Dear Cyndy,

Three cheers for your neurologist whose management consultant
has advised him he should promote his practice by informing
prospective patients that he, like them, "enjoys active sports, 
like running, jumping and Bible studies." Ask him for which of the
etiologies of syncope, if any, the prophylaxis of Psalm 91: 11-12 
would be applicable.

This evening I am the proud owner of a new pair of velcro strapped 
"New Balance" shoes which I ordered from amazon.com for a measly 
$55.81 - no shipping charges - and which appear at least for the 
forseeable future to have solved my shoe-tying dilemma: my hip 
joints have become so decrepit that I can flex them only with 
difficulty and can barely bend sufficiently to tie my shoes. 
Imagine me in the supermarket with open shoe laces and a 
sympathetic co-shopper asking solicitously, Would you like 
me to tie your shoe? It's happened, and - frankly - it was 
endearing to be the object of such affectionate attention. But 
once is enough.

Thank you for your letter, and for your tolerance of my dabbling
in your professional specialty. This evening it occurred to me
that the present, - whatever that is -, serves as a mirror which
reflects both the memories of the past and the expectations of
the future, an image which suggests that in our concepts there 
might be an analogy between the beginning and the end of the world, 
between our fantasies of its original creation and its ultimate 
disappearance. Then the Creation myth and the Apocalypse would
complement each other; and "global warming" might become recognizable
as the endstage of "natural selection." Of more practical significance
might be the analogy between what I recollect of yesterday and what I
expect of tomorrow, analogies between the remembered "reality" of last
month, or last year, and the anticipated "reality" of a month or a year
in the future. It's obvious that in matters of business 
and law we rely on historical reconstructions of a past that inexorably
slips from our grasp; similarly we rely on prophetic anticipations of
a future whose approach we trace on the calender until we are engulfed 
by its breaking into the present. 

The concept of natural law has long fascinated me, especially in
the version espoused by Kant, who, if I understand him correctly,
postulates continuity between the categorical imperative for the
individual's action and the natural legality of the cosmos, both
of them, of course, divinely ordained, the last faint echo of the 
pre-established harmony of Leibniz. With considerable help from
Mr. Ciarmataro and Justice Macdonald, not to mention Presidents
Bush and Obama, I've been working on a revision of that Enlightenment 
dream. I believe it necessary to try to relate private and public 
morality to a common "natural" denominator, but what I find is dismal 
and uninspiring, and, at this juncture, beyond my ability to contemplate.

The Federalist papers, which you mention, loom large in the 
interpretation of my Nantucket controversy; specifically No. 78,
in which Hamilton argues for life tenure of judges because the judiciary
as he describes it, is the weakest of the three branches of government,
having no power but to advise, and being wholly dependent
on the executive for the implementation of its decisions. After I 
had read Hamilton's commentary, I began to understand my mistake of
having expected too much, and having tried to prod the Court beyond
its capacity. I may be repeating myself with reciting my reinterpretation
of Marbury vs. Madison, the lesson of which I read is not that the Court
has power to declare laws unconstitutional, but that the Court is powerless
to enforce its decisions. Marbury nevber did receive his
commission. Chief Justice Marshall was inconsistent when he ruled that 
the Court had the authority to declare Marbury entitled to his commission,
but did not have the authority to order Secretary of State Madison
to deliver that commission to Marbury. The Court did not in fact
have the power to order Madison to do anything. The Court would have
been humiliated and weakened if it had issued an order that would most 
likely have been ignored. 

Reflecting on Marbury v. Madison, I began to understand why Justice
Richard Connon, who in 2006 had given me so flattering an endorsement, saying
"some people on Nantucket ought to be spanked," nonetheless declined to issue
an order to Nantucket to provide me with a true copy of the forged DVD of the
Board of Selectmen's meeting of April 27, 2005. Nantucket would have ignored
his order which the Attorney General would then have refused to enforce.
Hence, belatedly, my latter-day Machiavellian strategy to suggest to the
Appeals Court that it penalize Nantucket by requiring a large transfer of
funds from Nantucket to the Executive; (about 7 million dollars), the fine
imposed by the legislature for 7000 days' violation of the building code, (1000 
dollars per day, each day being a separate offense). An order to pay
that kind of money would bring Nantucket to its senses, and should
be eagerly enforced by the Attorney General on behalf of the 
Commonwealth. Who could resist such a windfall? I very much doubt 
the Court will accede to my suggestion, -it's too radical, but it 
will be interesting. We'll see what happens.

Jochen.