Haynes.tv

I have no problem with governmental intervention in the health of its citizens. A government should try its best to give its citizens the tools to live long, productive, and healthy lives. Programs such as Medicare and Medicaid are vital to the overall health of our citizens. However, intervention must be kept below a certain level. There is a line that separates private actions and governmental guidance. It is an established fact that the modern world faces an unprecedented obesity problem, and it is a long tradition that new strains of viruses constantly threaten the global population. I appreciate a government’s proactive thoughts and actions to help its citizens alleviate their health needs. However, the a nation’s government does not have the right to go into some one’s home to enforce their “suggestions.” A government cannot force a family to follow the food pyramid. A government cannot force a person to wash their hands. Even if it is in the best interest of the person, the government does not have complete control of its citizen’s life. However, a situation similar to this is happening in Great Britain.

British authorities may take custody of 8-year-old Connor McCreaddie, who weighs 218 lbs. Although the child is under good care, Social Services may take him from his parents because of their neglect to take him to government sanctioned doctors, nutritionists, and social workers to help him with his obesity. Both the parents and the child recognize the problem and are trying to find a lifestyle that can work. The mother does not force feed her son. His weight results largely from his own actions. I do not understand how the government feels it can intervene in this child’s life because the right things are not being done in their mind. The child has his own unique problems and his family has the right to solve this problem in their own privacy. If the parents are not breaking any laws, how can he be taken on extreme liberal ideals?

What concerns me most about this whole predicament would be the precedent set by such action. I wonder if we are entering into a world where the government knows best, and we are forced to follow all suggestions that cover every aspect of our private life. And, if such a situation were to exist at what point would the government have complete control of our mind and what we believe to be correct. Citizens need to realize that there is a limit to government interaction and they must step up in the family’s defense.

I used to think Judge Judy was the exception not mainstream. However, I am not quite sure any more. It seems there is at least one more judge that will say whatever comes into their mind, regardless as to how rash it is. In addition, there is a big difference between this particular judge and Judge Judy. The difference being, this particular judge is a real bona fide judge. I am not saying Judge Judy does not follow a good modus operandi or make reasonable judgments. She was in fact a real family court judge, but she allows too much emotion and not enough evidence into her judgments now for them to be considered adequate or even decent, legally speaking. Of course, she can do that now, since she is now a TV judge. Anyways, have you guessed who I am comparing to Judge Judy yet? If not then you likely live in cave or did not turn your TV on last week. I am referring to Broward Circuit Judge Larry Seidlin, who has been thrust into the spot light by this case over Anna Nicole Smith’s burial wishes. This judge, similar to Judge Judy, appears to say whatever comes to mind without much contemplation, although he definitely has a distinct personality, which is quite different from Judge Judy’s. He is more eccentric and immaterially comical while Judge Judy is more demeaning and decisive.

Let us examine how he addressed the lawyers; one as “Texas” and another as “California”; though that may have seemed funny or in his mind it is undignified and demeaning to the lawyers. I have no idea why people have an affinity to refer to you by where you hail from, I remember being identified by the fact that I was from Hawaii or as Hawaiian (although I am Caucasoid and do not think I have Mongoloid or Negro features) after I returned to the mainland. Maybe I will have to ask my author who was recently reined out by a individual whom he characterized by where (he believed) they came from. Personally, I believe it is just such an impersonal way of referring to someone not to mention informal and disrespectful in many senses. That of course was not the only time Judge Seidlin talked down, and exhibited a controlling mannerism; he pretty much did it through out the entire trial, as far as I can tell. In addition to referring to the lawyers simply by where they hailed from Judge Seidlin inserted his personal opinion and antidotes through out the trial. Furthermore, he did some interrogating of the witnesses himself, encouraged them to dig down and find the truth, and actually broke down crying prior to announcing his judgment; in which he awarded Ana Nicole Simth’s body to her 5 month old daughter, Dannielynn. Of course after that the judge again saw fit to insert his opinion; that he wanted Anna Nicola buried in the Bahamas. In the end, it seems Judge Larry Seidlin was to his credit able to make a judgment based upon the law and not his opinion; it seems he was kind of thinking out loud so it some senses. Although according the according to attorney John O’Quinn for Anna Nicole’s mother: The judge already had in his mind what he was going to do when the case began and made the wrong decision under Florida law since it apparently says that the next of kin must be 18 years of age. Now it seems Judge Seidlin, because of his good performance, has offers from a number of TV court shows, at least one of which would be a long term deal.

Who should get the body under law I personally have no idea and it is really unimportant to me and to the nation, as I whole. Since 99% of the people in this country had no personal relation to Anna Nichole Smith. However, be it as it is this case has been spotlighted in the news (especially by Larry King) for the past couple of weeks. Therefore, we should try to extract out of it what is useful for our betterment, both as a nation and as individuals.

In order to use this for our national betterment we can look upon Judge Seiland and say: how does a judge that inserts so much irrelevant opinion into his judgments become a judge. It seems Judge Seiland represents just one small portion of a much larger problem with our legal system. These judges seemingly are popping up much more often, perhaps because there are fewer checks on the judicial branch than any other branch of government. Judges are appointed for life and the only way to remove them is through impeachment. In addition, impeachment is certainly not an easy process, only two presidents Andrew Johnson; more recently, Bill Clinton; and thirteen federal judges have been impeached. That is not many when we consider that impeachment does not necessarily mean removal; such as was the case with President Clinton who managed to stay in office, in spite of his misconduct. So when figure just under half of these impeached officials were actually removed we see how difficult this check is to implement. Aside from the impeachment check; judges do have to be appointed by executive, but once they are pointed they can do anything, and the only other way to overturn a judge’s decision is a constitutional amendment. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote during impeachment proceedings against Justice Samuel Chase, for his arbitrary use of judicial power that: “a Judge giving a legal opinion contrary to the opinion of the legislature is liable to impeachment.” Hence, it is not the judge’s opinion that is important; it is the lawmaker’s opinion for making the law that is important. At any rate, we can see that judges have incredible power just by virtue of the fact that they are appointed for life and are not often removed; hence they are not subject to will of the people once they are appointed. Moreover, Impeachment is now interpreted to mean that they must commit indictable criminal acts; however is a perversion of the original intent of impeachment, as mention above. Impeachment, should also apply to negligence of duty and misuse of power such as judging not on the law, but upon personal opinion, and bias. Again these things are hard to prove, so even when it does happen it often is overlooked because of the complicated process of impeachment. However, it is fairly clear that judges need to commit indictable crimes to be impeached. Since the words of the US Constitution are:

“The Judges both of the Supreme and Inferior Courts shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall at stated times receive for their services a compensation which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.”

It is similar to our problems with tenure in the academic community, which is of course another issue that a whole post could be written upon. Sufficient to say many teacher gain tenure undeservingly, and it cannot be taken away easily. Many of our founding fathers including: Alexander Hamilton, Andrew Jackson, and Thomas Jefferson, foresaw the flaws of our judicial system. Howard Taft valued being a Supreme Court justice altogether over the Presidency. There is tremendous problem with the power concentrated in the judiciary branch and to paraphrase from Lenin in reference to Stalin: (they) contracted a great deal of power and I am not sure (they) always know how to use it.

“Implications are that unchecked, the judiciary will continue to discover “rights” lurking in the “shadows” of our Constitution. The judiciary is not solely to blame for this usurpation of We the People’s sovereignty. Through ignorance and indifference an unelected judiciary has been allowed to dominate our constitutional system. If the court has become the Super Branch, We the People are largely to blame. Education and involvement are a sure cure.” (DISCOVERING THE FOUNDERS’ ATTITUDES TOWARD THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT A Senior Honors Thesis By TERESIA COLEMAN AVILA)

“What is worrisome is that so many of the Court’s increased number of declarations of unconstitutionality are not even plausibly related to the actual Constitution. This means that we are increasingly governed not by law or elected representatives but by an unelected, unrepresentative, unaccountable committee of lawyers applying no will but their own.”
Judge Robert H. Bork

On the individual level we can look to Anna Nichole Smith as an example of how not to live. This lady although surrounded by people seemly had very few loyal friends. This lady exposed herself for money to playboy, she sold her body although maybe not physically she sold the imagery of herself, and knew full well what the imagery was to be used for. Hence she was basically a prostitute. I am not saying this disqualified her of doing anything worthwhile, but that aside from this disgraceful behavior she did not do anything worthwhile, expect maybe for the very few people around her. Of course, the body guard Big Moe, wants to hear something good about her, but the body guard was of course involved in the whole conflict, and he says that Anna died from a broken heart, because she was not able to grieve and not from the drugs. Celebrities do have a tough life, but they bring much of it upon themselves by acting inappropriately. Sorry, Moe Moe (Moe Moe was what Anna called him) I cannot think of much good about this lady did expect yes it seems she wanted to be a good mother, but in trying to be a good mother ended up selling herself out, and thereby actually became a bad mother. Also I suppose if you compare her to the way so many people are living today; in which they are constantly engaging in intercourse with multiple partners, and are basically living polygamous lifestyles. Then I supposed you can say that she was a good mother in the sense that she loved her child, but really it is not simply a bad mother than does not love and care for their child it is a completely complacent mother. Ergo she was just simply a bad mother; it seems she cared, but not enough to change her lifestyle. Furthermore, it is at the very least, clear that she also did not care to plan for the possibility of having children by not engaging intercourse with someone she did not plan to marry. This is all very sad because there are so many people engaging in this sort of polygamous lifestyle, that are risking these same sort of problems. For this reason, let us view Anna’s death as a wake up call. If you continue to live such a lifestyle you will be at the end of your life looking back at a wasted life. Life is short so make the best of it, don’t complicate things find one person and stay with them for life. This is considered archaic by many, however when we consider the alternative, Jerry Springer style life, it is really a much easier and less stressful life. So Commit for life or commit to stress.