Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Constitutional What? - Update

I admit to not having listened to much of Obama's SOTU speech this evening. I can't stand his tone, his air of moral superiority, when he is at the core of the "Washington" culture he uses as an epithet.

But as a committed Federalist I was most appalled by this little gem.
With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign corporations -- to spend without limit in our elections. (Applause.) I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. (Applause.) They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
That was zero deference whatsoever to separation of powers; the Court just ruled that prior legislation trampled on freedom of speech and your response is to pass more legislation likely to also get smacked down. It was ever more egregious because he taught courses in constitutional law and his supporters moaned and complained incessantly about Bush's lack of respect for the constitution during the prior administration.


Obama also appears to have been inaccurate with his assertion about foreign influences. From the NYT Caucus blog:

But in his majority opinion in the case, Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission, Justice Anthony Kennedy specifically wrote that the opinion did not address the question of foreign companies. “We need not reach the question of whether the government has a compelling interesting in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process,” he wrote.
H/T to The Volokh Conspiracy, probably the best legal blog you're not reading.

1 comment:

  1. You know, who really knows what he's trained in? No one has seen his transcripts and his take on SC decisions is clearly illiterate.