Posted on 12/27/2003 2:15:45 AM PST by mansion
Lawlessness usually conjures up images of a wild frontier or mobs in the streets. But the painful reality is that the supreme examples of lawlessness in our times are in the august and sedate chambers of the Supreme Court of the United States.
If you think the issue in the recent Supreme Court decision upholding campaign finance legislation is whether campaign finance reform is a good idea or a bad idea, then you have already surrendered the far more important and more fundamental idea of Constitutional government.
There is nothing in the Constitution of the United States which authorizes Congress to regulate what is said by whom, or under what conditions, in a political campaign. On the contrary, the Constitution says plainly, "Congress shall make no law" — no law! — "abridging the freedom of speech."
The merits or demerits of this particular law, restricting what you can say when, or how much money you can contribute to get your message out, are all beside the point. Just what part of "no law" don't the Supreme Court justices understand?
The sad — indeed, tragic — fact is that they understand completely. They just think that this legislation is a good idea and are not going to let the Constitution stand in their way.
Moreover, they know from experience that if they can snow us with huge amounts of pious rhetoric, saying the kinds of things that the mainstream media will echo, that their wilful exercise of power will go unchallenged. In short, the Constitution be damned, we're doing our own thing.
At least the people who engaged in wild west shootouts or lynch mob violence spared us the pretence that they were upholding the Constitution. Whatever horrors these lawless and murderous people might inflict at particular times and places, they never had the power to undermine the very basis of the government of the United States.
The U.S. Supreme Court does — and is in the process of doing just that. Other courts, taking their cue from the top, have likewise behaved like little tin gods, imposing their own notions disguised as law.
One of the tragedies of our time, and a harbinger of future tragedies, is that court decisions at all levels have come to be judged by whether we agree or disagree with the policy that is upheld or overturned.
Recent controversies over gay marriage have been a classic example of failing to see the woods for the trees. The most fundamental issue is not gay marriage. The most fundamental issue is who is to decide whether or not to legalize gay marriage — and all the other decisions that define a free, self-governing people, as distinguished from people living under dictators in black robes.
The political left is all for judicial activism, because courts can impose much of the liberal agenda that most elected officials are afraid to impose, such as racial quotas, gay marriage and driving religious expression underground.
Bitter and ugly fights over judicial nominees are one consequence of liberals' heavy dependence on judges to impose policies which elected officials dare not impose. Decent, honorable and highly qualified people like California Justice Janice Rogers Brown are smeared and lied about because they insist that what the Constitution says still matters.
Sadly, the idea that judges are to make social policy, not just enforce the Constitution and the statutes, has spread even among some conservative constituencies. The National Rifle Association, for example, attacked Justice Brown for upholding California's assault weapons ban.
The issue was not whether Justice Brown personally favored this ban or not. The issue was whether the state legislature had the right to impose such a ban. Since there is no right to bear arms in the California Constitution, and state judges are bound by federal courts' interpretation of that right in the federal Constitution, this decision was the only one to make.
We can't vote for federal judges but we can vote for those who appoint them and those who confirm them. We need to remember judges — and the Constitution — when we are in that voting booth, if we want our votes to continue to mean something.
A conservative would introduce a bill, upon Principle and Dems would stumble in circles conflicted whether to defend the perversion or to adhere to their Principle and always act for political advantage.
Probably be a stand for RLC to make. Now, if tpaine was in the US House, we might have a chance. It would be great fun to watch.
I see only one scenario in which the Supreme Court will be humbled, it would require much violence and the people of America aren't ready for it... yet! The term "Romanian Term Limits" comes to mind, but things will have to get much worse before that can happen. Aanother hundred years or so....
Who is this "he" being referred too, God or Larry King? If it's King, I don't watch CNN and if it's God, then He must have been talking directly to his conduit on earth, the priestly Quix, and left me out of the message loop.
Annnd whhho onnn earrrth isss thhhis Sadddammm?
In the courtroom of honor, the judge pounded his gavelML/NJ
To show that all's equal and that the courts are on the level
And that the strings in the books ain't pulled and persuaded
And that even the nobles get properly handled
Once that the cops have chased after and caught 'em
And that the ladder of law has no top and no bottom,
Stared at the person who killed for no reason
Who just happened to be feelin' that way without warnin'.
And he spoke through his cloak, most deep and distinguished,
And handed out strongly, for penalty and repentance,
William Zanzinger with a six-month sentence.
Oh, but you who philosophize disgrace and criticize all fears,
Bury the rag deep in your face
For now's the time for your tears.
True enough. After all, how can Congress justify impeaching justices for upholding unconstitutional laws that they passed? Or for effecting change through issues the Congress is too cowardly to address itself and has imparted the power to the courts.
Because there can be no rule of law with "law" unhinged from its basic precepts, and especially its concepts, again, that it is fixed unless lawfully amended.
What good is a mass of Freepers here, who will surrender bits and pieces of our Constitution in order to "win" some politic of the moment?
My warning about where Republicans in name only, are going, is a repeat of more wisdom from history: He who lies down with dogs, gets up with fleas.
The "plan" to assume liberalism so that a leftist does not [not appear to] get elected, achieves just that, no matter how "tough on crime" the Assumer to the Throne claims to be.
Comparing and contrasting, for example, Orin Hatch (a "tough on crime" politician) with George Bush (a "tough on crime politician"); we learned the hard way as Mr. Hatch destroyed the Republican landslide victory of November 1994, by rejecting the House outright (because he was more comfortable letting the Democrats lead); and we have learned how Mr. Bush cares not for the above-mentioned basis of our Constitution that is so fundamental to our liberty (because he is more comfortable blaming Republicans and conservatives than facing the leftist charges of his being "meanspirited").
I shall never forget the day (during Bill Clinton's Impeachment) when Rush Limbaugh went ballistic because George W. Bush's politicos were found to be in negotiation with Trent Lott and Co., in order that "President" Clinton be let off the hook, in order that Clinton's removal from office not be "contentious" and work against George becoming President.
Rush does not want to talk about that now.
And too many Freepers do not want to face up to it either.
If there were now no "War on Terrorism," I would bet that most Freepers would be stunned by George W. Bush's domestic plan for us.
I would bet that, even without a "War on Terrorism," he would have passed all the laws to date, in order that "soccor moms" felt safe.
No matter how many of our foundations of liberty, George was negotiating away from the "moms'" without their ever bothering to know a wit.
I'll still vote for the Republican candidate for President of the United States, because I do not want the Democrat candidate in that office, but I will not be voting for George W. Bush.
He and too many others have gone the way of "Tough on Crime" v. rule of law; when there are no liberties and rights of the people that need to be sacrificed.
Let us say that the Republicans sweep all the November 2004 elections.
Who will George W. Bush pick for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice?
If anybody thinks that nomination will be either Anton Scalia or Clarence Thomas, then they have not learned, who is George W. Bush.
Clarence Thomas would be a great pick.
Yet O'Connor seems to be the top choice for Mr. Bush.
snopercod is correct; the federal government is unhinged from our Constitution.
The Constitution has become merely a procedural formality, because lawyers must have some rule of the day upon which to enter a contest and "win."
The view by government officials, is that our Constitution is no longer ours.
They call it "living," when they have done much to kill it, piece by piece, casting it petrified and quaint for historians to fuss over in "the dialog" and "the literature" at [leftist] university.
Since conservatism was named, in the time of Burke, Conservatism has stood for freedom from arbitrary power, the rule of law, equality under law, adherence to Order instead of Ideology or fanaticism and strict suspicion of license masquerading as "liberty."
bump
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.