...
There is only one other possible way that we could “get new justices”, as Feingold suggested: Impeachment. Before discussing the pros and cons of a Constitutional amendment vs. impeachment for dealing with the corrupt Citizens United decision, let’s consider why this USSC decision should rightly be considered, as Feingold said, “one of the most lawless in the history of the Supreme Court”.
One of the most lawless decisions in the history of the Supreme Court
Matthews summarized the crux of the Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission in his article:
Former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and Progressive Party candidate for President Bob La Follette, warned of the threat of unlimited corporate power during his 1924 run for the Presidency:
Implications for our democracy – Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent
86 years later, Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent to the majority decision in Citizens United, explained what the majority decision means to the future of our democracy:
On the corrupt nature of the decision
Of course, impeachment of our public officials must not be taken lightly. Decisions to impeach should not be taken on the basis of mere differences of opinion or differences of ideology. But to understand the corrupt and lawless nature of the decision one need only look at the justifications put forth by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority. Matthews summarized this in his article:
The first sentence noted above essentially asserts that the unlimited use of corporate wealth to influence our elections does “not give rise to corruption…”. Doesn’t give rise to corruption? Perhaps not. It IS corruption.
Maryland State Senator and law professor Jamie Raskin explained the consequences of removing all limitations on the use of corporate wealth to influence our elections:
And as for the idea that “the appearance of influence or access… will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy”, my God, how could any reasonably intelligent person say such a thing? ...
One of the most lawless decisions in the history of the Supreme Court
Matthews summarized the crux of the Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission in his article:
To read the 5-4 majority decision in Citizens United is to look at a fun-house mirror…. The McCain-Feingold law prohibited corporate-funded independent ads during such a timeframe, and Citizens United challenged the constitutionality of the law as it applied to this particular instance….
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, threw out decades of Supreme Court precedents. Writing in the most sweeping way, he declared that “political speech of corporations or other associations” cannot “be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’ ”
The logic of the Court’s argument would throw out all restrictions on corporate expenditures. “Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” it said. This seems to justify unlimited direct gifts to candidates, though the majority didn’t quite go there. But it went everywhere else.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, threw out decades of Supreme Court precedents. Writing in the most sweeping way, he declared that “political speech of corporations or other associations” cannot “be treated differently under the First Amendment simply because such associations are not ‘natural persons.’ ”
The logic of the Court’s argument would throw out all restrictions on corporate expenditures. “Political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it, whether by design or inadvertence,” it said. This seems to justify unlimited direct gifts to candidates, though the majority didn’t quite go there. But it went everywhere else.
Former U.S. Senator from Wisconsin and Progressive Party candidate for President Bob La Follette, warned of the threat of unlimited corporate power during his 1924 run for the Presidency:
Democracy cannot live side by side with the control of government by private monopoly. We must choose, on the one hand, between representative government, with its guarantee of peace, liberty, and economic freedom and prosperity for all the people, and on the other, war, tyranny, and the impoverishment of the many for the enrichment of the favored few.
Implications for our democracy – Justice John Paul Stevens in dissent
86 years later, Justice John Paul Stevens, in his dissent to the majority decision in Citizens United, explained what the majority decision means to the future of our democracy:
Justice John Paul Stevens… warned: “Starting today, corporations with large war chests to deploy on electioneering may find democratically elected bodies becoming much more attuned to their interests.” The Court’s decision, he added, undermines the integrity of our democratic institutions and “will undoubtedly cripple the ability of ordinary citizens, Congress, and the states to adopt even limited measures to protect against corporate domination of the electoral process.”
Stevens cut to the heart of the matter and laid out why corporations should not be treated as persons. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant,” he argued. “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it…. Their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. . .
Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” …
Stevens also invoked our Founders. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind,” he wrote. “Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic,” Stevens observed, and in a footnote, he provided thequotation from Jefferson from 1816: “I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations.”
Stevens cut to the heart of the matter and laid out why corporations should not be treated as persons. “In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant,” he argued. “Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it…. Their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. . .
Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” …
Stevens also invoked our Founders. “Unlike our colleagues, they had little trouble distinguishing corporations from human beings, and when they constitutionalized the right to free speech in the First Amendment, it was the free speech of individual Americans that they had in mind,” he wrote. “Thomas Jefferson famously fretted that corporations would subvert the Republic,” Stevens observed, and in a footnote, he provided thequotation from Jefferson from 1816: “I hope we shall… crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations.”
On the corrupt nature of the decision
Of course, impeachment of our public officials must not be taken lightly. Decisions to impeach should not be taken on the basis of mere differences of opinion or differences of ideology. But to understand the corrupt and lawless nature of the decision one need only look at the justifications put forth by Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority. Matthews summarized this in his article:
The decision asserted, astonishingly and without evidence, that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” It added: “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.”
The first sentence noted above essentially asserts that the unlimited use of corporate wealth to influence our elections does “not give rise to corruption…”. Doesn’t give rise to corruption? Perhaps not. It IS corruption.
Maryland State Senator and law professor Jamie Raskin explained the consequences of removing all limitations on the use of corporate wealth to influence our elections:
In 2008, the Fortune 100 corporations had $600 billion in profits… Now imagine that those top 100 companies decided to spend a modest 1 percent of their profits to intervene in our politics and to get their way. That would mean $6 billion, or double what the Obama campaign spent, the McCain campaign spent, and every candidate for House and Senate.
And as for the idea that “the appearance of influence or access… will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy”, my God, how could any reasonably intelligent person say such a thing? ...
...
Bugliosi summed up the significance to our country of Bush v. Gore:
That assessment is right on target. And it applies as well to any corrupt and lawless decision by the highest court in our land.
Do we need to pass a constitutional amendment to deal with every blatantly corrupt, lawless and absurd decision of our Supreme Court? Or would it be a better idea to serve notice that such abominations will not be tolerated? Should our Supreme Court justices be made to understand that there is some limit to the absurdity and corruptness of their decisions that will be tolerated? Should we send a message that they will be held accountable for adhering to the rule of law? Should we take seriously their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States? Or do we have to pass a Constitutional amendment every time they blatantly violate their oath and stray beyond the bounds of decency and faithfulness to the rule of law?
That an election for an American President can be stolen by the highest court in the land under the deliberate pretext of an inapplicable constitutional provision has got to be one of the most frightening and dangerous events ever to have occurred in this country. Until this act – which is treasonous, though again not technically, in its sweeping implications – is somehow rectified (and I do not know how this can be done), can we be serene about continuing to place the adjective "great" before the name of this country?
That assessment is right on target. And it applies as well to any corrupt and lawless decision by the highest court in our land.
Do we need to pass a constitutional amendment to deal with every blatantly corrupt, lawless and absurd decision of our Supreme Court? Or would it be a better idea to serve notice that such abominations will not be tolerated? Should our Supreme Court justices be made to understand that there is some limit to the absurdity and corruptness of their decisions that will be tolerated? Should we send a message that they will be held accountable for adhering to the rule of law? Should we take seriously their oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States? Or do we have to pass a Constitutional amendment every time they blatantly violate their oath and stray beyond the bounds of decency and faithfulness to the rule of law?
No comments:
Post a Comment