Are There Dual Tracks for Mishandling Classified Information?

 During the Vice Presidential Debate, Republican Vice Presidential nominee Governor Mike Pence (R-IN) impeached his opponent Democrat Vice Presidential nominee Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) on how mishandling of classified information is administered.

Both of the VP nominees have sons on active duty serving in the Marines (as advertised by Sen. Kaine's lapel pin), so Pence's analogy of how the Pentagon would not suffer fools gladly should have hit home.  


However, as a good soldier to his boss Democrat Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton (D-NY), Kaine reiterated that FBI Director Comey claimed that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case against Clinton. Of course, that begs the question whether a prosecutor should reinterpret 18 US Code Sec. 1924 to require intentionality or if a Law Enforcement Officer ought to informally adjudicate a case in the first place.


During her first Presidential Debate, Hillary Clinton  kept urging viewers to fact check what her opponent says.  It would only be just if inquiring minds would apply the same principle to Sen. Kaine's   unequivocal denial that the military would decline to court marshal someone under their jurisdiction who handled classified information in what FBI Director Comey characterized as an "extremely careless" way.

One suspects that it would be more fruitful to wait for Tim Kaine to let Mike Pence finish a sentence. Of course, people could save time fact checking and just ask General Petraeus. 

How to Reign In the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court will start consideration of cases in its new term on the first Monday in October.  Many High Court observers expect that SCOTUS will have a diminished case-load during the 2016-2017 term as it awaits confirmation of  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia's replacement.

***

A more philosophical question is what should be the role of the Supreme Court.  Chelsea Clinton has mentioned on the hustings that openings the Supreme Court will allow her mother to fundamentally redefine the parameters of the Second Amendment.  

Most likely there would be no outright repeal of this fundamental freedom given by God, but it would take a narrow reading of the organic law and assert that this right is limited to organized militias. This would effectively make it a dead letter, like the Tenth Amendment.

So instead of being final arbiters of cases, the Supreme Court would act like a super-legislature, only they are unelected and there is virtually no way to upend their ukases

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) while campaigning for President proposed having retention elections for the judiciary, as they do in Iowa.  That sounds more appealing on the campaign trail then it would be applicable in the Federal City. However, it does voice the frustration of many Americans who feel cut out of the governing process.  California twice approved referendums defining marriage (which was primarily a state issue), yet in Obergefell, the Supreme Court overturned the will of voters under a Right of Dignity interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment and then expanded this right of same-sex marriage to all 50 states.

Two longer shot prospects not considered by judicial watchers are the possibility that Republican Presidential nominee Donald Trump (R-NY) might win and actually live by his promise to nominate conservative judicial candidates.  

The other way to remedy judicial tyranny would be limitations on Article III power.  While Congress can theoretically reign in lower courts, it is unlikely to do so. This would leave such reformation to application of an Article V Convention of States.  While that emergency level has been in place for 227 years, it has never been successfully invoked yet. But as more and more power is taken away from states yet they are saddled with the brunt of implementing dictates from the District of Calamity (sic), this may become a more feasible possibility.