Posts Tagged ‘Constitution Watch’

Orwellian Editing by B.O.

Posted: Saturday, September 18, 2010 at 10:45 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
2 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Revisionist Recitation: Obama Omits ‘Creator’ While Quoting Declaration

Towards the end of a speech on September 15 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama began quoting the famous “rights” line from the founding document. But partway through, he omitted where those rights come from: a Creator.

The line is supposed to read: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But Obama’s recitation left out an important part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are crated equal. [Long Pause] Endowed with certain inalienable [sic] rights: life and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

So what’s the big deal about? If our unalienable rights (as stated in the Declaration…not inalienable as stated by the alleged Constitutional scholar) do not come from the Creator, then they come from where? Inevitably from the organization of the state, and if that’s the case, amen to the rights, for what the state gives, the state can take away!

In the first 126 words of the Declaration, there are 5 fundamental principles that are the underpinnings of the American republic:
– there is a Creator
– He gives us unalienable rights
– there is a moral law that governs man
– government exist to protect the rights He gives
– below the God-given rights, rule is by the consent of the governed
[after Dr. David Barton]

All of those are dependent on the rights obtained from the Creator: what the Creator gives, no man, nor no human agency can take away. In the world of B.O. that would never do…then the transformational change we can {had better) believe in (or else!) could never happen.

Federal Legal Precedence Dead?…or, Dixie’s Spirit Still Lives!

Posted: Wednesday, July 21, 2010 at 10:56 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

<strong><a href=”;tsp=1″>Oakland allows industrial-scale marijuana farms</a></strong>
<blockquote>Oakland’s City Council late Tuesday adopted regulations permitting industrial-scale marijuana farms, a plan that some small farmers argued would squeeze them out of the industry they helped to build.</blockquote>
It looks like the only argument in Oakland is whether or not the corporate dopers will crowd out the small-time family dopers.  (I know that sounds weird, but there it is!)

I REALLY don’t get this one!  (And no, I am not arguing here one way or the other about Bob Newland’s Favorite Issue.  That’s a whole other discussion.)

As far as I know the Federal drug laws are still on the books, and are still (sort of?) being enforced…at least the DEA hasn’t been abolished yet, as far as I know.

SO…Arizona is sued by DoJ for having the unforgivable nerve to presume to pass a law on immigration that mirrors the Federal laws, and is slapped down for doing so.  They are acting IN SUPPORT of the Federal legislation.

Meanwhile, Oakland, and other locations, are actively promoting the direct VIOLATION of Federal laws withing their jurisdiction, with no Federal action in response?

Can you say N-U-L-L-I-F-I-C-A-T-I-O-N?  Wasn’t there a rather sharpish discussion on that topic from the 1830’s until 1865 when the issue was supposed to have been disposed of?  If not, perhaps the spirit of J.C. Calhoun and the other proto-Confederates of his day is truly alive and well and lurking under a hempen shroud.

Possible States of War

Posted: Saturday, July 17, 2010 at 2:03 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Obama lawsuit invites fortified state militia
Constitution leaves room for Arizona to secure border

OK. The Feds are challenging Arizona’s mild attempt to reinstate some semblance of enforcement to laws put in place, but subsequently not enforced by them. This of course is on the grounds that the states cannot act to enforce Federal law. This proposition raises some points of interest.

Does this mean that states (and localities) then must also not enforce any state or local laws against illegal drug trafficking, possession, or use, all of which are against Federal law also? Also, what then about localities and states that have licensed and tolerate businesses whose entire existence is in violation of Federal laws–specifically the so-called “medical marijuana” trade? According to common law wouldn’t this de-facto administrative annulment of Federal law establish a precedent for similar de-facto state and/or local administrative annulment of other Federal laws?

If this is the case then there is no basis for the Federal suit opposing Arizona’s willingness to take on part of the neglected task of the Feds to enforce their own laws. If it is NOT the case, then the Federal government is directly violating the equal protection of the Constitution by arbitrarily choosing to selectively enforce SOME of its laws while simultaneously ignoring others! (Just wondering, you know?)

Meanwhile, to get back to the point of the above cited and linked op-ed is that even if Arizona is NOT upheld by the court system, it is far from helpless in the face of the ongoing Mexican invasion…Arizona still has some options, ones that are fully allowable under some rather specific terms of the Constitution:

(Uff da! Here’s that pesky 2nd Amendment rearing it’s head again!)

…Arizona can form and expand its own state militia. Such forces were common when our nation was founded, and the Second Amendment recognizes that a “well-regulated Militia” is “necessary to the security of a free State.” In short, Arizona and other states can raise and arm their own military forces. But, for what purpose can such forces legally act?

(Ooops! Not JUST the 2nd Amendment at work.)

The Constitution is informative here. In Article IV, Section 4, the federal government is required to “protect each [state] against Invasion; and [on request of the state government] against domestic Violence.” As St. George Tucker noted, this provision guards against “the possibility of an undue partiality in the federal government,” for example a “sectional” president who might, for political reasons, decline to protect states in a certain region. Today the federal government, at the direction of the president, has declined to carry out its duty under Article IV. Leaving aside its other possible consequences, this intentional failure to protect Arizona raises the question of what action the state is now entitled to take under the Constitution.
[emphasis added]

Yes, what indeed CAN Arizona (and by extension any other state) do in this case?

This brings us to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3, which provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress … engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Did you catch that? States MAY go to war under some circumstances WITHOUT “the Consent of Congress”!

“So, the militias organized and armed by a state may go to war when the state has been invaded or is in imminent danger. This is clear under Article I, and plainly justified when the federal government has deliberately failed to protect against invasion as required by Article IV. As Joseph Story explains in his treatise on the Constitution, the prohibition against states engaging in war is “wisely” limited by “exceptions sufficient for the safety of the states, and NOT justly open to the objection of being dangerous to the Union.”

So, the concluding summary from the piece:

At the time of our nation’s founding, the states surrendered certain limited powers to the federal government. Logically, foremost among the enumerated powers delegated to the new central authority were those relating to foreign affairs, including the war powers. But the states were prudent; they had a logical concern that if the federal government should fail in its duty to protect them from “invasion” or “imminent danger,” perhaps for reasons of political “partiality,” then the states should have a robust right to defend themselves, including by armed force. And so they do.

Hmmmm. Federal government “fails in its duty to protect”…for reasons of political “partiality”…? Sounds sort of familiar, somehow.

FDA: Food Nazis at Work?

Posted: Tuesday, May 11, 2010 at 11:08 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Here’s everybody’s favorite big government showing some of its true colors again.

Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food

The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).

In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.

Some of the statements in the FDA’s filing are absolutely amazing. Can you say “food NAZI”?

The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.

This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.

Don’t take MY word for it, or even the words from the posting about this. Consider the following statements taken from the FDA’s court filing:

“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]

There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.

The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim…

This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?

NOTE: The principles apply whether or not one chooses to partake of raw milk, any particular food product.

But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?

Follow the money…(surprise, surprise, surprise!)

The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.

What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?

As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.

There is a lot more detailed argument in the posting; you get the picture…but wait! As a finale the FDA outdoes itself again:
On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.

Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.

You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms….

The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.

But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.

The hits just keeps on coming! (Or are the letters of the second word in the previous sentence in the wrong order? Whatever!)

The U.S. Constitution: the Great American Inkblot

Posted: Monday, April 19, 2010 at 9:53 pm
By: David Newquist
6 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

That is the lede in one of those great send-ups on American foolery that The Onion does so well.

On one hand with all the histrionics and cries of paranoia filling the air, one can celebrate the First Amendment and the fact that freedom of expression is taking place without restraint.  On the other hand, it is disconcerting when free expression reveals how many people out there are absolutely bonkers.  Or whose launchers of verbal missiles are powered by such paltry brain cells.

I keep asking just what part of the Constitution is being violated by Obama, Congress, and the gov-mint in general.  The only answer I have seen so far that is specific is the Second Amendment, because Obama plans to come in the night with his troops and confiscate all firearms.

There are law suits being mounted against the healthcare reform act on the grounds that it is unconstitutional.  The argument goes that the Constitution prohibits the gov-mint from forcing people to buy health care insurance.  The states seem to have no problems forcing drivers to buy auto insurance, but that does not seem to violate the Constitution anywhere.

I guess our founders realized that someday the world would need a great, big Rohrschach blot on which the good people could project their fears and fantasies.

You know, for a more perfect union.

Lessons Unlearned?

Posted: Sunday, March 28, 2010 at 11:30 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
1 Comment | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. - Santayana

Kansas-Nebraska Act 1854, Redux

We are now beginning to enter the Kansas-Nebraska Act stage of the socialist crisis of the Republic.

To get the significance of this, some history is in order:

At our constitutional founding, the evil of slavery had been crudely evaded. In 1820, the Missouri Compromise was enacted that prohibited the abomination north of 36/30 degrees latitude [southern boundary of Missouri, except for it’s SE “boot-heel”].

But with the western push of the frontier, a new compromise was needed. So the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 decreed that the “popular sovereignty” of each territory should decide whether they would be slave or free states. But then, adherents of both the abomination and freedom migrated to Kansas to struggle — with their bodily presence — for their respective causes. First there was politics. Then the political rhetoric turned violent. Then real violence ensued. Kansas became known as Bleeding Kansas. John Brown, most famously, applied unjustified, murderous violence for his righteous cause of ending slavery and was hanged, but the Civil War ensued…

NOT a pretty scene!

Now we enter our History’s second stage in the struggle against the abomination of socialism. Just as slavery had been contained in the South, so entitlement socialism has, until this week, been more or less contained in service to only the poor and the elderly — and even in those programs (for the elderly) on the principle of beneficiaries paying monthly premiums for the benefits they will later get (Medicare/ Social Security). Only the poor under Medicaid received benefit without premium payment.

But now, just as the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854 broke through the slave state limitation to the South, the Democratic Party’s 2010 health care law has broken socialism’s boundary of being so limited. Now, the chains of socialism are to be clamped on to the able-bodied middle class — not merely the already presumed helpless poor and old who have paid their insurance premiums.

An exaggeration you say? Not so fast, according to that (understatement alert!) not exactly right wing New York Times.

Even the New York Times — after the vote — admits what the bigger goal has been all along. In Wednesday’s edition (“In Health Care Bill, Obama Attacks Wealth Inequality” by David Leonhardt), they point out: ” Beyond the health reform’s effect on the medical system, it is the centerpiece of his deliberate effort to end what historians have called the age of Reagan. … Speaking to an ebullient audience of Democratic legislators and White House aides at the bill-signing ceremony on Tuesday, Mr. Obama claimed that health reform would ‘mark a new season in America.’…. Above all, the central question that both the Reagan and Obama administrations have tried to answer — what is the proper balance between the market and the government? — remains unresolved. But the bill signed on Tuesday certainly shifts our place on that spectrum.”

I thank The New York Times for that honest statement of historic fact.

After citing some of the obnoxious aspects of what Congress and B.O. hath wrought, the piece goes on:
And just as the free states could not tolerate the spread of slavery into their midst, so, too, free middle-class America — if it still has its historic character — will not tolerate the yoke of socialism put upon our necks.

First, the unambiguous will of the majority has been defied by the vote of Congress last Sunday. Come November, we shall see whether the system can still turn the popular will into the constitutionally permissible legislative will of the majority. If it can, all will be well and the crisis will end. Rallying the vote between now and November is roughly equivalent to the early stage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act period — people started migrating to Kansas to support their convictions.

But come November, if the majority still opposes the socializing of health care delivery and the other central government intrusions, and yet the corrupt bargains and constitutional distortions of Washington deny that will its just expression — then, for the second time in our history, we enter that dangerous period where the House resolves its temporary division. Let us devoutly pray –and commit to ourselves — that this time freedom shall be reacquired … peaceably.

…and then there’s THIS one to go along with the above:

Will America break up?
Abortion threatens to split the nation like slavery

President Obama is splintering America. The passage of Obamacare was a historic victory for liberal governance. Yet, its true cost may be that it triggers the eventual breakup of the country.

Mr. Obama has achieved what his liberal predecessor…could only dream of: nationalized health care. Obamacare signifies the government take-over of one-sixth of the U.S. economy. It has dealt a mortal blow to traditional America. We are now a European-style socialist welfare state. The inevitable permanent tax hikes, massive public bureaucracy and liberal ruling elites will stifle competition and initiative.

Republicans vow to repeal Obamacare. Their past record, however, leaves many conservatives rightly skeptical….The Republican Party has been unable to roll back the tide of statism. In fact, under Richard Nixon and both George Bushes, Great Society Republicans have been complicit in erecting a nanny state.

Socialism is the road to economic ruin and fiscal bankruptcy. It subverts democracy, threatening the very future of our constitutional republic. Socialist states degenerate into some form of autocracy or technocratic neo-feudalism, whereby the productive class is taxed and exploited to sustain a growing dependent class. Factions are pitted against each other; groups vie for handouts at the expense of their fellow citizens. The bonds of economic union and national solidarity slowly dissolve.

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not,” warned Thomas Jefferson.

Jefferson was right: Redistributionist welfare policies are undermining our democracy. The resentments in America are growing. Tea Partiers believe that their government no longer represents their interests or values. The heartland is becoming dangerously alienated from the political class, whom it feels has betrayed them.

Obamacare may be the last straw. It strips away fundamental economic liberties, empowering the federal government to de facto nationalize everyone’s body by controlling our health. Americans are compelled – upon pain of penalty and eventual imprisonment – to purchase insurance.

Moreover, the law codifies the federal funding of abortion. Taxpayer dollars will be used to subsidize the murder of innocent life. Hence, Mr. Obama has violated the social compact: He has abrogated the conscience of pro-lifers, making them tacitly complicit in the slaughter of the unborn. Obamacare is a radical assault upon fundamental religious freedoms.

The Obama revolution threatens to tear America apart. This has happened before. Slavery eventually triggered the Civil War between the industrial North and the agrarian South. Abortion is the slavery of our time – the denying of basic human rights to an entire category of people.

You may well not like this. I don’t get a warm fuzzy from it myself…but I’m not at all sure it isn’t happening anyway.

…we are going the way our Founding Fathers warned us against: increasing balkanization and sectionalism. A constitutional republic – unlike an empire – is only as strong as its national cohesion. It is based not on imperial coercion but civic consent. Mr. Obama is recklessly pulling at the strings of unity, further polarizing us.

In confronting Obamacare, state sovereignty, states’ rights and state nullification of federal laws are being asserted. This is what happened in the 1830s and 1840s. They are the signs of growing political anarchy and social frustration – people can only be pushed so far. Mr. Obama’s drive for a socialist super-state threatens America’s very existence. As Jefferson warned about slavery, it is time we start ringing the “fire bell in the night.”

“Things fall apart; the center cannot hold,” wrote William Butler Yeats. “Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.”

Conservatives will not be passive in this onslaught on all our core values. Mr. Obama’s true legacy may be that he divides us deeper than ever before – unless he abandons his revolutionary project.

Once again, that most usable Warren Zevon lyric: “It ain’t that pretty at all!”

Thoughts on Constitutional Rule

Posted: Sunday, March 21, 2010 at 10:37 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
1 Comment | Trackback Bookmark and Share

The Chief knows that most have their own particular church connections, affiliations, and/or beliefs, and that is fine. This posting in no way is presented to demean anyone’s particular religious beliefs unless you are preaching some sort of anti-Constitutional “social justice” doctrines, in which case this applies to you for sure!

After the events in Washington turned this Sabbath Day into a into what IMHO constitutes a virtual Black Sabbath of unrighteous dominion, I offer the following from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Section 98, for consideration:

5. That law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren…in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord god make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. [emphases added]

Just think about it…IMHO something to remember in November.

Back to Basics Needed in D.C. (& elsewhere)

Posted: Friday, March 12, 2010 at 11:05 am
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Consent of the governed – and the lack thereof — Glenn Harlan Reynolds

Our Declaration of Independence observes:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

“Deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” This is boilerplate American history, and something that Americans — and, in particular, America’s political class — have long taken for granted.

But now things are looking a bit dicey. According to a recent Rasmussen Poll , only 21 percent of American voters believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed. On the other hand, Rasmussen notes, a full 63 percent of the “political class” believe that the government enjoys the consent of the governed.

Taking note of the glaring disconnect between us and our self-conflated “rulers”, Glenn goes on to amplify and extend the point:

…only 63 percent…still less than two-thirds of the political class — regard the federal government as legitimate by the standards of America’s founding document. The remainder, [the other 33%] presumably, are comfortable being tyrants.[!]

These numbers should raise deep worries about the future of our republic. A nation whose government does not rest on the consent of the governed is a nation whose government holds sway only by inertia, or by force.

It is a nation vulnerable to political shocks, usurpation, or perhaps even political collapse or civil war. It is a body politic suffering from a serious illness. Those who care about America should be very worried.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: it’s well worth the read…and if it doesn’t give you some real concerns…then IMHO you aren’t worthy of having the privilege of living in a democratic republic…stay home on election day so you don’t screw it up for the rest of us who want to. The alternative?

Well, the Declaration of Independence allows for the prospect of altering or abolishing the government we have in order to get a government that’s closer to what we want. That needn’t involve anything as violent as the American Revolution or the Civil War, but the need for change — real, structural change as opposed to campaign-slogan “change” — is becoming more obvious.

In the past, America has managed to reinvent itself without transformations as wrenching as the Civil War or the Revolution. As the legitimacy of our current arrangements becomes increasingly threadbare, it is perhaps worth thinking about how this might be accomplished again.

Not Exactly Revolutionary…but…

Posted: Thursday, February 18, 2010 at 12:00 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed

The founding document of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Today, however, just 21% of voters nationwide believe that the federal government enjoys the consent of the governed.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 61% disagree and say the government does not have the necessary consent. Eighteen percent (18%) of voters are not sure.

By way of comparison, at the time of the American Revolution, it has been estimated that approximately 1/3 of the people were in favor of the revolution, and 1/3 were loyal to the British crown.

However, 63% of the Political Class think the government has the consent of the governed, but only six percent (6%) of those with Mainstream views agree.

The phrase “poor situational awareness” comes to mind for the case of our government “leaders”.

Seventy-one percent (71%) of all voters now view the federal government as a special interest group, and 70% believe that the government and big business typically work together in ways that hurt consumers and investors. [emphases added]

So much for change we can believe in!

1st Amendment Upheld by Supremes

Posted: Friday, January 22, 2010 at 12:12 am
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Something else this week for the so-called “progressives” to knash their teeth about! Oh dear!

High court voids curbs on political ad spending

In a decision with profound implications for the role of money in American campaigns, the Supreme Court on Thursday gave interest groups, unions and corporations the right to pour money into issue advertising in political races – reigniting the passionate battle over the influence of cash on the electoral process.

The 5-4 decision punched a hole in the complex web of federal campaign-finance laws and rules in finding that those groups should have the same rights to spend money on political ads as any person. Direct contributions by corporations and unions to individual candidates are still forbidden.

This does NOT just affect organizations. Having access to effective political speech means having access to mass media. This means paying for advertising. If one is not a George Soros with piles of cash at hand, there is no serious way for an individual on their own to make their voice heard in the political marketplace.

However, if a group of like-minded individuals gets together, pools their resources, and enters the political fray, according to the McCain-Feingold law this was rendered illegal, since all groups were prohibited from political speech at the time of an election. Never mind that the specific reason that the 1st Amendment was enacted was to especially protect political speech!

Supporters cheered the ruling, which they said returns the country to the core free-speech precept that political speech should be protected, no matter who or what is speaking.

Critics warned that the foundations of American democracy are at stake and that big businesses will be able to spend enough money to influence elections.

…also big unions, and political action groups of all sorts. Remember, in spite of the weeping and wailing of the left, a lot of corporations’ leaders are demonstrably biased to the left. Besides, many corporations will be reluctant to be too outspoken, since a sizable part of their customer base will be partisans of the party they might oppose (which ever side is favored).

In stark language, the court acknowledged that it was overturning its own precedents, but Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing the majority opinion, said the justices were now returning to “ancient First Amendment principles.”

Yes! This is critical! It’s past time to recognize once again the fundamental source of our “unalienable rights” obtained from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” as immortally stated in the Declaration of Independence. If this reasoning is removed from consideration, as it the common practice of the day in the world of political science, there is no other principle to base rights on other than the Maoist justification that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” THAT’s why they wrote the Bill of Rights in the first place, to make SURE that those unalienable rights were spelled out in more detail than the original Constitutional text itself.

“The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether,” Justice Kennedy wrote in an opinion overturning a 1990 case and part of a separate 2003 case that upheld most of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance laws, enacted in 2002.

This sounds about right, as far as it goes. The same principle now needs to be extended even further. The minority dissenting opinion accidentally highlights this need:

[Justice Stevens] said the ruling turns over power to corporations and unions at the expense of political parties, who will have a tough time fighting back because of the restrictions on their own fundraising and spending.

Use the same standards of disclosure and disclaimer for political parties as there will be for OTHER organizations…and turn THEM loose too!  Here’s one Mao idea that would work, if ACTUALLY implemented: “Let 1000 flowers bloom.”