OK…I’ve heard much outrage of late about the recent Supreme
Court Ruling giving Habeas Corpus rights to terrorists and enemy combatants at
Gitmo and rightly so. I’ve been kind of flippant about it because I figured the
outrage would die as the next big event came along to distract everyone which
would result in the rage about the Supreme Court usurping powers specifically
enumerated to the other two branches of government being forgotten. It seems I
was right to be so cynical because it looks like everyone has moved on. And so
it goes and has gone for decades. Our leadership commits one outrage after
another and we the people get outraged and raise hell about it for a while, but
nothing ever get’s done to fix the objects of our outrage because our
leadership will inevitably do something else outrageous thus constantly
refocusing our eye and keeping us from fixing it all.
Now, what does all this have to do with Burke? Burke wrote
the phrase:
All that is necessary for evil to triumph
is for good men to stand by and do nothing.
This is a phrase that is so often repeated by so many people
that invariably “stand by and do nothing” that it’s become a cliché and lost
all it’s original meaning. Well…I think it’s time we take this cliché to heart
and restore its meaning!
For those of you that missed it, their Majesties on the
SCOTUS followed the afore mentioned outrage on Habeas Corpus with another outrage allowing those who have
overstayed their visas and have promised a court that they will leave the
country the right to stay after all. And we MUST pay attention this week or
next because we have the court taking up the meaning of the Second Amendment
whith Kennedy no doubt as the deciding vote, (leaving me chewing my fingernails).
I have no confidence that he will uphold the clear meaning of the Second
Amendment as it has been understood since 1787 so vigilance this week of all
weeks is essential!
Now to the meat of the issue and Burke’s warning to us all:
First we have the
as championed by our esteemed Republican nominee for POTUS and passed into law
largely at his insistence. As most everyone knows, this legislation was
challenged
As most
everyone knows, this law contained several controversial prohibitions such as:
The basic questions
for the Court to answer as laid out by Oyez are as follows:
1)Does the
"soft money" ban of the Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002 exceed
Congress's authority to regulate elections under Article 1, Section 4 of the
United States Constitution and/or violate the First Amendment's protection of
the freedom to speak?,
Now…I’m not an attorney, and I’m don’t read Latin,
but I’ve got a brain, and I can read plain English which our founders spoke and
used when they wrote the Constitution of the United States of America. What does
Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution say exactly?
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the
Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such
Regulations, except as to the Place of Choosing Senators.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year, and such Meeting
shall be on the first Monday in December unless they shall by Law
appoint a different Day.</blockquote>
The 20th Amendment changed the requirement of Senators to meet on
the first Monday in December but the rest of the Amendment remains unchanged.
So, given the fact that the Constitution was written to enumerate the powers to
be retained and exorcised by the Federal Government, leaving all other
questions up to the States or to the people per the Tenth Amendment; does the
"soft money" ban exceed Congress's authority to regulate elections under
Article 1, Section 4 of the United States Constitution?
I don’t see anywhere in this article that authorizes the Congress to tell
anyone how they can spend their own money, do you? And I darn sure don’t see
anything allowing any agency of government the power to tell me what I can and
can not say about any candidate within 60 days of an election. Yet the Court by
some twisted reasoning decided otherwise. Basically the Court found that the
law only affected state elections in which federal candidates were involved and
also that it did not prevent states from creating separate election laws for
state and local elections. How this applies to my being allowed to give a
donation to a candidate of my choice is beyond me but there it is.
2) Do regulations of the source,
content, or timing of political advertising in the Campaign Finance Reform Act
of 2002 violate the First Amendment's free speech clause?
For those of you with a public education, who
haven’t had the opportunity to read the First Amendment and discern the plain
meaning of this founding principle in our Bill of Rights, please read on.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
the government for a redress of grievances.
Hmm…"abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the
right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a
redress of grievances.”<
First, let’s look at the right of the people to peaceably assemble. Many of
the groups affected by this regulation were wide and varied and included groups
such as the NRA, and the National Right to Life Committee on the right with the
ACLU and NARAL on the left engaged in representing constituencies “of the
people” to bring their issues to the “people’s Representatives” in government
and advocating for their interests by supporting candidates for office who
would represent these interests. In short, these groups by their activities
were engaged in petitioning the Government for a redress of grievances.
Traditionally, starting with the founders themselves, individuals or groups
would band together to address an injustice perpetrated on them by the
Government by printing pamphlets, organizing in their communities, advocating
for their issues with donations of time and money and visiting their elected
representatives to seek “redress” as the Constitution calls it. This statute
basically banned all or most of the activities of these groups thus robbing the
people of the ability to assemble together on behalf of an issue and to
petition their representatives for a redress of grievances.
So, that’s two out of three strikes against this legislation so far as a
plain reading of the First Amendment is concerned. As for the speech itself,
pamphleteering and paying for advertising to advocate for or against a
candidate or issue has long been recognized as speech beginning with our
founders and as deemed so by prior Court Precedent.
How did the Court answer the question?
in a 5-to-4 decision written
by Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and John Paul Stevens. Because the regulations
dealt mostly with soft-money contributions that were used to register voters
and increase attendance at the polls, not with campaign expenditures (which are
more explicitly a statement of political values and therefore deserve more
protection), the Court held that the restriction on free speech was minimal. It
then found that the restriction was justified by the government's legitimate
interest in preventing "both the actual corruption
threatened by large financial contributions and... the appearance of corruption"
that might result from those contributions.
In response to challenges that the law was too broad and unnecessarily
regulated conduct that had not been shown to cause corruption (such as
advertisements paid for by corporations or unions), the Court found that such
regulation was necessary to prevent the groups from circumventing the law. Justices
O'Connor and Stevens wrote that "money, like water, will always find an
outlet" and that the government was therefore justified in taking steps to
prevent schemes developed to get around the contribution limits.
How does this apply to Burk and his oft quoted
statement about evil triumphing when good men do nothing? Well, I ask you…what
did you do and what have you done, since this ruling, to see it’s obvious
twisted reasoning overturned as well as it’s usurpation of rights granted to
“We the People” was perpetrated on this distracted and unengaged people?
Yeah…me neither!
Then there’s Kelo which is even more cut and
dry than McCain Fiengold where a clear reading of the Constitutions was thrown
out by the court.
Again, this is an infamous case where
Constitutional Law is concerned so I won’t elaborate much on what the case was
about beyond the general outline that it involved the use of the principle of “Immanent
Domain” by the City of New London Connecticut to transfer land from one private
owner to another in order to advance economic development. In other words…the
government in essence took property from a private property owner in order to
enrich the city and a well healed developer in the area.
Again, I’m not and attorney but I can read.
Let’s take a look at the Fifth Amendment
No person shall be
held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land
or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or
public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice
put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to
be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken
for public use, without just compensation.
Sounds pretty clear doesn’t it? No
person….that means NO ONE doesn’t it? NO PERSON shall….be deprived of life,
liberty, or property without due process of law? Surely the Court ruled the
City of New London
was out of line…right?
Well?…From Wikipedia:
The Court held in a 5-4 decision that the general benefits
a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as
a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth
Amendment
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a 5–4 decision,
ruled in favor of the City of New
London. Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the majority
opinion; he was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer. Justice Kennedy penned a concurring opinion
setting out more detailed standards for judicial review of economic development
takings than that found in Stevens' majority opinion. In so doing, he
contributed to the Court's trend of turning minimum scrutiny--the idea that
government policy need only bear a rational relation to a legitimate government
purpose--into a fact-based test.
Kennedy fleshed out this doctrine in his Kelo concurring
opinion, in which he sets out a program of civil discovery in the context of a
challenge to an assertion of government purpose in the eminent domain context.
However, he does not explicitly limit these criteria to eminent domain, nor to
minimum scrutiny, suggesting that they may be generalized to all health and
welfare regulation in the scrutiny regime. Because Kennedy signed on to the
Court's majority opinion, his concurrence is not binding on lower courts. He
writes:
"A court confronted with a plausible accusation of impermissible
favoritism to private parties should [conduct]….a careful and extensive inquiry
into ‘whether, in fact, the development plan [chronology]
[1.] is of primary benefit to . . . the developer…, and private businesses
which may eventually locate in the plan area…,
[2.] and in that regard, only of incidental benefit to the city…[.]’"
Kennedy is also interested in facts of the chronology which show, with
respect to government,
[3.] awareness of…depressed economic condition and evidence corroborating
the validity of this concern…,
[4.] the substantial commitment of public funds…before most of the private
beneficiaries were known…,
[5.] evidence that [government] reviewed a variety of development plans…[,]
[6.] [government] chose a private developer from a group of applicants rather
than picking out a particular transferee beforehand and…
[7.] other private beneficiaries of the project [were]…unknown [to
government] because the…space proposed to be built [had] not yet been
rented…."
I’m a commercial real estate agent, and I know from
personal experience that real estate markets are funny things. You see…if you
have a depressed real estate market and all of a sudden a commercial developer
comes in and buys up some real estate and builds a business, there is this
curious phenomena that occurs around that property…for some mysterious
reason…the value of the adjoining properties inexplicably goes up, (for those
of you in Oklahoma, I’m being sarcastic). Never mind a corrupt politician or a
corrupt group of politicians can take property from individuals at pre
development prices using the power of their offices and sell it to another
private individual at a post development price benefitting the local government
by the extra revenues generated; or make sure the developer can get the
property for pennies on the dollar assuming of course that that developer
either donates to the politician’s campaign or holds a well paying position
open for them once he/she leaves office. Never mind the plain meaning and intent
of the founders when writing the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment!
And what did good men do when this travesty was inflicted on a once again distracted
and unengaged people? Did anyone stand up and demand that Kennedy and Stevens
be impeached for their usurpation of rights granted to “We the People” by the
Constitution of the United
States? Was there a popular uprising and a
march on Washington
demanding the heads of these usurpers of our precious freedoms?
There was an uproar to be sure…but as time went on…State Governments passed
legislation that made it clear that no local governments would be able to use
this newly invented power of the Courts to steal the hard earned property of
our citizens…but was that good enough? I would say not…because the ruling still
applies as it is written. Our constitution took a sword blow to the Jugular
with that ruling…and the states simply stopped the bleeding with a Band-Aid. The
precedent is still on the table to be built upon by Kennedy and his crowd.
Now we have this ridiculous ruling on Gitmo and this new ruling allowing
immigrants to overstay their visas…and the prospect that the Second Amendment
could lose it’s meaning of over 221 years and I ask you…will you stand by now
and do nothing?
I’m making a call as of right now…I’m challenging each of you to be
complacent no more! Don’t let the shell game go on anymore. Don’t be diverted
from your purpose by the next outrage set before you. I’m asking each and every
one of those that read this to fax, or email your Congressmen and demand that
they make speeches from the floor of Congress telegraphing their intend to
submit legislation to impeach Kennedy, Souter, Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer the
next time they have the audacity to issue another opinion from the bench that
usurps the prerogatives of the POTUS and the bicameral Congress or ever strays
again from the doctrine of checks and balances. I also challenge each of you to
proclaim loudly and forcefully to the Congress and the POTUS to not only stand
against these encroachments into their domain but demand they take steps to
roll back McCain Fiengold and to overrule the Court on Kelo and this Gitmo
Ruling. It’s time to fight…It’s time to tell these idiots that “we’re mad as
hell and we’re not gonna take it any more!” I’m committing to do so tomorrow
and I ask my ilk to join me in taking our Constitution back from their Majesties
on the Supreme Court. Send a message that they’ve advanced this far…but they
will advance no farther in depriving us of life liberty or property and they
WILL, by God, recognize the rights of “we the people” as granted to us by the “laws of nature and
of natures god”
The time for standing by and doing nothing has long since past, and this
nation has paid a terrible price as a result of our inaction. Evil has indeed
triumphed for a season but now it’s time to ACT NOW!