Voltaire Quotes

This quotation is a great example of the difficulty of deciding some of the major Constitutional issues. Most reasonable people believe that Rehnquist certainly has a point. On the other hand, critics observe that this quotation essentially says that it is OK to convict an innocent person if it cost too much or be too much trouble to do so. Reasonable people would also agree that this objection has much merit also. So the judicial system is stuck with deciding when the cost or trouble is too much. There will never, can never, be a clear cut answer.

It is surprising that these ideas would come from one of the most autocratic powerful monarch in the world at the time. However there were many very liberal influences on her from Europe. This set of proposals she even sent to Voltaire to get his feedback and criticism.

Vladimir Lenin

This is one of the many statements of President Bush that contributed to his reputation as a polarizing politician. His supporters turned to this statement to illustrate that Bush was a supporter of the Constitution and civil liberties by urging the nation not to engage in vigilantism or give vent to their stereotypic views of minorities. Detractors took the same statement as a perfect example of Bush’s assault on Constitutional freedoms. Law enforcement does not determine guilt or innocence in our system. Police and prosecutors in America do not determine guilt or innocence; juries do. They argue that the Bush administration law enforcement policies are designed to have law enforcement usurp more and more of this facet of criminal justice.

This is the first appearance of the principle which guides law enforcement in most of America and the other industrialized democracies around the world. Texas and some other localities have rejected this notion and see the occasional execution of an innocent person the cost we must pay in order to preserve law and order.

He was one of the few “national security hawks” who was willing to place this issue in the public table. In the 21st Century, there were some Muslims living in Democratic countries who were or had just become radical Islamic extremist jihadist by religious belief and philosophy. Some would preach or advocate violence in terrorism against Democracy and the west. Many of these people with radical Islamic beliefs would give material aid and comfort to terrorists and some would themselves engage in terrorist activities themselves. When they did, it was too late to prevent tragedies. So there was this population of emotional and intellectual terrorists who could act on their beliefs at any moment. These are what Hayden referred to as the “not yet guilty”. Preventive detention could protect against serious terrorist attacks. But the legal system of virtually every democracy had no legal bases to incarcerate or move against anyone for his/her beliefs or speech. Criminal charges required action other than thoughts, beliefs or speech. But by waiting until there is terrorist action, the law enforcement authorities give up the ability to prevent the terrorist action. Some were advocating changes in this fundamental and traditional distinction of law enforcement.