Almost everyone accepts the idea of "Judicial Review" -- that is, that the courts may some play some role in making sure legislation is Constitutional. For example, if Congress and the President both passed a law saying that people could be locked up merely for saying something unpopular, one would hope that the Supreme Court would dissent, pointing out the violation of the First Amendment.

However, there has arisen a certain fashionable contingent who believes that the courts should not only be able to strike down laws which are clearly unconstitutional, but also should be able to make new legislation at will, and strike down any laws passed by the legislature, as long as some pretext, no matter how facially absurd, is offered. They claim the Constitution is a "living" document -- but they do not mean, as the founders intended, that it should be changed by democratic processes outlined therein, but rather that it should change each time a judge "sees" something new in it.

So, for example, "progressive" judges on the Supreme Court recently "discovered", for the first time, in contradiction to the plain meaning of the text and two centuries of scholarship saying otherwise, that the Constitution actually allowed the government to take your home away and give it to a wealthy businessman. This was not a decision made by the voters, nor by their duly elected representatives, but rather by five unelected persons who cannot be removed by the voters, and whose actions are impossible to democratically overturn.

You can number me as among those who think this is a bad idea, and think that democracy despite its flaws, is better than (as Thomas Jefferson termed it) "despotism" and "oligarchy". But others apparently believe the idea that laws should arise from the will of the people is passe -- it is a form of "progress" to return to a situation where a few unelected people, subject to no checks and balances, can exert final control over our lives.

Apparently, we can count Colin Powell among them:

Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, one of the country's most respected Republicans, stunned both parties Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC's "Meet the Press" and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP....

As a key reason, Powell said: "I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that's what we'd be looking at in a McCain administration."

Yes, it really sucks that the "conservative" justices keep trying to adhere to "what the legislature meant" (in other words, the actual will of the people, as defined by the Constitution) when trying to apply legislation. This is a bad approach, and it would be so much better if they, like the Kelo crowd, focused on what they personally thought the people needed today, whether it was against the law or not, or whether the people agreed with them or not. After all, the voters are stupid and "progressive" judges are smart, so who needs this damned "democracy" thing gumming up the works?

Let's get on with the program, right?

It's a sad day when those sworn to protect the Constitution have so little regard for it.

And, as we see so often, this distaste for democracy seems to coupled with, and even driven by, a visceral anger at whatever it is that Sarah Palin represents to Powell -- something to do with "values":

Powell said that he is "troubled" by the direction of the Republican Party, and said he began to doubt McCain when he chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate. "Not just small towns have values," he said, responding to one of Palin's signature lines.

I agree: Colin Powell has values too. He values judicial activism and "electrifying" speech-making. I value democracy and governmental restraint. He values looking good in the eyes of non-Americans. I more highly value doing the right thing, which almost never wins praise on the international stage.

I agree: he has values -- but so does everyone. That doesn't mean we all need to say that we think you have good values. (I hear every day how terrible my own values allegedly are. Do I sit around a cry about it? Geez -- grow up, "General" Powell.)

More of Powell's thoughts:

I'm also troubled by, not what Sen. McCain says, but what members of the party say...

This is precisely what I wrote about yesterday: He is troubled by some "kooks" who support McCain, but isn't asking if there are even more such people among Obama's ranks, or if they are even higher placed. Yes, it's bad to lie about Obama's stated religious affiliation. But isn't it far, far worse to lie about, say, McCain or Palin's marital fidelity, or the paternity of her children? And isn't it worse to hear such things from supporters in the press, than from amongst the general populace?

Powell seems to have no sense of perspective here.

... And it is permitted to be said, such things as, "Well, you that know Mr. Obama is a Muslim." Well, the correct answer is, he is not a Muslim, he's a Christian. He's always been a Christian.

How vapid. Powell should really learn at least a little about his candidate, at least in the areas he claims are important.

Question for Mr. Powell: If Obama has "always" been a Christian, then how could he possibly have claimed that Reverend Wright led him to Christ? In fact, Obama was registered in school, as a child, as a Muslim, and was a secularist after that. (I don't think that's anything at all damning, mind you -- if anything it makes his stated conversion to Christ all the more important -- but facts are facts and Powell's wrong here.)

But the really right answer is: What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country?

I dunno, Powell: If that's wrong, then why is it also okay to constantly attack Sarah Palin's alleged religious beliefs? (Which, again, has been happening in the press, not merely among the voters.) Powell seems to be in full strain-gnat/swallow-camel mode here.

The truth is that people do concern themselves with candidates' religious values. I don't think that's wrong. Voters generally distrust ardent secularists, the press generally distrusts conservative Christians, and most evenone here, looking at Europe, is a bit edgy about Islam.

What if he is? Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer's no, that's not America. Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Muslim American kid believing that he or she could be president?

Again, I dunno Powell: Is there something wrong with some 7-year-old Pentecostal or Amish or strict fundamentalist Christian kid believing he or she could be president? What about a 7-year-old Scientologist or Satanist? Or Branch Davidian, "Fundamentalist" Mormon, or member of the Nation of Islam?

The simple answer, which seems to elude Powell's rage, is YES -- if a kid holds values that most Americans don't embrace, then he or she will have an uphill battle. The "America" Powell believes in, where your entire religious philosophical and religious outlook should have no bearing on your candidacy, has never existed, and should never exist. How foolish.

And Powell's not even being honest with himself, or he'd express an even greater outrage at the same questions being raised about Palin, far more frequently, from even more prominent sources.

Yet I have heard senior members of my own party drop the suggestion, "He's a Muslim and he might be associated with terrorists." This is not the way we should be doing it in America.

If this is true, Powell should name names: If senior Republicans have indeed said precisely that, why shouldn't he expose them? He's supporting the other candidate now. Why is he, according to his own statements, helping provide cover for such "bigoted" statements? And if deprecating a candidate based on allegation of extreme or unusual religious values is wrong, wrong, wrong -- then why on earth is he rushing into the arms of the Democratic Party, which has a long history of doing precisely that?

Sorry, but I rather expect Powell's use of this meme is as dishonest as others I've heard it from: Nobody but a few chain-mail senders are making the "Muslim" claim. When pressed for name of prominent people who have claimed Obama is a Muslim, no evidence can be produced.

But top Republicans are claiming Obama has formed alliances with Bernadine Dorn and William Ayers, who were, in fact, terrorists. (And are still rather unrepentant about it.)

If that's false, Powell should simply say so and provide counter-evidence. Or explain why it shouldn't matter. But to try to link it with the "Muslim" claim, without giving any evidence of such, strikes me as an attempt to dismiss uncomfortable facts as bigotry.

So we have another Republican for Obama. And another set of seemingly self-refuting, emotional arguments, an impatience with democracy, a craving for world approval and change, and a love for an "electrifying" figure who gives stirring speeches.

Where have we seen this all before? And why do we think it will work out differently this time?

Satayana laughs. Or, perhaps, cries.