A chilling past, uncertain future

Today marks the nine-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks on our country. It’s hard to believe that it’s already been ten years. I still remember the day of September 11, 2001 as if it were yesterday: I was in 7^th grade, at Our Lady of the Magnificat Catholic School. It was the beginning of Religion class when the room phone rang. My teacher picked up the phone, a slim smile on her face and answered the phone the same distinct way she always did: “Morrissey?” But then her face sank, and even at eleven years old I knew something was wrong. She corrected herself quickly, as she put the phone down and continued with religion class as usual as possible.

But throughout the day, the phone continued to ring a few times every period, each time the secretary calling for students whose parents had showed up to take them home. It was clear to all of us that something was wrong. It was also clear that no one was telling us what had happened. My two younger sisters and I took the bus home that day, and when we got to our bus stop, my dad was there to pick us up, which means he had left work early. “Girls, I want you to know that two planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers today,” he said when we got into the car. But I did not realize the severity of the situation until I got home and saw the footage on the news. I also realized why our teachers had been hiding it from us: living in a suburb about 30 minutes outside of New York City meant that many of my friends had moms, dads, older siblings, and other family members who worked in the trade center.

My parents, sisters, and I sat in front of the news all day, breaking only to get in touch with my aunt, two uncles, and family friend who all worked near the World Trade Center. All eventually managed to leave the city safely, but the same was not true for some others in town. We watched as the Pentagon was hit, the towers collapsed, and as reports came in of a fourth plane whose passengers had managed to thwart an apparent attack on the White House. That night, the sun set on another period of American history, and the nation slept in limbo, wondering what a new dawn would bring.

My old Catholic grammar school is closed now, and in eight months I will graduate from Duke University. Upon graduation, my class will disperse, together bearing the new responsibility to lead our country through the challenges that will define a new day of American history.

This morning I was reading books for class, and I realized how much the global scene has changed over the past one hundred years. In 1910, one hundred years ago, Great Britain dominated the global economy and dictated all world powers. Germany and America were undergoing extremely rapid industrialization. Japan’s 200 years of isolation had ended, and Britain’s liberals and conservatives argued over social reform programs. No one could have known that the world was putting itself on track for two bloody world wars, a nuclear arms standoff, or the greatest economic depression we have seen yet.

It makes you wonder: where are we going? What troubles will we not foresee? Britain entered the 20^th century as the strongest force in the world and left as America’s longtime friend. History changes quickly, and this day ten years ago marked a sharp fork in my generation’s timeline. Our studies and careers will forever be defined by the image of the World Trade Centers on fire. We are among the first group of graduating students to have completed all of school, to have formulated life goals and career paths, with this image in mind. It will shortly become our responsibility to stand up and lead our country through a new global playing field.

My “bucket list” just got way shorter…

Things I’ve crossed off the lifelong to-do list this week:

- Talking with Chief Justice Roberts
- Taking a photo with Attorney General Holder
- Meeting Michelle Obama
- Standing in the Rose Garden and watching President Obama board Marine 1
- Beginning training in krav maga (Israeli contact combat)
- Visiting the US Secret Service Academy

Chief Justice

I met Chief Justice Roberts today! He did a private Q&A session with the Interpol interns. He just might be one of the smartest people in the country, and having the opportunity to ask him direct questions ranks up there on the list of coolest things I’ve ever been able to do. So far, everyone in Washington has been really receptive to making time in their days for interns. It’s nice that so many important people go out of their way to expose us to their functions in government.

If it was possible, I gained even more respect for the courts after talking with Chief Justice Roberts. I have always resisted the media’s portrayal of the courts as partisan, non-democratic, policy-making machines. The way the Chief Justice talked about the discussions the Justices have and the role they play in democracy solidified my perspectives. The Justices may not always like the policy implications of their legal decisions (indeed, the Chief Justice said that he often does not), but they’re not charged with considering the implications of their decisions. They are charged with deciding what is Constitutionally permissible. It then becomes the Legislature’s job to take those decisions and create (or alter) policies such that they still accomplish their goals, but also fall within what the Constitution permits us to do.

When the Courts issue a decision, Congress often responds by changing their laws to accomplish the same objectives in different ways (enter the DISCLOSE Act). So many times in these situations, the media and public present this as either “an activist court trying to make policies” or “Congress trying to circumvent the Supreme Court’s decision”.

I don’t see it this way at all. I find this back-and-forth to be the perfect example of functioning democracy: two branches of government working together to accomplish national goals in ways that are both consistent and in keeping with our country’s laws. When the Supreme Court rules an act unconstitutional, people shouldn’t perceive that as anti-democratic or as an instance of judicial activism. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to issue legal decisions. Law informs policy, so of course decisions about law will on occasion prohibit certain policies.

Similarly, when Congress responds by revamping the given act to accomplish the same objectives in a different way, people shouldn’t perceive that as offensive to the Supreme Court. Congress should respond in that way. It is the job of the Legislature to develop policies that achieve national objectives. If the objectives are sound, they should change the policy to “circumvent” the “unfavorable” court decision and achieve their objectives in a different way.

The second version might go back to the Supreme Court - that’s okay too. It’s part of the process. The Supreme Court will look at it again, and it will go back and forth until we arrive at a product that both accomplishes our policy objectives and adheres to the Constitution. Sure, there’s some conflict and it may at times be stressful. But conflict is healthy and, if received correctly, almost always results in a better outcome for everyone.

Does that mean that the Supreme Court always does the right thing? Of course not (hello “separate but equal”). Mistakes are inevitable… and let’s not forget that Congress messes up on occasion, too. That is exactly among the reasons that it is good to have a Supreme Court that is willing to rule an act of Congress unconstitutional and a Congress that does push back some on the Court’s decisions.

Where’s Waldo?

For love letters, telegrams, tasty treats, or other paper correspondence, you can reach me until the end of July at:

Carissa Mueller
The George Washington University
2124 Eye St. NW
The West End
Room 203
Washington, DC 20005