Replies

Determination of the constitutionality of any federal or state statute, regulation or conduct engaged in under the purported color of legal authority is solely within the province of the judicial branch. It is immaterial whether members of the legislative branch believe a proposed or enacted statute falls within or outside the boundries of constitutional permissibility. It is certainly a matter for vigorous debate amongst those having a view, favorable or otherwise, regarding legislation.

Irrespective of the intensity of the floor or committee debates, or the editorial assertions of certainty, or even the fervently asserted statements of unfaithfulness to oaths of legislative office by various and sundry uninformed radio hacks of political disinformation, measuring constitutionality is reserved for the judiciary. The very fact of the heated nature of the debate over the substance of the legislation, what it does or doesn't do, or what harm --or lack thereof-- it will (or will not) inflict on the First Amendment is irrefutable proof that the question of the bill's constitutionality is a fair grounds for debate on that very issue. That's why we have courts that are charged with the solemn obligation to interpret the Constitution in the context of the legislative act or governmental conduct being challenged.

In the first few years of the nation the Supreme Court firmly established its perogative, possessed by it alone, to pass on the constitutional permissibility of any Act of Congress or governmental conduct purportedly taken under the authority of law. Thus, to condemn legislators or others supporters of any piece of legislation upon the self-serving assertion that the proposed act is blatantly contrary to the Constitution is not only meaningless, it also merely illustrates that the speaker has been reduced to a level of opposition that does not focus on the bill's substance, but on those differently inclined individuals whom he opposes.

While that sort of personal attack is not uncommon in the field of political warfare, it nonetheless remains merely an opinion based upon the political choice and persprective of the speaker. The use of that politcally vitriolic method of casting opponents as less-than-faithful Americans or evil-induced politicians establishes the necessity for and the ultimate validity of the consequent decision of the judicial branch in whose hand we place the final determination of this loudly contested issue.

Still, it is almost fun to watch or listen to those self-proclaimed experts in constitutional analysis display their own special brand of disingenuousness reinforced by a level of abject ignorance heretofore unknown in the memory of man.

The courts decide these things, that's why the President will, and properly should, sign the bill.