Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The courts don't own the Constitution: David Limbaugh pummels pols for jeopardizing freedoms
WorldNetDaily.com ^ | Friday, March 22, 2002 | David Limbaugh

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.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last
Friday, March 22, 2002

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

1 posted on 03/22/2002 1:48:13 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
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.

2 posted on 03/22/2002 2:26:16 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
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!
3 posted on 03/22/2002 2:28:14 AM PST by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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


4 posted on 03/22/2002 2:28:47 AM PST by JohnHuang2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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.
5 posted on 03/22/2002 2:40:12 AM PST by jwalsh07
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jwalsh07
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.
6 posted on 03/22/2002 2:48:21 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
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.

7 posted on 03/22/2002 2:57:12 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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
8 posted on 03/22/2002 2:57:28 AM PST by riverrunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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.

9 posted on 03/22/2002 3:04:42 AM PST by VA Advogado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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?

10 posted on 03/22/2002 3:11:02 AM PST by Buffalo Bob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: doclim
"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.

11 posted on 03/22/2002 3:11:51 AM PST by Inspector Harry Callahan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: riverrunner; Buffalo Bob
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.

12 posted on 03/22/2002 3:27:53 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: VA Advogado
"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.

13 posted on 03/22/2002 3:40:12 AM PST by DugwayDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2;DugwayDuke
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!

14 posted on 03/22/2002 3:41:10 AM PST by Budge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Comment #15 Removed by Moderator

To: JohnHuang2
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.

16 posted on 03/22/2002 3:53:05 AM PST by GatĂșn(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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.

17 posted on 03/22/2002 4:00:03 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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.

18 posted on 03/22/2002 4:10:06 AM PST by Eagle Eye
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JohnHuang2
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!!!

19 posted on 03/22/2002 4:15:32 AM PST by Bigun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DugwayDuke
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.
20 posted on 03/22/2002 4:18:45 AM PST by Maelstrom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson