4 - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, March 17, 2003 OPINION 420 MAYNARD STREET 0 ANNARBOR, MI 48109 opinion.michigandaily .com tothedaily@michigandaily.com EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890 JORDAN SCHRADER Editor in Chief JASON Z. PESICK Editorial Page Editor Unless otherwise noted, unsigned editorials reflect the opinion of the majority of the Daily's editorial board. All other articles, letters and cartoons do not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Michigan Daily. NOTABLE QUOTABLE Your life expectancy isn't what it once was. And you've got to think about the possibility of retirement." - United States Chief Justice William Rehnquist, speculating Monday on his future on the Supreme Court, in a taping of the NBC's "Today" show, as reported yesterday by The Washington Post SAM BUTLER THE SOAPBOX t4. 9~A4/- 4 a Soy Madrid ARI PAUL I FOUGHT THE LAW 4 magine my shock and disbelief when I saw the carnage that took place at Madrid's Atocha train station. When I hear about acts of terrorism around the world - in Israel, Iraq or Russia - I fail to really comprehend what it's like because I'm so detached from these places. But Madrid was different. Like the World Trade Center, I had been there before. I stood on Atocha's plat- forms. I rode on one of those red and white trains. That shook me up. But my grief turned to anger when I saw the way the American press had decid- ed to distort the tragedy in Madrid. MSNBC ran headlines effectively assign- ing blame to al Qaida. A cartoon in the Daily showed Osama bin Laden squeezing Spanish blood from his beard. Conserva- tive pundits have been quick to talk about terrorism only as it pertains to the Arab and Muslim world even after the Madrid bombings. The truth is that no one can be sure at this point who pulled off last week's mas- sacre. Spanish authorities said that the leftovers of the explosives looked like bombs ETA had used before, but ETA has not been known to solely target civilians or create a disaster of this magnitude. Plus, ETA has denied responsibility, but who said terrorists were known for telling the truth? There is some evidence pointing to al Qaida, but at this point, it is fairly weak. Could it have been small terror cells from North Africa? Splinter separatist groups from the Basque country? Anti-E.U. nationalists? It's anyone's guess. But according to the American dis- course, the trial is over, with all prosecu- tion and no defense, and the verdict puts the blame on Muslim terrorism. Again, it is very much possible that this was the work of Muslim terrorists, but Americans' knee-jerk reaction to blame Arabs and Muslims for any act of terrorism is a dan- gerous one. Remember the Oklahoma City bombings? People on the news spouted things like the "Mideast comes to the Mid West," and immediately accusations went around about Arab terrorism. But to and behold, the culprits turned out to be (d'oh!) two white, Christian warriors trained by a terrorist network based right here in Michigan. But what was the anti-Arab political machine really angry about? The Social- ists' victory in the Spanish elections after the bombing, of course. Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, the leader of the Spanish Socialist Party, has threatened to pull Spain's troops out of Iraq unless a more multilateral approach to the conflict is implemented swiftly. Former Bush speechwriter David Frum lamented, "Terrorism has won a mighty victory in Spain. The culprits who detonat- ed those bombs of murder on 3/11 intend- ed to use murder to alter the course of Spanish democracy - and they have suc- ceeded." Jim Donovan told the BBC, "How can (Zapatero) say in one breath he will remove the troops from Iraq and then say his priority is to fight terrorism?" Bush liked to tout the fact that he had a handful of countries like Spain on his side when he was making his case for war to present the world with some kind of coali- tion. He had, indeed, formed alliances with Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi (possible ties to the mafia), British Prime Minister Tony Blair (who is accused to misleading his country to war) and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon (a bona fide war criminal), while mass anti-war protests erupted in Rome, London and Tel Aviv. The people of Spain were - and still are - undoubtedly against the war in Iraq. Last week's act of terrorism vindicated a claim anti-war advocates have been purporting ever since Bush's war plans hit the pages of The New York Times - that a war in Iraq would not hinder terrorist activities and would only inflame anti-Western senti- ment. We were right, and the Spanish peo- ple paid dearly for Aznar's decision to be an obedient marionette to Bush. In return, the Spanish people kicked the bum out in exchange for a man who actually repre- sents the opinions of the population. Frum is wrong. This is what we call democracy. I I Paul can be reached at aspaul@umich.edu. Tyranny of the majority: part two DANIEL ADAMS SPITTING INTO THE WIND ast Sunday, Attor- ney General Mike Cox appeared in a guest column in the Detroit Free Press. Ostensibly, his intent was to comment on the recent failure in the state House of a statewide constitu- tional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage. However, it quickly became evident that Cox had a dif- ferent agenda: Though he fails to mention it by name, the column is clearly a con- demnation.of "judicial activism," or the practice of judges basing their rulings not on the Constitution, but instead on their own value systems. I have heard it all before - for the reli- gious Right, which has been on the receiv- ing end of 40 years of progressive court rulings, the phrase "judicial activism" has been sharpened into a rallying cry. Roe v. Wade? Judicial activism. Right to privacy? Judicial activism. The end of antisodomy laws? Judicial activism. The phrase has become the embodiment of all they perceive wrong with our system of government. The cure? Referenda. Let the masses decide. In fact, most of the responses I received from my last column, "Tyranny of the Majority," condemned me for what some felt was my tacit approval of judicial activism. Granted, judicial activism is an issue. Technically defined, it should be something that all Americans oppose as a threat to our system of checks and balances. But like so many other previously useful definitions, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean many things to different people. For the Left, judicial activism was a Republican-appointed U.S. Supreme Court ending the recounts in Florida, leading to George W. Bush becoming the president. For the Right, judicial activism is best embodied in the landmark case Griswold v. Connecticut, which held that there is a con- stitutional right to privacy. However, any accusation of judicial activism must take into account our Con- stitution's status as a living, evolving doc- ument. It must be - the framers simply didn't have a Ouija board around that could predict all the societal issues that would arise over the lifespan of our then- young nation. But judicial activism isn't what I want to write about. I want to write about Mike Cox. Mike Cox has much bigger problems than judicial activism -'he doesn't seem to have a clue as to how our judicial system and our republic were intended to function. Let's start with the basic stuff: Having apparently skipped most of ninth-grade gov- ernment class, Cox mentions in his piece how important he feels it is that we have a public referendum on same-sex marriage in order to "preserve the rule of law necessary for our constitutional democracy to prosper." Two problems: first, we're a constitu- tional republic, not a consititutional democracy. Second, his belief in the rule of law clearly contradicts the statement that same-sex marriage is "too important to be left to one judge." Besides, even if we're to buy his argu- ment that direct democracy is acceptable - indeed, preferable - in this instance, it must be understood that the people can effectively and efficiently run the govern- ment. Cox fails to conclusively establish even this. Referring to a Free Press editorial that hailed the defeat of the amendment, Cox called it "a classic example of a disin- genuous school of rhetoric - use charged words in such a way to lead a reader to believe that no rational person could ever have a contrary view." Translation: People are stupid. Don't confuse them. But Cox can't seem to make up his mind on this, later writing, "The genius of Ameri- ca and the animating force of the American Revolution was our belief in the collective wisdom of all our citizens and a rejection of rule by would-be philosopher kings." Translation: People are smart. Give them power. Which is it, Mr. Cox? Judicial activism isn't the issue here. The issue here is that our attorney gener- al can't get his amendmen through a Republican House. The issue here is that he wants to sneak around the judicial branch instead. The issue here is that our attorney gen- eral doesn't seem to understand how our system of government was intended to function. Mr. Cox, we elect representatives to leg- islate. By advocating in favor of pure democracy over our republic, Cox builds an argument that is inherently unconstitutional, and by advocating in favor of direct democ- racy even at the expense of equality, Cox has built an argument that is potentially dis- criminatory. The process of judicial review has always been an important check on the power of that legislature, even when it has ruled against the will of the majority. Worst of all: Mike Cox is the Michigan attorney general, and I shouldn't have to remind him of any of this. Adams can be reached at dnadams@umich.edu. LETTERS TO THE EDITOR Representatives urge 'U' to vote yes on the LSA-SGE ballot question TO THE DAILY: For two days, three of our members have criticized LSA Student Government's measure to create a more accountable and consistent government. The three freshmen on government who oppose this measure We are attempting to rectify this mishap and truly serve student interests. We are advocating for leadership who know what issues are, who have relation- ships with the other elected members of government, and who have relationships with administrators (who hold the true ability to change college and University policies). This is essential to the optimal functioning of our government. We need to change our constitution and allow for student issues and concerns to be advocat- d -A nnn-msie n Tnioenn t&e elected representatives on LSA-SG voted 15-3 in favor of this constitutional change. We ask that you do the same. Support our ability to work for you. Vote yes on the LSA-SG ballot question. ALEXIS BATES LSA-SG representative PAIGE BUTLER Vice Chair, LSA-SGAcademicAffairs Committee ROB CANTOR LSA-SG representative RYAN FORD LSA-SG vice-presidential candidate <' >'