NEW JERSEY: CODEY' S STRONG ARMING ORGAN BILL neither compassionate nor understanding

This post compares and contrasts verbatim what New Jersey Senate President Codey’s press release says about the organ "donor" bill and what the bills (S-754 & S-755), by their own exact words, read together, pull off.

The format takes each Codey assertion and (1) quotes the assertion , (2) quotes the passage(s) of the bill referred to, and (3) then offers a Reality Check. The Seanator's press release also has a frequently asked questions and answer list in the form of "myth" and "reality." This post also adds a "reality check."

Senator Codey’s “Out of Sight, Out of Mind” Strategy

An important caveat. Senator Codey completely ignores any mention of the Fourteenth Amendment right of privacy and independence of decision making that is inherent in controlling one’s own body. CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990). Furthermore, the Senator never really addresses the First Amendment right to freedom of thought. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833, 851 (1992) . Thus, it is no surprise he also never mentions that making a decision about organ harvesting is a prerequisite to obtaining or renewing your driver’s license. That said, the press release begins:

Senate President Sets the Record Straight on Organ Donor Bill

CODEY: “TRENTON: With the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee approving the NJ Hero Act today, Senate President Richard J. Codey (D-Essex) set the record straight on a number of myths and misunderstandings being reported about the bill he recently introduced to help save lives and increase organ donation.”

Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act: “Anatomical gift” means a donation of all or part of a human body to take effect after the donor’s death for the purpose of transplantation, therapy, research, or education. S-754, p.2, lines 23-25.

Reality Check: What you are actually “donating” and certain conditions governing your “donation” are governed by the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act. Senator Codey makes no mention of them, the bill's simultaneous pending revision, or how they impact your decision.Therefore, it only seems fair to at least inform all effected the bill seeks more than agreement to organ transplant donation you are agreeing to the use of your body, body parts, and tissue for transplant, research and education.

CODEY: “The goal of this bill, plain and simple, is to increase the number of registered organ donors by starting a conversation early and often so that everyone understands the importance of organ donation, said Sen. Codey.”

New Jersey Hero Act:“

(d) to instill an understanding of the consequences when an individual does not make a decision to become an organ donor and does not register or otherwise record a designated decision-maker;” Hero Act, S-755, p.3, lines 43-45.

“instills knowledge 2[and values]2 that will enable young adults to make an informed decision about registering to become an organ donor or designating a decision-maker to make the decision on behalf of the young adult. The information shall also instill an understanding of the outcome if no decision about becoming an organ donor or designating a decision-maker is registered or otherwise recorded.” Hero Act, S-755, p. 4 , lines 32-38.

“instills knowledge 2[and values]2 that will enable young adults to make an informed decision about registering to become an organ donor or designating a decision-maker to make the decision on behalf of the young adult. The information shall also instill an understanding of the outcome if no decision about becoming an organ donor or designating a decision-maker is registered or otherwise recorded. Hero Act, S-755,P.5, lines 1-7.

Reality Check: Get it? ... Get it? ... Get it? ... Get it? …Get it? ... Get It? … Get it?

While this post makes has no claim to any legal authority it seems simple to understand the phrases “instill” and “and values” seem unconstitutional either on the face of it or as applied.
"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an exception, they do not now occur to us." West Virginia State Board of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). The State . . ., no less than the Congress of the United States, must respect that basic truth." Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 52-55 (1985).

The “values” phrase was removed from the bill by unanimous vote on the same day, March 3, 2008) that Senator Codey put out his press release. Its just not enough.

CODEY: "There has been a tremendous amount of inaccuracies reported in newspapers and echoed on the radio and I want to set the record straight. This bill is about compassion and understanding, not strong arming.”

New Jersey Hero Act: "

The health and welfare of New Jersey’s residents requires a more dynamic, comprehensive framework regarding organ donation, one with mandated educational and decisional components.” Hero Act, S-755, lines 28-31.

Motor Vehicle Commission (“MVC”)will not issue or renew a New Jersey driver’s license or personal identification card unless a prospective or renewing licensee or card holder makes an acknowledgement regarding the donor decision. Hero Act, S-755, lines 1-5.

Reality Check: The bill is pure coercion. arm-twisting means the use of direct personal pressure in order to achieve a desired end as when the State asks you such an unrelated question at the MVC. Coercion means the practice of compelling a person to behave in an involuntary way. Codey is coercing you because you must make a public decision or you cannot obtain or renew your license.

The bill may be about compassion and understanding for people who need a transplant to prevent a physical impairment or death but it also benefits research and the companies who make money off of your "donation" as well as the schools who gain a cost-free source of bodies (or parts) to practice on.

The bill, however, is needlessly antagonistic and insensitive to everyone else. It seems appropriate that legislation both serve the people while respecting the rights of the people. Senator Codey's bill is insensitive because it fails to respect the peoples' liberty interest in privacy and independence in decision making and avoiding disclosure of personal matters. Furthermore, the bill's intent to inculcate people with the State's attitudes is antagonistic to all people, especially those people, who for religious, moral, or other reasons, have choosen or choose to think differently.

CODEY: “In doing so, Senator Codey released the following facts on the NJ Hero Act, bill S755/A2083:The NJ Hero Act is so named to highlight the heroic act of donating one’s organs and tissues to save and enhance the lives of others. In doing so, it contains two major initiatives:

1. Anyone applying for a driver’s license or identification card to first answer a few simple questions regarding organ donation, including: Would you like to be an organ donor? If not, would you like to designate someone to make that decision for you?”

New Jersey Hero Act: “The health and welfare of New Jersey’s residents requires a more dynamic, comprehensive framework regarding organ donation, one with mandated educational and decisional components.” Hero Act, S-755, p.2, lines 28-31.

Reality Check: Does Codey’s sentence even make sense? What he clearly means is: “Anyone applying for a driver’s license or identification card [is required] to first answer a few simple questions ..."

CODEY: “2. Education for public high school, higher education, and medical school and nursing school students and professionals in order to dispel myths associated with organ donation, provide accurate information, and emphasize the fundamental responsibility of individuals to take appropriate action, when able, to help save another persons life.”

New Jersey Hero Act: emphasize the fundamental responsibility of individuals to take appropriate action, when able to do so, to help save another person’s life. Hero Act, S-755, p.2, lines 41-43.

Reality Check: What does the above sentence mean? Does anyone have a "fundamental" duty, as opposed to a personal moral choice, to turn their body over to a pharmacutical company because their research might save lives. What about a pharmacutical company that deals with non-life threatening research. The bill makes no distinction between uses or users.

And, the reason it makes no distinction is any weight in State's interest to your body parts decreasing as the reason moves from save lives to research and then education.

More importantly, the bill represents further erosion of human rights and the next State encroachment on the path to mandatory body and body part harvesting.

Historical Step 1. The State began this process by using its authority to ask questions in seemingly harmless and voluntary manner.

Current Step 2. It is now making its intrusion mandatory as the Motor Vehicle Commission ("MVC") will not issue or renew a New Jersey driver’s license or personal identification card unless a prospective or renewing licensee or card holder makes an acknowledgement regarding the donor decision. Hero Act, S-755, p. lines 1-5.

Projected End Step 3. The New Jersey judiciary rules that pursuant to the long standing and broad Statutory law stating “the fundamental responsibility of individuals to take appropriate action, when able, to help save another persons life,” your body (or more likely you children’s or grand children’s bodies) will, with or without consent, be automatically harvested because a dead person has no legal interests in their dead body.

MYTH [1]: I am being forced to make a decision that I might not be ready to make yet.

REALITY: Taking into account countless factors, including religion, the Hero Act does NOT, in any way, force you to make a decision about organ donation. If you are not ready to be a donor or designate a decision maker in your place, you do not have to. The goal is to generate a conversation and hopefully an awareness of organ donation. You will always maintain the right to NOT be a donor.

REALITY CHECK: YOU ARE BEING FORCED TO MAKE A PUBLIC, LEGALLY BINDING CHOICE THAT YOU MIGHT NOT BE READY TO MAKE.

If you say "yes" you are entered into the State data base and the entry represents a legally binding decision. The decision will appear on your driver’s license. It appears that, if you change your mind you must be sure your name is removed from the data base. If not, in the event of your death, your body could be immediately be harvested.

New Jersey Hero Act: d. Donor information entered into the registry shall supersede any prior conflicting information provided to the registry or on the individual’s driver’s license or identification card, and pursuant to section 2 of P.L.1969, c.161 (C.26:6-58) and section 1 of P.L.1987, c.244 (C.26:6-58.1) or any subsequent statute adopted pursuant thereto, registration by a donor shall constitute sufficient authorization to donate organ and tissues for transplantation and therapy and authorization of another person shall not be necessary to effectuate the gift. Hero Act, S-755, p.7, lines 18-26.

Any other answer is or must be considered a legal binding "no". As example, should you die in a car crash the State cannot immediately take your body and proceed to harvest it because, assuming any earlier consent has been deleted from the data base, there is no data base consent.

MYTH [2]: I am being forced to acknowledge the importance of organ donation, even if I don’t agree with it.

REALITY: The Hero Act in no way forces you to take a stance that runs counter to your beliefs. If you do not wish to be a donor or designate a decision maker, you simply have to acknowledge that you have read through this process by checking off a box that states, I have reviewed the importance of organ donation. This is merely a formality to ensure that you have completed the process before applying for a driver’s license or ID card, with the end goal being to make people consciously aware of the need for organ donation.

REALITY CHECK: YOU ARE BEING COERCED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SO-CALLED DONATION FOR TRANSPLANT, RESEARCH AND EDUCATION EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT BECAUSE THAT IS THE REASON THE QUESTIONS ARE REPEATEDLY ASKED, DECISIONS REPEATEDLY MANDATED, AND A LICENSE REPEADTLY DENIED IF NOT ANSWERED.

The question Codey is also addressing is a trick question. He is asking does the State require you to say or act in a manner that could be conceived as forced agreement with the State’s positions on body harvesting. The applicable bill section reads: “The portal shall require a resident who has not registered as an organ donor, and who seeks a driver’s license or identification card or seeks renewal thereof, to either: (1) register as an organ donor through the Donate Life NJ Registry; or (2) 2 [acknowledge an understanding of] review information about2 the life-saving potential of organ and tissue donation, and 2[an understanding of]2 the consequences when an individual does not make a decision to become an organ donor and does not register or otherwise record a 15 designated decision-maker.” Hero Act, S-755, pg.8., lines 7-15.

On Monday, March 3, 2008, the same day Senator Codey put out his press release, the Senate version, S-755, was also amended to "provide that residents who do not register as organ donors through the Donate Life NJ Registry 'review information about,' rather than 'acknowledge an understanding of,' the life-saving potential of organ and tissue donation (section 8)" because “acknowledge” and / or “understanding” as forced agreement with the State.

MYTH [3]: If I designate a decision maker, it will be noted on my license and maintained in a Motor Vehicle Commission (MVC) database.

REALITY: No, the MVC registry is an affirmative registry and only collects the names of those who wish to be an organ donor. If you wish to designate a decision maker, you will be able to obtain a form through an MVC office or their Web site that will serve much like a living will. This will be a private document kept only by you. When the time calls for it, you and/or your family will be responsible for presenting it.

REALITY CHECK: IF YOU SAY YES IT WILL APPEAR ON YOUR LICENSE FOR ALL TO SEE. ANY OTHER ANSWER IS A NO AND PEOPLE WILL SEE THE NO BY ITS ABSENCE.

If you say "yes" you are entered into the State data base and the entry represents a legally binding decision. The decision will appear on your driver’s license. Any other answer is or must be considered a legal binding "no", as example, should you die in a car crash the State cannot immediately take your body and proceed to harvest it because there is no data base consent.

Moreover, also thanks to Senator Codey, that information is shared with the Federal government, which probably includes Homeland Security via the Real ID Act or its progeny. Hence your appearance in the data base, or lack of it, can be crossed referenced by any other data base in building a psychological profile about you.

MYTH[4]: This bill is going to force people to make a critical, life altering decision in a rush while they are at a busy MVC office.

REALITY: You can complete the process at any time prior to obtaining your license either by doing so online or by picking up a form at your MVC office ahead of time. This will enable you to make a thoughtful decision in the privacy of your own home and with the advice of family, friends or clergy.

REALITY CHECK: It seems fair to hypothesize some will remember to address the issue prior to physically applying for or renewing their license. It also seems fair to hypothesize some will forget about it until they contact the MVC. But yes, you will, over, and over, and over again be forced to make a public decision before obtaining or renewing your driver's license.

MYTH[5]: This bill places a burden on teachers and administrators by forcing them to cram it into the curriculum.

REALITY: Both the NJEA and the NJ Department of Education have been involved in helping to craft this bill. The Department of Education has been charged with developing a balanced and unbiased presentation of the issue.

REALITY CHECK: More partisan politics , more junk science, more jobs, more pensions, more money, more taxes.

MYTH[6]: I just read in the paper that were doing great on organ donation, why do we even need this bill?

REALITY: Although a record number of New Jersey residents signed up to be organ donors last year, we still have a long way to go to bridge the gap between those who desperately need a transplant and those who are willing to donate. The fact still remains that roughly 4,200 New Jersey residents are presently waiting for a life saving organ donation. Furthermore, each year roughly 6,000 people in this country die while waiting for an

REALITY CHECK: SENATOR CODEY HAS NOT MADE HIS CASE FOR MANDATORY, REPETITIVE DECISION MAKING.

There is no doubt that with organ donations reaching record levels in New Jersey the public conversation is closing the gap between those in need of a transplant and available body parts. And, there are other, noncoercive ways to approach the same goals. Organ and Tissue Donation Information Included With Income Tax Refund Payments, pgs. 4-5.

Conversely, Senator Codey has not shown the subtle use of intimidation via the repeated asking and repeatedly forcing driver license applicants to make a decision about their body is necessary or the best practical way to achieve his goal. Nor has he shown that the dramatic increase in voluntary donations is failing to close the gap or will not be set back by those who resent his heavy handed tactics. There is absolutely no objective reason to believe his plan will close the gap or that it will not increase it simply by the time delay associated with the bills implementation.

ORGAN DONOR OR BODY SNATCHER: Codey’s Inquisition v. Personal Freedom

If New Jersey Senator President Dick Codey has his way the (1) State created substantive right to drive (2) will be contingent on those who apply for, or who seek to renew, their driver’s license obeying the State’s policy to “encourage positive donation” by making a totally unrelated but repeatedly mandatory and public decision (3) as to whether or not the applicant will make a carte blanche “donation” of his or her body, organs, and / or tissue for transplant, research and / or education. New Jersey Hero Act,S-755. (Adobe Reader).

What follows does not attempt to debate the pros and cons of permitting one’s body, organs, or tissue to be harvested for transplant, research or study. It is certainly not meant to be a legal opinion. But when both Blue Jersey and NJ 101.5’s Jim Gearhart oppose the bill’s overreaching mandates one takes notice. It makes one ask: Does the State have the right to ask and demand an answer to such intimate questions, and if so, is the proposed method permissible.

Be forewarned, however, the view here is the legislation, as written, is a patronizing hodge-podge of self-aggrandizing bad law and an incoherent self-serving attempt to slip as much of that bad law as possible by the people. Additionally, reading it together with the proposed Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act, S-754 or in the light of 18 U.S.C. 2721 (a)(2). does nothing to change that view. Indeed, where is the OLS legal opinion? Is there one?

LEGISLATION PROPOSAL S-755 CONTENT

Make no mistake – refuse to answer Codey’s questions and the application process is over. According to Senator Codey’s February 14, 2008 testimony, (Windows Media), applicants for driver licenses are required to make a legally binding and recorded declaration concerning their body parts prior to continuing the application process. To “encourage positive donation”, applicants will be met by a State agent, i.e. a motor vehicle employee, who will ask up to three questions. The first is whether the applicant wants to have their remains harvested for transplant, research, or education. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition.

If the answer is yes, the applicant is given a number required for continuing on in the license application process.

If the applicant is not willing or able to make the on-the-spot decision, he or she is asked to name a third party who will be legally responsible for a future decision in the event of the applicant’s death. Upon naming a guardian the applicant is given a number required for continuing on in the license application process.

If the applicant refuses to designate a guardian and proceeds to an outright no to “donation”, the response is recorded and the applicant is given a number required for continuing on in the license application process.

Five years from the date of enactment applicants must answer the same questions via online access or at their DMV office prior to applying for or renewal of a driver’s license. New Jersey Hero Act S-755, p.7, section 8. At the end of the process there will be a donor designation on the driver’s license. New Jersey Hero Act, S-755, p.7, section 8.

SENATOR DICK CODEY’S ORGAN BILL, S-755, SEEMS TO VIOLATE THE FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO PRIVACY

Despite the seeming lack of specific guidance, tradition can only lead one to the conclusion the individual has a fundamental right to determine the disposition of one’s remains, and therefore, that right is entitled to be exercised in a manner that is free from government interference.The U.S. Constitution recognizes the individuals have a fundamental liberty interest in independence in decision making and avoiding disclosure of personal matters. First among those privacy interests is a person's body. Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 770 (Criminal case)(1966). Indeed, "Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body." Cruzan v. Director, MDH, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990).Even where the privacy interest does not rise to the level of fundamental right, analysis of “ ‘privacy’ interest[s] has in fact involved at least two different kinds of interests. One is the individual interest in avoiding disclosure of personal matters, and another is the interest in independence in making certain kinds of important decisions.” Whalen v. Roe, 429 U.S. 589, 599-600 (1977).

A statute impinging upon a fundamental right is presumed to be unconstitutional. Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 312 (1980).

1. To overcome that presumption, the state must prove its intrusion is not just legitimate, it must prove it to be compelling. "Compelling" generally refers to something necessary, as opposed to something merely preferred. Here, therefore, the government interest in attempting to “persuade” the public to become organ donors is, if anything, merely legitimate because it is the government's preferred option. It cannot be a compelling or necessary interest because it does not, and one could easily argue cannot, mandate organ or tissue donation for transplant, research or study. Conversely, there is no fundamental legal duty to donate.

2. That should be the end it. But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume the court wants to know whether the statute meets the lesser standard of “undue burden” on the right to decision making free from government interference. Now ask yourself the question: Could the State require a woman to decide if she will be a parent in the following four years. If she becomes pregnant during that time, dies while pregnant, regardless of whether the child is or is not viable – what happens to the fetus . Also, will the State inform the women she can give up the right to decide when and whether to have a child by making four year prior notice to a third party who is given the decision making power? Think that answers it….

3. Finally, comes the matter of privacy and “donor” identification on a driver license.Either the appearance or lack of appearance of donor status on a driver license informs everyone who looks at the license of the individual's decision. Yet such identification is neither effective nor necessary. It’s certainly not effective because the only proof as to “donor” status that matters is the “Donate Life NJ Registry”. New Jersey Hero Act, S-755, P.7, section 7(2) (d) . Accordingly, what is on the license must be checked with the registry before any action is taken.

Furthermore, it does not even attempt to minimize the intrusion on privacy as every license is seen by bartenders, librarians, grocers, etc. Thus, unlike the registry, there is absolutely no protection from the eyes of the unnecessary, the uninvolved, the unintended and the curious.

WILSON v CORZINE & KATZ: IS GOV. MENACING JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE?

This post has three purposes concerning the Corzine-Katz emails. The first is to recognize that by all appearances the Judge has done his best governing the case. The second purpose is to recognize a unique confluence of events that, intentional or not, may open the door for an increasingly unpopular Governor to silently exert an inappropriate influence on the decision in Wilson v. Corzine & Katz. The third, and ultimate purpose, is to let Governor Corzine know we know what he knows and thus he should forget about it.


BACKGROUND

For Hamilton, Jefferson and Jay the ability of either the Executive or Legislative branch to exercise any power over judicial decision making is incompatible with a democratic republic: "`Were the power of judging joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control, for THE JUDGE would then be THE LEGISLATOR. Were it joined to the executive power, THE JUDGE might behave with all the violence of AN OPPRESSOR.'" Federalist Papers, No. 47.


The founding fathers sought to protect the judiciary from both Executive and Legislative encroachment by memorializing what is likened to lifetime tenure and permanent compensation in Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. They reasoned;


“The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government. ... it is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.” Federalist Papers, No.78. “NEXT to permanency in office, nothing can contribute more to the independence of the judges than a fixed provision for their support. The remark made in relation to the President is equally applicable here. In the general course of human nature, A POWER OVER A MAN’S SUBSISTENCE AMOUNTS TO A POWER OVER HIS WILL.” Federalist Papers, No. 79.


INFLUENCE


The issue of Executive influence takes two forms in Corzine – Katz. The first is somewhat subtle and indirect – The matter of another judicial pay increase is to be decided during the November lame duck session of the legislature. The second is direct and obvious – the Judge deciding Corzine- Katz does not have life tenure and is thus dependent on favorable near term action by the Governor to obtain it.


First, Corzine – Katz is being tried by a bench trial in the Mercer County Superior Court, Trenton, N.J. It also appears the Judge may live in the Mercer County. This is important because on September 25, 2007, ten days before the most recent hearing in Corzine-Katz, the article about judicial pay increases suddenly appears in the Trenton Times. Reporter Linda Stein writes that “Two months after getting their first pay raise in five years, Superior Court judges are seeking another increase, officials confirmed on Tuesday.” Stein goes on to write:


“Tammy Kendig, a spokeswoman for the state judiciary, said the administrative Office of the Courts will ask the legislature to consider another salary boost for the Judges in November after the election.” The next hearing date concerning the Corzine- Katz emails is scheduled for November 15, 2007.


Furthermore, since the first article, numerous news stories concerning a judicial pay raise are published. The following news report list is meant to be representative rather than inclusive. Moreover, it is not to suggest a press conspiracy. Rather, it is a statement that another pay increase is news and good news distribution includes frequency and reach.


“Shame on Judges for Salary Whining” - Asbury Park Press, 09/30/07

“Judges Don’t Need Another Pay Bump” – Courier Post, 09/30/07

“Chief Justice Says State Judges Deserve Another Raise” – Press of Atlantic City, 10/11/07

“Judges have No Case for Another Pay Raise” – Home News Tribune, 10/11/07

“N.J. Chief Justice Calls judges Underpaid” – Asbury Park Press, 10/12/07


Now, at first glance, the Governor’s power to determine whether or not the State’s judges get a pay raise may appear to make no difference in Corzine-Katz. Each and every New Jersey Superior Court Judge would face the same outside pressure as Judge Inness. Moreover, there is no plan to lower judicial pay. The purpose is more subtle. Objectively, both the timing and detail of these stories is to matter-of-factly catch the attention of all the Judges in general, and the attention of Judge Innes in particular. Peer pressure.


Accordingly, Judge Innes faces the carrot and the stick. He faces Governor Corzine’s informal power to push the legislature for or against a raise, as well as the Governor’s real power to approve or veto any lame duck November legislation that raises judicial pay.


Second, Judge Inness does not have life tenure (tenure during good behavior). The Judge was appointed for a seven year term in 2002. Governor Corzine was elected in 2006 and his term expires in 2010. Thus, Judge Inness must again be nominated by Governor Corzine and confirmed by the Senate in 2009 before his tenure can be permanent. The decision as to whether the Judge continues on the bench rests first and therefore solely, with whether Governor Corzine chooses to nominate him. If not, he will no longer be a judge.


It would therefore seem prudent to remember ;


The benefits of the integrity and moderation of the judiciary have already been felt in more States than one; and though they may have displeased those whose sinister expectations they may have disappointed, they must have commanded the esteem and applause of all the virtuous and disinterested. Considerate men, of every description, ought to prize whatever will tend to beget or fortify that temper in the courts: as no man can be sure that he may not be to-morrow the victim of a spirit of injustice, by which he may be a gainer to-day. And every man must now feel, that the inevitable tendency of such a spirit is to sap the foundations of public and private confidence, and to introduce in its stead universal distrust and distress. Federalist papers, No. 78.