Jim, putting aside the topic of inalienable rights, Constitutional
rights offer only limited protection against those "temporary
majorities" you indicate they protect "against", simply because there
is no constitutional protection against a supermajority sufficient to
amend the Constitution (e.g., a Congressional supermajority and 3/4 of
the states' legislatures), even if that supermajority is relatively
temporary in duration. In effect, the burden of constitutional
amendment is designed to "make sure" the people are seriously wanting
the change, but is not necessarily to prevent a relatively quick
amendment and ratification if the will to do so is there.
The approximately 80% super-majority opposing the Citizens United
holding is not a "temporary" majority - it reflects or is consistent
with a century or more of opposition to unlimited involvement of “free
money” and/or corporate money in politics.
For example, immediately below is a quote from the final paragraphs of
the Unanimous 1884 US Supreme Court case entitled Ex Parte Yarbrough
(referring initially to the case at bar of violence by Klansmen
against blacks in connection with Southern elections, then equating
that violence with “unprincipled corruptionists” and “the free use of
money in elections”). It's unlikely such strongly worded concepts as
those below would pass the editing pens of all the justices in the
final paragraph of the case without it representing their actual
belief:
“If the recurrence of such acts as these prisoners stand convicted of
are too common in one quarter of the country, and give omen of danger
from lawless violence, the free use of money in elections, arising
from the vast growth of recent wealth in other quarters, presents
equal cause for anxiety.
If the government of the United States has within its constitutional
domain no authority to provide against these evils -- if the very
sources of power may be poisoned by corruption or controlled by
violence and outrage, without legal restraint -- then indeed is the
country in danger, and its best powers, its highest purposes, the
hopes which it inspires, and the love which enshrines it are at the
mercy of the combinations of those who respect no right but brute
force on the one hand, and unprincipled corruptionists on the other.
The rule to show cause in this case is discharged, and the writ of
habeas corpus denied.
Ex Parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).”
http://supreme.justia.com/us/110/651/case.html
Paul Lehto, J.D.
On 10/19/10, JBoppjr@aol.com <JBoppjr@aol.com> wrote:
The main reason that people at the time insisted that the Bill of Rights
be adopted is that they recognized that these freedoms needed to be
guaranteed against (often) temporary majorities who would use federal power
against
them. In other words, these freedoms would not be popular with a majority
of the people from time to time or in some applications. In fact, even
though the First Amendment protects the four indispensable democratic
freedoms, protecting the right of the people to criticize our government,
the ink
on the Bill of Rights was hardly dry when the Federalist Party passed the
Alien and Sedition Act in the 1790s making it a criminal offense to hold
the
government and public officials in disrepute. They were attempting to
prevent the emergence of the Republican Party lead by Thomas Jefferson.
They
failed.
So here we have some liberals and progressives taking polls on the
First Amendment's protections -- like it matters -- and using it to justify
draconian cutbacks on those freedoms. And of course we have the Democrats
eager to do it to fend off the upcoming Republican victories. Human nature
just doesn't change and the more we find out about the Founders the more we
can admire their foresight and wisdom. Jim Bopp
--
Paul R Lehto, J.D.
P.O. Box 1
Ishpeming, MI 49849
lehto.paul@gmail.com
906-204-2334
_______________________________________________
election-law mailing list
election-law@mailman.lls.edu
http://mailman.lls.edu/mailman/listinfo/election-law