Post by Robert Braun on Dec 11, 2003 9:52:15 GMT -5
Had it drummed into my thick skull by Professor Robert Hay of the History Department at Marquette University that the reason for the three branches of government established by the Founding Fathers was to provide a system of "checks and balances." Further, the primary reason for the Sumpreme Court was to interpret the Constitution in matters pertaining to questions of law. That's all-- "interpret the Constitution." Sounds pretty straighforward.
So to is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Again... sounds pretty straightforward.
So WHY didn't the Supreme Court do what it was tasked to do--interpret the Constitution-- and strike down campaign finance reform?
Why did, as the Wall Street Journal opined in its December 11 editorial, the majority "free associate" over 298 pages of discourse on the "evils of money and justifying itself in the face of powerful dissents"? Before you answer, compare this "ruling" with the judgements of this SAME court over the last four years--- in which they upheld the First Amendment and struck down restrictions on tobacco advertising, sexually explicit cable programs, communications that were illegally intercepted, and (my favorite) virtual child pornography.
The issue is not, as the WSJ correctly points out, whether or not the Sierra Club runs an ad critical of President Bush. The issue is a self-serving Congress that passes a true "wolf"-- its own job protection-- in the sheep's clothing of so-called campaign finance reform. Yes.. the VERY same Congress the Supreme Court is supposed to provide a "check and balance!"
We have seen a host of social issues legislated from the bench-- issues that have no business being decided by an unelected Supreme Court UNLESS it is to decide the TRUE Consitutionality of issues. The continual erosion of private gun ownership rights, and the continual myth of the "seperation of church and state" (what ever happened to the phrase in the amendment "...the free exercise thereof"??) are but two proofs of my point. On these issues, the Amendments are clear and unambiguois. Yet the Supreme Court seems unable to adjudicate questions placed before it, in the context of clear and unambiguois presidents. And with the folly of this most recent ruling, clearly inconsistent with recent 'free speech' rulings, my point is made yet again.
The reason certain segments of our society seek to have questions resolved through the federal courts, is because that they know full well that a straight "up or down" vote on the issue will render them defeated. (Proof: who in the country thinks that virtual kiddy porn is a good idea?) Since they know they can't possibly win in the court of public opinion, they seek to have their issues become the "law of the land" through federal court decisions. And the only way our American society can remove errant rulings is to have a future court reconsider the issues and strike them down. What are that chances of that? You'd probably have better chance of having a comet smash through your window and strike you down as you read this!
Pretty slick 'eh?
That makes Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the most powerful person in the US, if not the planet. And I can't recall casting a single ballot for her! Can you?
In its present state, the Supreme Court is severely flawed. It must be abolished, each justice recalled, and a system of supreme justice put in its place that upholds the purposes intended by the Founders-- to interpret the Constitution.
Bob Braun.
So to is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." Again... sounds pretty straightforward.
So WHY didn't the Supreme Court do what it was tasked to do--interpret the Constitution-- and strike down campaign finance reform?
Why did, as the Wall Street Journal opined in its December 11 editorial, the majority "free associate" over 298 pages of discourse on the "evils of money and justifying itself in the face of powerful dissents"? Before you answer, compare this "ruling" with the judgements of this SAME court over the last four years--- in which they upheld the First Amendment and struck down restrictions on tobacco advertising, sexually explicit cable programs, communications that were illegally intercepted, and (my favorite) virtual child pornography.
The issue is not, as the WSJ correctly points out, whether or not the Sierra Club runs an ad critical of President Bush. The issue is a self-serving Congress that passes a true "wolf"-- its own job protection-- in the sheep's clothing of so-called campaign finance reform. Yes.. the VERY same Congress the Supreme Court is supposed to provide a "check and balance!"
We have seen a host of social issues legislated from the bench-- issues that have no business being decided by an unelected Supreme Court UNLESS it is to decide the TRUE Consitutionality of issues. The continual erosion of private gun ownership rights, and the continual myth of the "seperation of church and state" (what ever happened to the phrase in the amendment "...the free exercise thereof"??) are but two proofs of my point. On these issues, the Amendments are clear and unambiguois. Yet the Supreme Court seems unable to adjudicate questions placed before it, in the context of clear and unambiguois presidents. And with the folly of this most recent ruling, clearly inconsistent with recent 'free speech' rulings, my point is made yet again.
The reason certain segments of our society seek to have questions resolved through the federal courts, is because that they know full well that a straight "up or down" vote on the issue will render them defeated. (Proof: who in the country thinks that virtual kiddy porn is a good idea?) Since they know they can't possibly win in the court of public opinion, they seek to have their issues become the "law of the land" through federal court decisions. And the only way our American society can remove errant rulings is to have a future court reconsider the issues and strike them down. What are that chances of that? You'd probably have better chance of having a comet smash through your window and strike you down as you read this!
Pretty slick 'eh?
That makes Justice Sandra Day O'Connor the most powerful person in the US, if not the planet. And I can't recall casting a single ballot for her! Can you?
In its present state, the Supreme Court is severely flawed. It must be abolished, each justice recalled, and a system of supreme justice put in its place that upholds the purposes intended by the Founders-- to interpret the Constitution.
Bob Braun.
