Several salient points here. Some have to do with the jury system itself, others with complexity in legal systems needing drastic reform.
Because he was a governor, a lot of illustrative comments might be made about how such a political entity, a state like Illinois, would compete as a nation state in a world market, using exactions of campaign contributions.
Both domestic and foreign entities,
with neither a stake, nor a vision, nor responsibility for either the smaller Illinois, or the national 'domestic' economy's 'general welfare',
have long been eager to pay for narrow self serving influence, at all levels, of the system, where influence has been advantageous, and don't have the minor scruples illustrated here.
SEE, FOR EXAMPLE, ANOTHER EDITORIAL, ALSO COINCIDENTALLY, TODAY:
"ILLINOIS UNCONVINCED CORRUPTION CULTURE WILL FADE".
How is that for an American 'State's Rights' Banner?
Since the federal government also has not been (was not constitutionally tasked to) protecting local or national populations economically, (except what has been artificially carved out by the Commerce Clause, etc.) one might reasonably ask,
What's the difference?
Well. That is why I have alluded to reforms needed, 160 years too late really, at that level, too.
One cannot simply devolve onto each of the states responsibilities the fed has failed to carry out.
The Civil War, really a step in the wrong direction; merely preserving the Union, the fragmented status quo ante, not really enough, going forward.
Call it another 'Morton's Fork'.
One needs a more 'strategic' nation state to compete, and to survive disorder.
Back in the 18th Century, it did not so much matter, so long as one was protected by a larger empire.
No comments:
Post a Comment