ILNews

Hamilton and Shepard emphasize the importance of civic education

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Indiana congressional representative Lee Hamilton warned attorneys and advocates of civic education that unless citizens uphold their responsibilities and duties, democracy will not prevail.

“Our system is not self-perpetuating,” Hamilton said. “Self-government is a monumental achievement, one of the grandest achievements in the history of mankind, but it does not perpetuate itself automatically. You cannot put it on automatic pilot. There is no invisible hand that guides and preserves our institutions and our destiny. Because it has worked in the past does not mean it will work in the future and that you and I will always have – and that our children and grandchildren will always have – a free and an independent and a prosperous country.”

The southern Indiana Democrat was a keynote speaker at the Indiana Bar Foundation’s We The People state dinner Dec. 15 at Union Station in Indianapolis. Sharing the podium with Hamilton was retired Indiana Chief Justice Randall Shepard.

Held during the two-day We The People state finals, the dinner honored the attorneys, law firms and school teachers who have taught Indiana high school and middle school students about American history and democracy through the We The People program.

Indiana Bar Foundation president Judi Calhoun, Delaware County chief deputy prosecutor, served as master of ceremonies.

Hamilton and Shepard were recognized during the evening with the William Baker Award. This honor is given annually by the bar foundation to attorneys who exhibit an outstanding dedication to civic education. The crowd gave the pair a standing ovation.

Both men said they were surprised to receive the award and they are grateful for all the work the volunteers did through the We The People activities to help the next generation understand citizenship.

The IBF also honored the Pierre F. and Enid Goodrich Foundation and the Winchester Foundation for their continued financial support of the We The People program.

Shepard focused his remarks on civility and incivility in American life. He stressed the need to carefully listen to those who agree as well as disagree with us and to use respectful language when speaking. Civil dialogue, he said, will lead to a high probability of acceptance of whatever compromise results.

The retired Chief Justice also criticized gerrymandering, in particular, for driving citizens apart by rewarding people for moving to the edge instead of to the center.

Shepard said Americans today have not had the profound experiences, like the Great Depression, World War II and the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, to bind them together. That is why, he said, the work of the bar foundation and civic education is even more important.

“It is one of the few genuine ways that we can help students and younger people understand the enormous value that this incredible venture that the American experiment has been has the capacity to build an even better society in the future,” he said.

Hamilton, too, underscored the value of civic education, noting each generation must learn citizenship skills anew. The succeeding generation must pass along its knowledge of the country’s history and heritage as well as teach the values of respect, empathy, tolerance and integrity.

“The privileges and opportunities as citizens we have in a representative democracy are wide and generous,” he said. “The demands upon us are imperative. We will not have liberty and justice for all, as we so often pledge, without responsible leadership and citizenship.”

Recalling his time in Congress, Hamilton said bringing people together, building a consensus behind a solution, is the toughest job in representative democracy. He echoed Shepard by noting the need to work through differences in a respectful manner rather than just hammering the opposing side.

Citizens, he said, have the responsibility to work together for the common good. Along with upholding the civic virtue of tending to their professions and their families, he reminded the dinner guests that using their civic skills to influence their communities and their nation is an essential element of representative democracy.

Representative democracy, he continued, requires citizen to act with mutual respect and tolerance as well as empathy and humility. He also called upon citizens to not just preach civic virtues, but to practice them.

“I don’t have a sure-fired formula for our success as a country,” Hamilton concluded. “I do have a sure-fired formula for our failure and that formula is to back away, to disengage from our responsibilities as American citizens. If you and I become … a nation of spectators, we will surely fail. Democracy, said (President Thomas) Jefferson, is never a final achievement, it’s a call to an untiring effort.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Such cynicism!
    I sure wish I could tell JS his cynical post is off target .... but the modern record is with him, so he is just cynically brilliant, as is his habit. And now comes Shepard and Hamilton, elitists both, the former on the payroll of George Soros, attempting to argue that a kommissar system is better than what passes for representative government. To borrow from JS, perhaps the 13 Fed Reserve bankers would like to just appoint all of our judges, and, what the heck, representatives as well. Dialectical Mammonism, anyone?
  • humbug
    Democracy, feh, whatever, that is now mostly a slogan used to justify war. Take ten thousand elections and if every one is a phony alternative between banker controlled party a and banker controlled party b, there's no real choice. Where is the democracy when you have incidents of historic profound social change imposed without legislation and instead by judicial fiat. Brown v board, roe v wade, and whatever the current excuse of a case the gay rights stuff is flying under. None of those things had much "democractic" support and it took a well funded "litigation strategy" combined with PR savvy to reprogram the tastes of the majority and accustom them to the new laws mostly imposed by black robed fiat. After about a decade of brainwashing on each topic the public was goofed into believing that was somehow "democracy." If the powerful & rich elite of this country want a change, they can make it happen, democracy be damned. Just like any other country. Laws be damned! Look at the illegal immigration laws this county has had for decades even as the millions have tramped across the borders. And the bar cops will now punish lawyers for daring to mention "unlawful residency status" of an adverse party in a suit. Amazing how this "democracy" works. Democracy is as much a false god as any other and America is just as corrupt as any other. Lets jettison all the jingoism and be realistic and more humble about our vaunted "democractic system." Spare us the phony speeches.
  • Duck Duck Cooked Goose
    PJB has authored a great article dealing with the subject discussed in these comments, to wit, a dissidents perspective on elitists defining what is "civil" to discuss. My own case, personally approved as just and mete by Indiana's highest court five years ago, further defines how subjectivist views of "civility" can easily become political repression. Here is PJB on that process: http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/12/patrick-j-buchanan/duck-dynasty-and-the-new-blacklist/ Here are links to my Supreme Court briefs (one from ND Law School prof Charlie Rice) showing how civility overwrote Rule 12 standards for something called "insight" (actually a pyschological/feminist code word) to burn my legal career at the stake ... http://www.scribd.com/doc/109518279/Brownv-ind-S-ct-BoardLawExams .... http://www.scribd.com/doc/106665469/Briefinchief-brown-brown-11-1456-PDF .... the ashes of my previously bright career -- I served at the right hand of a state attorney general for four years and litigated for the Christian Right in courts the nation over -- should serve as a warning to all others who may one day be found "uncivil" for holding views like those PJB discusses in his article. Soft persecution is here, for the Left seeks to use all at its power to silence the Christian Right. In the case of Duck Dynasty there is no constitutional cause, since it is private discrimination based upon contract .... in my case it was constitutional, since it was governement licensure based upon ideals of political correctness.
  • Who gives a duck?
    Yes, JS, as many cases in the courts and before administrative tribunals demonstrate. The question relevant to this site is, if one decides that she does not give a duck, can she be an Indiana attorney? That is, are pledging the oath and following the actual rules of professional resp the test, or is pledging allegiance to A&E's view of what should and should not be said?
  • framing debate
    right on bryan! civility today is becoming a phony mask for political correctness
  • Just be civil and baaa when told
    I find it troubling when powerful elitists focus so much of their energies on advancing civility and incivility in American life. Too often this means "we have the power and will define the discussion topics." When the powerless then attempt to discuss that which the powerful do not want to hear -- yes, you guessed it, that is simply not "civil." Thus civility becomes code for shutting down dissident opinions and/or discussions that the rich and powerful do not want to entertain. Orwellian and Huxleyian all in one. (insert polite golf claps here}

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT