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

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.

Please allow me to begin by stating that I am very glad that Bush is President rather than Gore. I like and admire the man. I also admire your diligence in finding and posting the news that I read on FR each morning. How do you find the time? And, third, I genuinely admire your writing ability. You deserve a regular syndicated column.

Having said all that let me expand on why we may disagree on our interpretation of Bush’s motives in signing this bill. And let me emphasize that I do not have a pipeline into the White House, and I assume you don’t either.

I was a supporter of George H. W. Bush when he was president. However, I wrote him a letter in 1990 (which got no response) warning him that he stood a good chance of losing re-election. Why? Because of the people he appointed. It has been stated that personnel is policy. And GHWB appointed a lot of Country Club Republicans. People who disdained sweaty lowbrow, anti-abortion, anti gay rights, Christian conservative “Reaganites,” remember? They were anxious to be seen as “kinder and gentler.” These were blue bloods that identified with the Washington glitterati and wanted good press in the NY Times/Washington Post because those were the papers that they read with their morning toast and the opinions they valued.

So they passed the latest versions of the “equal rights, gay rights, handicapped rights” bills and promulgated rules and regulations that were approved of by the editorial writers and commentators of the New York/Washington Axis. And they sometimes got the “Newfound Respect” awards given to Republicans who betray their constituents. But they managed to piss off their base – big time –without knowing they were doing so because they had nothing in common with their base. Bush the elder may have gotten a bum rap with the grocery scanner episode, but the fact is that it’s hard to keep in touch with the heartland from your Kennebunkport, Maine compound. Bush the elder never had the common touch, and it became painfully obvious during his administration.

And when it came to election time, the New York/Washington glitterati swing into line behind Bill Clinton and the Republican base fumed and sat on their hands and stayed home. And that’s how a hick chump from the fever swamps of Arkansas whose affair with a saloon singer was public knowledge during the campaign ended up in the Oval Office.

Which brings me to George W. George the Younger is a lot more connected with the base than his Daddy could ever hope to be. And he’s a lot more viscerally conservative than his Daddy was. But he appears to lack that true spirit of faith in Conservatism that Reagan had, and that no one else in the Republican Party since seems to have.

If Reagan were here today he would be making the case as to why this CFR bill is a blatant attack on free speech. And by doing so he would create a majority. People can easily understand this issue. Rush Limbaugh has no trouble explaining it. George W. seems to lack that faith and instead seems to want to manage existing opinion instead of using the “bully pulpit” to create opinion. And if he can’t find enough groups to form a ready-made winning coalition, he’ll acquiesce – or as some used to say: lie down and enjoy it.

Political capital is not something you can bank. It must be used or it evaporates. This issue is important because it affects our basic rights as Americans. America is headed into a new and fascinating part of its history. We could be crossing the Rubicon to the first truly global empire, for good or ill. For that reason, it is more important than ever that laws are not written that blatantly expunge our rights as free citizens of a free Republic. The dice should not be tossed that load the entire burden for protecting our inalienable rights on the hope that the Supreme Court will do the right thing. That responsibility belongs to the Legislature and to the Executive. It is not just an opportunity for Bush, it is a sacred obligation.

Love and peace.

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.

No, you're wrong. If we're speaking about a candidate for FEDERAL office, the only non-evil position was the position of Harry Browne. He would have vetoed any bill providing federal support for abortion...and he would have vetoed any bill (including any partial-birth abortion bill) criminalizing any form of abortion.

Why would he have vetoed both support AND opposition to abortion? The answer is simple: Harry Browne (unlike EVERY OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE IN 2000) would have FOLLOWED THE CONSTITUTION!

The Constitution provides absolutely no protection to the unborn. Nor does the Constitution provide any "right to choose." ANY federal legislation either funding or criminalizing abortion is a violation of the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. Abortion is, by law (THE Law, the U.S. Constitution) a matter for the states.

Violating the Constitution (breaking The Law) is the true evil. It turns--it has ALREADY turned!--this country from one governed by the Rule of Law to one governed by the Rule of Men. That is the true evil.

That's a nice little speech but it doesn't address the issue. You can substitute any pet peeve you want, gun control, free speech, I just happened to pick abortion. It doesn't matter one whit what a candidate's position is if that candidate cannot be elected.

OK, I'll substitute The Federal Debt in 1992, with the completely unelectable Ross Perot (especially after his unfortunate choice for Vice Presiedent). Ross Perot had a HUGE effect on the 1992 election. He ALONE put the issue of The Debt on the table. ("Got this chart, here. Y'see? Y'see?")

That's not the first time an unelectable candidate completely changed the political debate in this country. The Socialists/Progressives never came even close to electing Eugene V. Debs President. But a great many of their (stinking) socialist ideas eventually became law.

History of the Socialist Party in America

Take your candidate, Harry Browne. Substitute his name as the un-electable man. Substitute supports the constitution for abortion. Now answer the question.

I already answered the question. *I* vote for the person who *I* think is the best candidate...which is the candidate most likely to follow The Law (the Constitution).

I vote that way because *I* know that my one vote will NEVER change the result of a Presidential election...and because *I* will never (again) vote for evil. If YOU choose the "lesser of two evils"...you're voting for evil! And that's almost certainly what you'll get.

Mark (Libertarian Party...accept no substitutes!)

Hasn't this forum demonstrated that the "true conservatives", Browne, Buchanan, etc., consider a "moderate" republican more of a threat than a liberal?

As Libertarians, both Harry Browne and I object to be called "conservatives." We ain't no stinking conservatives! (No offense intended. ;-))

Today, our federal government is Big Government. We've had Big Government at the federal level for longer than 90% of our population has been alive. And virtually no one is alive who was an adult when the federal government was small.

Therefore, "conservatives"...who want to conserve...are actually proponents of Big Government. As are the "liberals." (I use quotation marks, because we Libertarians are the REAL liberals...the post-FDR liberals have appropriated and destroyed the name.)

Libertarians want to turn the clock ALL the way back to when the Constitution was followed...before the 20th century. That's not "conservative"...that's "radical."

Mark (radical Libertarian)

Mark, Do us both a favor and go back and read my analogy upthread in post #47. Now tell me what is wrong with the logic in that analogy? Simply throwing cliches around about the lesser of two evils is still evil doesn't affect that logic. Sometimes any vote except the vote for the lesser of two evils is a vote for evil.

While I may disagree with the specifics of Ross Perot and his influence on reducing the deficit (it is plausable that this would have happened without Perot), I do grant you that somtimes an unelectable person can influence debate. But once the debate is over and the time for casting votes comes, it is time to consider the effect that vote will have. Throwing that vote away does not increase it's value. In fact, it trivializes that votes value. You can continue to squander your vote on hopeless candidates but the only effect will be to facilitate the election of those who would do real damage to that you hold dear.

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.