (unlike the Florida Supreme Court). --Dick Epler (52) ~~~ Subj: Florida Supreme Court says recount rules need to come from the Legislature Date Submitted: 12/22/2000 From: depler@ortelco.net You may have missed this, as it wasn't widely reported, however, today's Infobeat (Internet) news (12/22/00) included this marvelous Associated Press item: TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) - Developing a standard for hand recounts of ballots is a job for state lawmakers, the Florida Supreme Court said Friday in response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision that ended the marathon presidential election. Development of a "specific, uniform standard necessary to ensure equal application and to secure the fundamental right to vote throughout the state of Florida should be left to the body we believe best equipped to study and address it, the Legislature," the court said in the unsigned opinion. Two weeks ago, the court had given that job to a circuit judge ordered to oversee a hand recount of some 9,000 ballots from Miami- Dade County and the so-called "undervote" - ballots with choices that were not read by voting machines - from all 67 counties. But 10 days ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ended the legal struggle between Al Gore and George W. Bush by reversing Florida's court-ordered recount of presidential ballots. Yes they got it right this time but it's not something they didn't know before their December 8th ruling. The State Court simply took a calculated gamble which failed because of courage of the Federal Supreme Court, who really didn't want to get involved (and shouldn't have had to). Our Constitutional system still works, but just barely. I sincerely hope Bush can rebuild it at all Government levels. --Dick Epler (52) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ That concludes this issue of THE SANDBOX folks. Please include your class year and maiden name, (if applicable), in all correspondence and subscription requests. You may also include your current locale if you wish. It's easy to join us in the ongoing conversations here. Just send your comments to: THE_SANDBOX@bigfoot.com! We are the Alumni of Richland High School, Richland Washington, AKA Columbia High School, representing classes from 1942 through 2000. Visit the THE SANDBOX website. Al Parker (53) Shippenville, PA Your SANDBOX Host ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~120~