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.

UPDATE

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.

Historic Day in the Fight for Freedom

Chapter 1.
For eight years I have been complaining about the unconstitutional nature of McCain-Feingold, to the extent that I was almost unable to support McCain for President. Today, the Supreme Court agrees with me, if only 5-4, but still a majority. The fatuousness of the minority opinion's argument that the federal election law banning corporations from advocating for or against a candidate within 30 days of the election is self evident. From Justice Stevens dissent:

It also could have spent unrestricted sums to broadcast Hillary at any time other than the 30 daysbefore the last primary election. Neither Citizens United’s nor any other corporation’s speech has been “banned,” ante, at 1.

So we have freedom of speech at the times allowed by government regulation? I'll let you decide. Meanwhile, The One's response?

We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

So much for respect for the constitution, a cornerstone tirade of the left during the Bush presidency. True colors showing now.

Chapter 2.

Nancy Pelosi said today that she lacked the votes in the House to pass the execrable, pork-laden, discriminatory, deficit-expanding, freedom-killing, innovation-suffocating Senate health care financing "reform" bill. Drudge headlined it with the misleading title, The Day Health Care Died. Health Care did not die, but merely the execrable, ...you get the idea. I hope that the momentum is shattered.

Chapter 3.

Icing on the cake. Air America has declared bankruptcy.



Post Script.

To quote Legal Insurrection, "Could this week possibly get any better?"

This Could be Illegal Updated Video

In Colorado at least, if that BBQ raised more than $200 for a political cause, such as a local ballot proposition. Sometimes the worst tyranny is local. Colorado has some of the most draconian campaign finance "reform" laws in the nation. Their main effect is to stifle the free expression of grass roots political organizations. We're also seeing their use in California to intimidate backers of Proposition 8, but that's a post for another day. Watch the video below to see how Becky Clark got sued for putting up yard signs to oppose a local annexation.

UPDATE - Dean pointed problems with the video, so I found code that worked.












H/T: Institute for Justice