Posted on 03/22/2002 1:48:12 AM PST by JohnHuang2
It was a sad day when President Bush announced he would sign the just-passed campaign finance reform bill. No, I'm not talking about the bill's imminent damage to the First Amendment, as distressing as that is, but to a potentially bigger blow to the Constitution.
Democratic leaders (and, of course, John McCain and his devoted band of McCainiacs) have been obsessing over "reform" for a long time. Never once have they exhibited concern over whether their proposals were compatible with the First Amendment.
To them, the end apparently justifies the means, even if the means involves denigrating the Constitution. It's just a document anyway – a living, breathing document that can be molded to say whatever they want it to say in furtherance of their ends.
How can you expect them to have much reverence for the Constitution when they believe it should be subordinated to their political interests? You can't and shouldn't.
But the Republican Party holds itself out as the guardian of the Constitution. So, when 11 of its senators cross over to sign this bill most everyone believes to be constitutionally flawed, it is disturbing. When a Republican president agrees to sign it into law – a Republican president who earlier pledged to veto it – it is even more disturbing, especially when in the process he admits the bill is of dubious constitutionality.
Why? Because both Congress and the president have an independent duty to uphold the Constitution. They are required, as a condition of taking office, to take an oath to support it.
What right do the Congress and the president have to ignore their oaths to support and defend the Constitution? What right do they have to abdicate their responsibilities to ensure that unconstitutional legislation does not become law? What right do they have to shirk their duties and confer on the Supreme Court the sole duty to uphold the Constitution?
Did you know that the text of the Constitution says nothing about the Supreme Court having the exclusive right to pass on constitutional questions? When Justice Marshall proclaimed the Court's power to declare acts of the legislative and executive branches unconstitutional in the 1803 case of Marbury vs. Madison, he wasn't relying on any specific constitutional provision.
In his opinion in that case, affirming that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, Marshall said, "an act of the legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void." In such case, "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
Marshall did not say that because the Court is the final arbiter of constitutional questions, the other two branches are absolved of their duty to uphold the Constitution. Indeed, he expressly acknowledged the legislature's duty (along with the Court's) when he said, "it is apparent that the Framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of the courts, as well as for the legislature."
Of course, this is true. To argue otherwise would be to assume that the Framers imposed constitutional requirements and limits on the legislative and executive branches that they didn't intend for them to follow unless the Court forced them to do so. That's absurd.
Do our criminal laws, by analogy, hold that we citizens are free to violate them as long as we don't get caught? What if all citizens decided to ignore the laws on the theory that it was not their duty to obey the law, but law enforcement's duty to coerce them into obeying it? The law, indeed ordered liberty itself, depends on citizens obeying the law.
If this is true, then how much more important is it that our elected officials – even apart from their oaths – protect and defend the Constitution? 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.
At one time, Congress and the president routinely honored their respective duties to consider the constitutionality of legislation. There used to be lengthy congressional debates over the constitutionality of legislation, and presidents vetoed many more bills than were invalidated by the Supreme Court on the basis of their unconstitutionality.
I don't mean to be too dramatic about all of this or to imply that the sky is falling, but the Constitution can only go so far in preserving our freedoms. If our elected officials are unwilling to honor it, they place those freedoms in jeopardy.
I would have thought you'd learned a lesson in 2000. It's not a perfect world and as long as this country is fairly evenly divided along liberal and conservative lines, you can vote "for principle" all you want and the only thing you'll get is evil.
You've hit the nail on the head. What many people here won't admit is that they are putting the future of free speech into the hands of Sandra Day O'Connor.
I'm not comfortable w/ that, look at her Byzantine obsfucation on Casey vs Planned Parenthood--that's the type of decision you can expect.
Only a presidential veto kills this thing outright. There is no part of it I can support.
I cannot provide the link but here is the URL...Read all about it ( McCain) from the Veterans Dispatch and their opinion on him........
http://www.usvetdsp.com/mccainpg.htm
Excuse Mr. Limbaugh.
Where was the RP and their defense of the Constitution when both you and your brother Rusty pushed for NAFTA, GATT and the WTO?
Incidentally, all of the above violate Article 1, Section 8, clause 3 of our Constitution.
Hypocrite...
I share your frustration with an imperfect world. One has to decide which course of action does the least harm.
Take for example this hypothetical example. Suppose there are three candidates for office. One supports all abortions. One only opposes partial birth abortions. One opposes all abortions. Truely, the first two are evil but one is less evil than the other. Now, suppose that you can elect either of the first two with your vote. Further suppose, the third candidate will lose regardless of how you vote but if you vote for the third candidate, the first candidate will win. Do you vote on principle for the third candidate knowing that many more children will be aborted when the first candidate wins or do you vote for the second candidate, "the lesser of two evils", knowing that you can save a few?
It's an imperfect world but we face the choices we face. Hoping for a choice we don't have is childish. We can only do the best we can given our choices.
BWAAAHahahahahaHA LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Got any other nifty one-liners?
I'm sure you'd say the same about abortion, right? After all SCOTUS says it's okay, and they're the only ones that count. Every citizen and expecially every lawmaker has a responsibility to consider the Constitution for themselves, not depend on nine unelected officials to do it for them.
Going the same way as the monarchy it once subjugated.
Just look at your response to my hypothetical. It really wasn't about abortion since I could have framed that question in a multitude of ways. You found your principles to be more important than saving the lives of unborn children. Browne, Philips, and Buchanan would have made the same choice and attacked Bush.
IMHO, we've been supporting the 'liberal media' for far too long.
Conservatives should have launched their own 'media' long ago.
I say we increase our donations to the FR and their budding radio outlet.
With the big three (ABC, NBC & CBS) all losing $$$ and viewership, we can (now we must) fill the void.
It's time to turn lemons into lemonade...
If this becomes a fight between the legislature and the executive branch then conservatives will lose because we wind up fighting ourselves too. We conservatives should quit killing our own over this issue. Loses to friendly fire are the worst kind.
This is an excellent point and so very true.
The Pubbies, post the 2000 election, forgot how very fragile their victory was.
Since 11/00, illegals have entered Florida at an accellerated clip.
Florida is quickly becoming California, politically speaking...
You're right about that. The libs are nothing if not persistent. They win by wearing people down and causing them to finally give in just to get them off their backs! I just wish I had enough faith in the Supremes at this point to KNOW for sure they'd strike CFR down!
But this gives us OUR marching orders, doesn't it? We need to get our there and work HARD to get some more conservative Republicans in the Senate!! I'd hesitate before voting for a moderate unless there were no choice between that person and a Democrat. WE need to regain control of the Senate so the 'Pickering' debacle is not repeated when Dubya goes to appoint a new Supreme!
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.