Legal System Quotes
Surprisingly, many third world leaders very much desired to become colonies of Great Britain. This letter was not only signed by the King but all the princes as well. The letter languished for more than 3 years in the British Foreign Office without even an answer as British governments vacillated between expansionism and anti-colonialism.
In addition to being a great writer, Kafka was a legal scholar and attorney who had earned a Juris Doctor degree.
See Jonathan Swift {35359} and William Shenstone {642165} for a later expression of this notion.
This is a very important historical and political quotation. The first clause shows us that earmarks and private bills for the benefit of individuals and their commercial enterprises are not a new form of corruption; they have existed ever since there have been legislatures.
The most important aspect of this quotation is the SECOND clause. Very frequently, this is quoted alone without the context of the first clause. Taken alone, the meaning seems to be that the more corrupt governments pass the most laws, and there is an implication that fewer laws mean less corruption. This interpretation fits perfectly with the conservative ideology of the late 20th and early 21st centuries that believed that the smaller the government, the better; the fewer the laws passed, the better. However with the context of the first clause, we see that what Tacitus was criticizing the legislature that passed many earmarks and bills benefitting special interests. The more of these that were passed, the more corruption he argued. So he did not object to laws per se. He was not opining on the relationship between the number of laws and a corrupt government if the laws are for general benefit and not for special interests. Out of context, it might appear that Tacitus was supporting the small government, conservative philosophy. In context, he is arguing against earmarks and special interest legislation and supports what we call “good government” which has been bipartisan in America with parts of each party agreeing with Tacitus and other parts of each party trying to pass earmarks and special interest legislation.
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.
There were anti-Vietnam war protests going on throughout the country that year. In many of them, especially at universities, protesters took over buildings, and shut down operations. Most Republicans and many Democrats wanted the protests to end, mostly because they feared the spread of the anti-Vietnam war sentiment would catch on and become a position held by most Americans (which it did just as they feared,) They were restrained in what they could do legally by the 1st Amendment. However, there was much breaking of minor laws in many of the demonstrations and that was the focus of the effort to suppress the demonstrations. But in the tradition of civil disobedience, it was the lawbreaking that tended to get the press attention and coverage, so the leaders of the anti-war movement advocated even more lawbreaking, hence Dirksen’s statement to the convention.
