Slaying the Jabberwock

In Democracy in America (Bk. II, Ch. 16: 1840), Alexis de Tocqueville addresses "How American Democracy has Modified the English Language" by allowing the play of words with multiple meanings to become common conduits of ambiguity. The insight is that American politicos play on the commonality of literary ignorance by using abstract verbalizations in substitution for words with real meaning. The consequence, according to de Tocqueville, is the creation of a verbal mythology in political language or speech that while appealing to the rank and file citizen is substantively meaningless.

Most pertinent is the now familiar formula followed by The Courier "Letter to the Editor" contributors who trace the flow of concepts from gullets, liberal legislators, arrogance, burgeoning government, spending programs, unfulfilled promises, ignoring the mandates of the Constitution and "the people." The collective combination seeks a self- fulfilling fantasy of awakened truth while having the substantive equivalence to that found in Lewis Carroll's "Jabberwocky."

Perhaps it is time to unseath our vorpal blades and once again slay the Jabberwock. In the engagement, it must be recognized that literal substance entails specific reference not vague rhetorical conclusions. The purpose is to invite meaningful discussion based on the citation of actual data, factual references that can be verified and exchanged so that each side of the discussion has a vested interest in reaching valid conclusions. Agree or not, we should be able to find common facts, common information and then determine how we are to find results.

If credible reference is made to electoral analysis, then meaningful discussion requires specific engagement of probative statistical data. Where writers may be deficient in comparative statistical analysis as apparent from recent submissions, there are numerous sources that can provide substantive explanations. Summary conclusions of key political events may only be seen as a disservice to credible discussion.

The United States Constitution serves as the instrument through which the institutions of our government are founded and our individual rights established and sustained. Reference made to particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored within a constitutional context but without specification of the particular powers or provisions bypassed or ignored is meaningless punditry. References combined with the potential of unidentified ominous possibilities leaves much to the fanatical whims of undiscerning readers.

The United States Constitution contains specific articles, sections and even noted clauses. Meaningful discussion of powers or provisions in the Constitution requires citation. In this way, readers may note the concerns referred with trepidation equal to the insights of the writer; otherwise, we are simply left underwhelmed in the throes of exuberant verbosity.

I suggest that we can actually find and cite cases decided by the United States Supreme Court or published decisions of inferior courts. The fact that these are published means that we can read them. If there is to be a citation to a case, then we can refer to the case, read it and even find enlightening commentary. What we cannot do is to just cite the holding of a case without being forced to defend the holding. It is all to easy to suggest that cases have historic meaning but when subjected to critical review, the actual holding must be distinguished. I can at least say that when I attended law school at The Franklin Thomas Backus School of Law at Case Western Reserve University, we did study the United States Constitution, we used the Constitution and cases as precedent for an understanding of the Constitution and case law Constitutional history.

When reference is made to how Constitutional Law is taught, my suggestion is to dive into the two volumes of American Constitutional Law by Laurence H. Tribe. It may take a few cups of tea to absorb - I prefer that exacting blend of Darjeeling, India and Ceylon from Davison Newman & Co. deposited in Boston Harbour on December 16, 1773 or again on March 7, 1774.

My point here is to invite a step beyond the continued Dog-whistle profundity all too often found in this part of The Courier and similar publications in this area.