Conservative-Democrat

Hello my fellow Americans.  Today I will be talking on our system of government, checks and balances, real democracy (the good, the bad, the ugly, and the ignorant), and using the recent Supreme Court decision on Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  This decision is available on the internet (www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf) and I found this a fun one to read.  First off I am not a lawyer, nor have I been trained as a lawyer.  That being said I have watch “Law & Order” on TV and I was a big fan of Perry Mason as a kid.  I also know how to read and paid attention in my civics classes.  Maybe this differentiates me too much and makes me out of touch, yet I would like to see more people take an interest in life and stop being a composite of everything everyone else says.  Go to the source and read for yourself (off the soap box now).

I enjoyed this decision because I saw it as the first defining case that this recent make-up of the court has given.  I would like to examine it further and give some of my thoughts.  Before I continune, a little self-disclosure about my feelings on the justices from my uneducated perspective, while all brilliant compared to the common man (and most politicians) I have personal bias which effects my thoughts.   My favorite justice has become Roberts, my least favorite in Breyer.  Alito is too new as is Sotomayer for me to have a feeling one way or the other.  Scalia, Stevens, and Souter are fun to read (particularly Scalia who often forces me to read his stuff twice in order to get it all in), though I rarely agree with Stevens’ conclusions.  Ginsberg and Thomas are a bit dull.  But when I want a justice with passion and unpredictability there is always Kennedy (who reminds me of my grandfather).  I was very happy to see the justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion for this case.

I will not go over the particulars of this case since I expect you to read for yourself, but for those of you who simply NEED a synopsis here is the overview.  Citizens Union (a PAC) produced an unflattering documentary on Hillary Clinton.  After showing the film in theatres and selling DVDs they wanted to offer the movie to subscribed via cable pay-per-view.  The problem is that the film would be offered 30 days before the primary in some markets and Citizens Union had some corporate contributions.  This put them at potential odds with the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (aka McCain-Feingold).  I will avoid the particulars (again, you can read those) and stick with the salient points to a democracy.

The first amendment is not just a good idea or a battle standard for the media it is essential to a healthy democracy.  Essential.  Yet protected speech does not give you the right to say whatever you want, whenever you want.  Electioneering is a genuine threat to democracy and the government (we the people) has the responsibility ensure a proper election.  But when do the safeguards move from protective to oppressive.  Would you expect the Sierra club to hold silent on a candidate that supports logging in National Forest?  Should the NRA ignore a candidate that wants to weaken second amendment rights?  Of course not, we’d expect those organization to devote resources to defeating those candidate right up to the elections.  Yet both have received support from corporations and can therefore potential be charged with a felony.  That is right they can do jail-time for violating BCRA.

In order to not oversimplify the issue and contribute to the knee-jerk, dumb down of Americans that so many media source contribute, BRCA has provisions for avoiding violations, however the supreme court determined in a 5-4 decision that the law over exceeded its authority in regards to the Constitution.  They determined that the legislature needs to try again and not make the law so vague and cumbersome.  Doesn’t sound as bad as the press reported, does it?  The court did not destroy 100 years of precedence, nor did they turn elections over to the corporation and labor unions.   In fact, the Supreme Court did exactly what they are supposed to do in our form of government.  They are the “checks and balances” on the legislative and executive branches.

As a conservative, I want to applaud the court on this decision.  It is my sincere hope that we get more of the same.  My support has nothing to do with the ruling on campaign finances it has more to do with what this decision represents.  To best explain this view I would like to point out what the court did NOT do (for a change).  They did NOT write law; they ruled on a law written by congress.  They did NOT appeal to obscure precedence or foreign law; but used mainstream, domestic precedence.  They did NOT avoid their responsibility; rather they saw a constitutional issue and acted as an equal branch (well within their constitution power).  They did NOT push a political/social agenda; instead they considered merit and rendered a judgment.  For this they have been criticized and from what I have read the criticism is based off of ignorance.  An to be frank, the support has leaned on the ignorant side as well.

I can only hope that the court continues to hold be an active (not activist) participant in its role under the Constitution.  There are far too many legal issues that need addressing and bad laws that need to be nullified.

I am in a good mood this week…  And I have no idea what I would like to take on next…  So stay tuned.

Michael

Tweet This Post