This week the Supreme Court rendered two extremely important decisions in support of the Constitution, freedom, and the individual liberties of every American.
Virtually all of the media attention has been focused on the Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upholds the individual right of Americans to own guns in the District of Columbia. Since Washington, D.C. is federal territory, many of those who oppose the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms continue to argue that the Second Amendment simply allows for state militias to possess guns, and they strive to keep and expand state and municipal prohibitions against individual gun ownership. But these state and local laws will now be challenged in light of the new ruling that makes clear that our Constitution and Bill of Rights not only mean what they say, but apply to every American.
In finding the Washington, D.C. gun ban in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Scalia eloquently affirmed what our founding fathers understood when saying that certain rights are inherent, natural, and from God, not government, and when he explains how the rights affirmed by the founding fathers have their roots deep in ancient British legal history. These natural, God-given rights include the right to defend oneself and one’s family, to safeguard one’s home and property, even to defend one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against a tyrannical government.
For a great many Americans, what the Supreme Court has done in this landmark case is to affirm what most of us simply regard as “right thinking” or common sense. Yet the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter was determined by a razor thin vote of 5 to 4.
The national attention that focused on this Second Amendment ruling has eclipsed another Court decision rendered the same day, but one that is at least as important in that it re-asserts our First Amendment right to free speech. The McCain-Feingold law has been seen by many as an “incumbent protection act” in that it restricts the quantity, content, and timing of political speech during federal elections. One provision, known as the “millionaires’ amendment,” had attempted to subdue wealthy, self-financing candidates by letting their opponents receive triple the standard campaign contribution limit of $2,300 per donor. This provision effectively had limited what one candidate could spend, thereby limiting that candidate’s speech, since it costs money to get one’s message to the voters. Also, by “leveling the playing field” in this way, the law provided an advantage to incumbents who typically are much better known than are their challengers.
This week the Court also determined by a 5 to 4 vote that this provision of the McCain-Feingold law is unconstitutional, thereby upholding the right of a candidate to spend his own money for campaign speech.
While we can be thankful that the Supreme Court has aligned itself on the side of liberties contained in our Bill of Rights, the closeness of these votes reminds us of how very fragile those liberties are.
When we hear legislators boast about how much legislation they have sponsored and passed, we need to remember that every law, whether it is promulgated by local, state, or federal governments, limits someone’s freedom. The challenge is in knowing when to make the trade-off.
There was a time in the nineteenth century when many seriously argued that our Congress was no longer necessary since our nation had all the law it needed. With the threats posed by international terrorism, by a public that increasingly thinks government should solve all problems, and by a government that seeks to manage everything from the nation’s economy to planetary temperatures, our liberties come under constant assault.
The noble battles for liberty fought at Bunker Hill, Ticonderoga, Valley Forge, Charleston, Camden, and Eutaw Springs continue today in both political parties, in our state legislatures, in Congress, and as we have seen this week, in the United States Supreme Court. The fight is never ending.
Virtually all of the media attention has been focused on the Court’s ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, which upholds the individual right of Americans to own guns in the District of Columbia. Since Washington, D.C. is federal territory, many of those who oppose the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms continue to argue that the Second Amendment simply allows for state militias to possess guns, and they strive to keep and expand state and municipal prohibitions against individual gun ownership. But these state and local laws will now be challenged in light of the new ruling that makes clear that our Constitution and Bill of Rights not only mean what they say, but apply to every American.
In finding the Washington, D.C. gun ban in violation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, Justice Scalia eloquently affirmed what our founding fathers understood when saying that certain rights are inherent, natural, and from God, not government, and when he explains how the rights affirmed by the founding fathers have their roots deep in ancient British legal history. These natural, God-given rights include the right to defend oneself and one’s family, to safeguard one’s home and property, even to defend one’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness against a tyrannical government.
For a great many Americans, what the Supreme Court has done in this landmark case is to affirm what most of us simply regard as “right thinking” or common sense. Yet the Supreme Court’s ruling in this matter was determined by a razor thin vote of 5 to 4.
The national attention that focused on this Second Amendment ruling has eclipsed another Court decision rendered the same day, but one that is at least as important in that it re-asserts our First Amendment right to free speech. The McCain-Feingold law has been seen by many as an “incumbent protection act” in that it restricts the quantity, content, and timing of political speech during federal elections. One provision, known as the “millionaires’ amendment,” had attempted to subdue wealthy, self-financing candidates by letting their opponents receive triple the standard campaign contribution limit of $2,300 per donor. This provision effectively had limited what one candidate could spend, thereby limiting that candidate’s speech, since it costs money to get one’s message to the voters. Also, by “leveling the playing field” in this way, the law provided an advantage to incumbents who typically are much better known than are their challengers.
This week the Court also determined by a 5 to 4 vote that this provision of the McCain-Feingold law is unconstitutional, thereby upholding the right of a candidate to spend his own money for campaign speech.
While we can be thankful that the Supreme Court has aligned itself on the side of liberties contained in our Bill of Rights, the closeness of these votes reminds us of how very fragile those liberties are.
When we hear legislators boast about how much legislation they have sponsored and passed, we need to remember that every law, whether it is promulgated by local, state, or federal governments, limits someone’s freedom. The challenge is in knowing when to make the trade-off.
There was a time in the nineteenth century when many seriously argued that our Congress was no longer necessary since our nation had all the law it needed. With the threats posed by international terrorism, by a public that increasingly thinks government should solve all problems, and by a government that seeks to manage everything from the nation’s economy to planetary temperatures, our liberties come under constant assault.
The noble battles for liberty fought at Bunker Hill, Ticonderoga, Valley Forge, Charleston, Camden, and Eutaw Springs continue today in both political parties, in our state legislatures, in Congress, and as we have seen this week, in the United States Supreme Court. The fight is never ending.
9 comments:
With two Supreme Court justices likely to retire next term it is extremely important that McCain gets elected.
It sounds like Stevens and Ginsberg are likely to retire during the next Presidential term. While Obama wouldn't change the ideology of the Court, he would replace two old liberals with two young liberals. McCain would make appointments that would insure a clear conservative majority into the next generation. This is a very critical aspect of the 2008 election.
And what kind of justices will McCain be appointing? Those that will uphold assaults on the Constitution and national sovereignty like McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, or McCain-Lieberman, or justices that will oppose the very laws he has sponsored?
There is only one conservative in the race defending constitutional principles and that is Bob Barr.
Response to June 30 Anonymous:
Bobb Barr is a man of great principal, but I believe it goes without question that a vote for him would be a vote for Obama, and that definitely would result in two new liberals being appointed to the Court.
In my response yesterday to the Anonymous post of June 30, I referred to Bob Barr as a man of great "principal." Better grammar would have been to say that he's a man of great "principle." Yet it may also be grammatically correct to say that he is a man of principal, in that he is a principal representative of the conservative movement!
I agree that Congressman Barr is a great principal of the conservative movement, and that he is a man of great principle.
However, he has no chance at appointing the next two Supreme Court justices. Get real. It will be either Senator McCain or Senator Obama, and I want Senator McCain making that decision.
I am a conservative, and if I vote for Congressman Barr out of principle, I would be handing that critical decision to Senator Obama.
Congressman Barr, of all the candidates your philosophy is closest to mine and I respect you a great deal, but my vote needs to be with McCain. I wish you were still in Congress. The voters of your district did a great disservice to our country when they failed to re-elect you.
How well said, SC Sailor, how very well said. You seem to have an uncommonly great amount of common sense.
General Eckstrom, thanks for the compliment. You've definitely got my vote!
General, we are grateful that you share your great wisdom with your fellow men. I hope you and your family had an awesome 4th.
Post a Comment