The courts don't own the Constitution: David Limbaugh pummels pols for jeopardizing freedoms

WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 22, 2002 | David Limbaugh

[JohnHuang2]

Friday, March 22, 2002

Quote of the Day by William Wallace 3/22/02

[DugwayDuke]

Of course, the real question is what is the best way to proceed with preserving and protecting the Constitution. Face it folks, if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next. Regardless of how one views the role of the legislative and executive branches, only USSC can rule on the constitutionality of a law and make it stick. The only way to kill this vampire of a bill is to drive a stake through its heart and only USSC can do that. If the objective is to kill CFR, then the best path forward is to sign the thing and get it in front of USSC as soon as possible.

The more one opposes this bill on constitutional grounds the more one should support this course of action. If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts. A Bush veto does not kill CFR and only prolongs the debate while providing democrats with an issue to bear republicans with. Sign it and kill it in court.

[meenie]

Bush would be regarded a lot better if he would grab the veto pen and stand on the principle that this is unconstitutional. Instead he and the Congress are relying on the courts to clean up this mess. Nobody loves cowards!

[JohnHuang2]

Yesterday, I wrote this essay:

Shays-Meehan = Big Government
by JohnHuang2
March 21, 2002

The Shays-Meehan bill, which cleared the Senate yesterday on a 60-40 vote, would, if signed, constitute the most breathtaking expansion of federal power in decades.

The legislation, euphemistically called "Campaign finance reform," is big government writ large. It reads like a wish-list for bullyragging bureaucratic thugs hell-bent on riding roughshod over citizens and the U.S. Constitution.

And for shady, venal-minded, crooked incumbents in Washington, well, Shays-Meehan is nothing short of a dream-come-true.

Imagine you're a Senator for a moment.

Don't like the notion of citizen advocacy groups taking you to task in TV ads for this or that vote, particularly so close to election day? Don't worry, relax: Campaign finance "reform" comes to the rescue!

Under provisions of Shays-Meehan, broadcast ads by pesky outside groups would be strictly forbidden 60 days before a general election (30 days before a primary). Yes, your troubles are over, dear Senator incumbent.

Groups like the NRA and National Right To Life Committee would be gagged and muffled just as election day looms and voters start paying attention. And -- here's the best part: You're free to swarm the airwaves with gazillions of ads extolling your brilliant Senate record -- all the while smearing your silenced opponents! Dream come true? You bet. If you're an incumbent, that is.

For John or Jane Q. Public, however, this bill could be a nightmare.

Imagine the plethora of potential abuse by FEC pinheads charged with enforcing this misbegotten, draconian rot-gut. Busy-bee bureaucrats, lest we forget, will be writing the labyrinth of regulatory do(s) and don't(s), after all. For citizens wishing to exercise first amendment rights, better hire a lawyer first -- this tangled mishmash maze of legal gallimaufry could land you in the pokey. And saddle you with hefty fines, to boot. Ask the Christian Coalition.

With Shays-Meehan, the era of big government will be back -- with a vengeance. Its administration will require an unconscionable transfer of power from citizens and states to federal Washington. Agencies such as the FEC, under this measure, will mushroom into unyielding monoliths, inexorably.

Our founding fathers are spinning in their graves.

Yet, in assembling their mammoth shrine to leviathan government, "reformers" have overplayed their hand. Shays-Meehan contains the seeds of its own demise -- at the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

So many of its fallacious provisions are so flagrantly unconstitutional -- so 'in-your-face -- the Supremes are likely to toss the whole thing in the ash-heap, in a New York minute.

The ash heap is, after all, the fate that awaits all such unlawful encroachments on our constitutional liberties.

That said, let me dispel a popular myth over why Bush intends to sign it.

Myth: Bush is a coward. He's afraid that a veto will spark a withering media/McCaniac firestorm, and a backlash from voters -- one which will cost him 15-20% points or more in popularity.

Fact: Outside the beltway, no one gives a rat's rump for Campaign finance "reform." Typically, this issue barely registers in surveys -- 2% at most. With public attention focused so intently on the war, Bush could veto this easily with minimal downside risk. And he knows it.

Bottom line: The 'Bush is a coward' theory doesn't wash.

So why is he signing it? Most likely, his advisors tell him that signing it is the easiest way to kill it -- once and for all. The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions. Doubling the limits on hard money donations to candidates -- a Republican advantage -- will likely survive, but not much else.

You may agree or disagree with this strategy -- I would much prefer a veto -- but to call the President a sniveling coward strikes me as hokum.

My two cents...
"JohnHuang2"
Copyright Enrique N. ©2001

[jwalsh07]

Bush should not put pen to this, period. It is his "read my lips". MArl my words, thr mrdia who are exempted from this onerpous bill will hang this around his neck like a millstone. There are other ways to get it to the courts.

[DugwayDuke]

No, there aren't "other ways" to get this to the courts. You cannot challenge the constitutionality of a law until it becomes a law. It can only become a law with Bush's signiture or a veto over-ride. You say the media would hang this around Bush's neck? That's exactly what they would do with a veto. Avoid that blood bath by signing it and killing it.

[DugwayDuke]

An excellent article that I completely agree with. If Bush's veto would kill CFR, then I would support that veto. But it will not. Only USSC can do that.

The thing I can't understand is this. If one truely belives CFR unconstitutional, then how can one object to presenting this bill to USSC? It appears those that are most vocal on the need for Bush to veto are really the ones who are afraid.

[riverrunner]

So you think we should live with bad laws until the courts decide other wise. If a law is unconstitutional it should be killed at the onset. We should not have to wait some times for years living under unconsititutional laws passed by the house and senate. We have some very unconsititional laws that we have been living with for a long time. Because the courts refuse to hear them. Don't think the courts well kill a law because it is unconsititional. RIGHT

[VA Advogado]

Regardless of how one views the role of the legislative and executive branches, only USSC can rule on the constitutionality of a law and make it stick.

Finally, a breath of fresh air and common sense. I wish you could get in the face of some of our more ignorant libertarian friends and explain to them too how the constitution works.

[Buffalo Bob]

If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts.

To the same court that once decided that a Black was 3/5 (or was it 2/5) of a person?
The same court that made Infantcide legal?
The same court that let the Brady Bill stand unopposed?

That court?

[Inspector Harry Callahan]

"But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution."

Er, David... I'm surprised your editor didn't catch this. Don't you remember the campaign? Bush blew a lot of hot air about his oath to "restore honor and dignity" but avoided mentioning the Constitution when describing that oath. Bush doesn't care about the Constitution. Take his steel tariff for example. Article I, sections 7&8 are very clear regarding taxation. Taxation of any kind is always supposed to originate within the House of Representatives, not the Executive Branch. And that's just ONE example of Emperor Junior's contempt for Constitutional principles.

The Republican Party does not hold itself out as the guardian of the Constitution. Rare is the occasion they even mention the document anymore.

[DugwayDuke]

No one will have to "live" under this law while it is being challenged in court. The bill does not become effective until after this election cycle.

But, more fundamentally, in order for there to be order, there must be one authority for judging the constitutionality of a law. The problem with leaving this issue to individual interpretation is that individuals differ in their opinions. Without a single authority for determining this issue, there is only chaos. No system of law can survive if everyone subject to law can determine whether each law is constitutional. In such a system, there could be no such thing as law since there would be as many laws as there are individuals. One cannot be conservative and believe otherwise.

I agree with most in that this law is bad law and should be killed. I happen to think the only way to kill it is USSC. Anything else just means it just keeps coming back, time after time. Do you want this battle to continue for years? Or do you want it overwith? A veto only prolongs the fight. If one truely believes this bill is unconstitutional, then there is nothing to fear.

[DugwayDuke]

"get in the face of some of our more ignorant libertarian friends and explain to them too how the constitution works."

One cannot explain the constitution to anyone who insists upon the right of each individual to define the constitution.

[Budge]

The courts will strike down most -- if not all -- of its provisions.

Why are we, and Bush, relying on the Supreme Court to strike down this unconstitutional bill? Especially courts that are packed with socialist-minded hacks?

What happened to the oath all politicians swear?

DugwayDuke is correct when he says, "...if Bush vetos this bill, then it will be back next year and the next year and the next."

This is exactly how big government has managed to trash our Constitution in years past, when my generation allowed them to "because it sounded like a good idea." The hacks wear you down with the medias help, finally convincing you "it's a good idea," and "we are 'protecting' you from corruption."

Ten million tons of grade "A" BS!

[Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)]

As a practical matter, if legislators and presidents were to act in total disregard of the Constitution anytime they pleased, there wouldn't be enough courts to stop them – assuming they would anyway.

This is what makes a banana republic a banana republic. And this is what we are becoming -- with our president as top banana.

[steve-b]

If you really believe CFR is unconstitutional, then one should not fear taking this to the courts.

The issue is whether or not CFR conflicts with the Constitution, not whether or not it conflicts with the penumbrae, emanations, and other tea leaves which are read by the courts in place of the Constitution.

[Eagle Eye]

One cannot explain the constitution to anyone who insists upon the right of each individual to define the constitution.

What part of "Congress shall make no law..." cannot be correctly interpreted by ANY citizen?

If the Supreme Court should allow this, then allow the other part fo the BoR to be similarly eroded, will you and VA stand by in compliance, or worse yet, in support?

Yeah, it's a shame that there are some of us who think that the citizens get ot read and understand the Constitution and are even allowed to have individual ideas about it.

[Bigun]

What right do the Congress and the president have to ignore their oaths to support and defend the Constitution?

Now THAT is a DAMN good question!!!

[Maelstrom]

Actually, you're wrong.

If Bush signs it and it does, through the efforts of concerned citizens and millions of dollars, make it to a court that finds it Unconstitutional, this has no greater effect than Bush vetoing it in the first place...because EVEN THEN it will find it's way into Congress year after year after year.

That's what THIS thing is in the first place. The correct way to go about this is to tar and feather ANYONE who votes for it or signs onto it, and turn the tyrants out on their ear while a non-violent political solution is still available and effective.