Pelosi’s Constitutional Confusion

It’s frustrating to watch high-ranking Liberals get something so fundamental, so wrong.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi recently accused Republicans of hypocrisy when it comes to the courts. As Pelosi describes it, Republicans have long been antagonists of “judicial review” but suddenly embrace it now that Obamacare hangs in the balance. Her own Party, by contrast, has always supported “an independent judiciary.”

Everyone wants “an independent judiciary” – that’s just another way of saying an uncorrupt, unbiased court system. Liberals like to pretend that conservatives are “threatening an independent judiciary” whenever we disagree with a court’s ruling, but reasonable people understand that to be what it is: Free Speech. (On the other hand, President Obama’s strange “message” to the Court about upholding his healthcare law, while they were deliberating on it, might fairly be called a threat, but that wouldn’t fit Pelosi’s narrative.)

It’s the misunderstanding about “judicial review,” however, that’s most frustrating – or rather, the apparent Liberal misunderstanding of the Conservative understanding of it.

Judicial review refers to the ability of federal courts to review acts of Congress and determine whether they comport with the Constitution. It was affirmed in Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and this Conservative hereby re-affirms it now.

It’s judicial activism that’s the problem -- when judges go beyond interpreting the law to re-creating it in their own image.

The chief modern example of judicial activism is Roe v. Wade, where seven members of the Supreme Court invented a right to abortion that was nowhere found in the Constitution. Justice Byron White, in dissent, said that the majority of the Court had engaged, “not in constitutional interpretation, but in the unrestrained imposition of its own, extraconstitutional value preferences.”

Judicial activism is a serious transgression, and undermines the very basis of our representative democracy. That’s why, when judges do this routinely, legislators look for ways to stop them, including proposals to limit their jurisdiction over some matters. None of these efforts is aimed at eradicating judicial review, and none has ever succeeded.

Our problem, Ms. Pelosi, is not when federal courts strike down acts of Congress. It’s when they pretend to be Congress.

It’s very hard for a sheeperal to change their mind about whom they support.
This stems from the visceral reason that they even ARE “liberals”.

They aren’t liberals because they believe so much in the “cause”, but they deeply need the assurance of “good personhood” that comes along with feel-good policy statements.

This is why we tend to look at their arguments as “emotional” instead of logical, because they stop examining any issue or policy at precisely the point where they feel good about themselves for supporting it.
EG - Obamacare: most sheeperals you talk to will describe its effecat as providing free/cheap universal (for all) healthcare, a feel good position. They won’t acknowledge, or even care that that isn’t what it does at all.

We all know the result in Roe v Wade was pretty much made up from thin air and was Judicial Activism x10¹⁰ power. EXCEPT that one SCOTUS precedent was at its core, Griswold v. Connecticut. I've read 'Griswold' and honestly I cannot see how Connecticut could come up with such a dumb law. It deserved to be overturned.

But therein lies the problem, since in Roe, Griswold was used as 'starry decide us' (/s). And in order to overturn Roe, Griswold also has to be 'revisited'. And how SCOTUS can get around that is beyond me -- and constitutional law experts (real ones, not like Barry).

Anywho, the problem is when SCOTUS acts as Congress then we're stuck. And San Fran Nan likes it when it goes her way, like with Kelo - she jumped for joy with that BS ("It's if as God has spoke"). And if Barry wins again he'll get Two More SCOTUS picks - then we're done for. We really will be DOOMED.

But Nan and her ilk will be happy as 'heck'. And we'll never hear 'Judicial Activism' from her again in regards to SCOTUS.

No, I do not need to re-examine my premise as the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers are replete with references to We the People or individual rights.

Under your premise and that of the political ruling elite in black robes, an individual (which should be supreme in our country) can never compete with the deep pockets on a non-living entity like a corporation or a union.

An individual should be able to have their voice heard above a non citizen be it a business or union.

Lets face it if corporations and unions and churches can contribute votes or leverage are being bought. Nobody makes contribution of that magnitude without expecting something in return.

Under We The People, a max limit of ~~$2,000 or somewhere in that range can be used to support a candidate’s message NOT $2,000,000 TO BUY LEVERAGE.

In NYS, unless you have deep, deep pockets, you cannot counter the propaganda of all the communist public unions. It is useless to even run a candidate who will not bend us over to take it in the rear from these commies.

No PACs, no bundlers, and in reality, no parties. Only individual contributions to individual candidates. IMO it is the only way to make politicians beholding to the citizens and not deep pocket corporations or unions.

In your question to me; should a local business man be barred from being involved in politics while George Soros billionaire can dump money as he sees fit. EXACTLY my point. He should be barred from buying a candidate.

The local business man IS NOT BARRED from the political process, he is simply limited to what any other citizen can contribute. George Soros would be barred by a similar restriction.

Under the ruling elite’s rules, no private citizen can compete with large businesses or unions or churches nor should they have to as they are NOT “We The People”.

As it stands right now, thanks to those political hacks, other than to hope the Secret Service lets me stand on the sidewalk and protest I and millions like me have no voice.

The recent USSC ruling on campaign contributions and the sneaky backdoor legislation signed into law last week have eviscerated the Free Speech portion of the First Amendment as it pertains to We The People and Political speech which was its original intent.

On final item: The money used by corporations or unions are obtained from We The People so for example if I still had Progressive Insurance, I would still be in the position of partially funding communist candidates as Progressive takes part of my premium for such purposes.

Under my beliefs, my money would only go to get the message out for a candidate who actually believes in the Constitution and maintains the oath they took to support it.

Oh, so you’re in favor of campaign limits in general. I suppose it would all follow then. However your beliefs are pretty much anti-free speech to be blunt.

Free speech in an honest interpretation of the first amendment means ‘free political speech’. It’s just a broad enough right that it can be interpreted to cover all sorts of things as well. Personally I think the right is pretty explicit and it should not condone any campaign contribution limits at all, however the Warren Burger Court said so, so we’re left with that. Without a court with enough stone to overturn a lot of the Burger Court none has not shown up yet, and due to respect for precedence I’m not holding my breath.

Then one is left with how do you square the arbitrary price limit you have adopted in how one is allowed to express that free speech right? You seem to think the $2000 limit is just fine. I disagree. What this has lead to is the permanent campaign season. It has also lead to the profusion of PACs and all other forms of campaign finance rule avoidance. As long as the government is as huge and intrusive as it currently is, it doesn’t matter what provisions, laws, and regulations are put in place, there will be money in politics because the return on investment is so huge.

The root of the problem is not the people spending on the election. The problem is how much we allow that election to control. If a company can get a drastically larger amount of profit from buying a politician, because of how much power we allow them, than from investment in research or plant, than what do you think a company will do?

But you say keep the company from spending. Sure. Fine. Then what about the editorial page of a newspaper? Do we find a way to limit the influence of the owner of the WSJ? the NYT? Pick a paper, network, web site. These all have part in the political process and can be explicitly partisan. I imagine we not have to find a way to measure the value of those opinions expressed by said forms of media and then limit them as well right? What about a news station that happens to slant its reporting one way or another? Do we find a yardstick of the value of that and then apply it? I’m sure NBC, CBS, ABC, and CNN will assure you they are non-partisan, so of course their content is not slanted and hence has no value to Democrats.

Now we’re trampled on Freedom of the Press. As you’ve decided that only individuals can donate anything, well there went freedom of association. So by my measure, if we solve things your way we might as well just toss the First Amendment altogether.

And then there’s that other sticking point - who watches the watchmen? We saw what a wonderful job was done with keep tabs on all the web donations Obama took in during the 2008 cycle. Anyone from anywhere could log on and give money to their web site. It’s pretty well accepted that many were not legal. Was anything done? Of course not, he won and cleaned house.

So while I sympathize with the idealistic notion that money can be banished from politics, it is supremely unrealistic as long as the return can easily surpass the investment. The means by which people pursue this Quixotic quest are generally intrusive to basic rights and ineffectual at accomplishing the ultimate goal.

I take a simpler view. Money will not leave politics. It is not even fundamentally bad since the money spent on political campaigning is just providing information to voters. It can be good or bad information, but it’s information nonetheless.

Hence I say no limits, full disclosure. The money is going to find its way in no matter what game we play with the laws. We might as well at least have light on where it comes from and goes. I cannot guarantee that even my simple rules would be followed, but at least they would be easier to enforce, and hence have some chance of happening.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.