Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook 14 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon 1 Tell A Friend 21 (36 Shares)  
Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites View Stats   20 comments

Exclusive to OpEdNews:
OpEdNews Op Eds

Reversing Citizens United: stripping the Roberts 5 of power over elections

By (about the author)     Permalink       (Page 6 of 11 pages)
Related Topic(s): ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Must Read 15   Well Said 9   Supported 8  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H1 1/13/12

In a democracy, which institution is empowered to make such rules universally applicable to all Americans? Which institution better represents the views of all Americans concerning the "right" to be or not to be subjected to paid special interest political advertising? These questions were answered long ago by the political question doctrine. Giving such power to the Court, takes it away from all Americans who are entitled to balance conflicting rights and values in a way that best serves the country. By preventing their elected representatives from regulating elections in the interests of all citizens, the Court has more broadly prevented the people from electing politicians who are at all motivated by what is best for the country rather than by what will fill the politicians' own pockets with payments from the plutocrats they serve.

When one interest conflicts with the other it is a political question how to resolve the conflict to enhance both liberty and democracy for all. The separation of powers under the Constitution mandates that Congress should answer such questions weighing the rights and interests of all citizens because those are political, not legal, questions. Citizens United, like the Courts' other election decisions since 1976, violates the political question doctrine by intruding on legislative powers.

Legal questions involve the particularized interests of an individual or a group of people - not everyone. As one scholar of Article III put it:

"Too little particularization or too much political discretion and the courts are off their turf. ..When an interest is widely shared among a great many people, so that relief will affect all of them, it may not be desirable simply to allow anyone who shares that interest to seek judicial relief in effect on behalf of everyone."

John Harrison, The Relation Between Limitations on and Requirements of Article III Adjudication , 95 Cal. L. Rev. 1367, 1368, 1372 (2007). 

Justice Stevens pointed out that no voter did seek such relief in Citizens United : "It is only certain Members of this Court, not the listeners themselves, who have agitated for more corporate electioneering." Certainly the Court itself had no more standing than a litigant would have to raise a political question of this nature. Prof. Harrison continues:

"One of the primary purposes of political arrangements is to produce a mechanism for resolving disputes about widely shared interests....[W]ith respect to interests shared by the public, political actors should decide how to vindicate them."

The Constitution prescribes the remedy when the Court strays "off their turf" as it has done with such disastrous effect in its line of election cases. 

As mentioned above, the Constitution gave Congress the power to determine what issues the Supreme Court can decide rather than vice versa. It did so understanding that conflict over the most fundamental issues must ultimately be decided by the people themselves in a democracy. The people can punish elected legislators at the polls who intrude on judicial powers by deciding individual cases, or they can force politicians to reclaim their legislative power from a Court that intrudes on legislative powers to corrupt the elected branches.

Congress is subject to the will of the people; the Court is not. The Courts are servants of the law not its master. It is precisely when the survival of democracy itself is at issue that the people must speak, and their voice prevail, not the views of five unelected politicians in robes who have done their best to subvert democracy and install the current plutocracy.

The people can require that Congress, now itself deeply mired in the Supreme Court-mandated system of political corruption, exercise its constitutional power to reject the Supreme Court's "money is speech" metaphor. If Congress decides that the Roberts 5 are "off their turf," and merely using the First Amendment as an excuse for intruding on the conduct of elections for the very purpose of undermining democracy, Congress has both the power, and more the duty, to stop them.

The Constitution wisely made Congress the judge of elections. This includes judgments about the role of paid special interest advertising as a valuable form of speech, or not, as compared to the fundamental importance of election integrity. All voters share an interest in both rights -- both the Court-created right to hear political advertising they think is valuable, on the one hand, and the Congress-protected right to have their vote count equally, and their unpaid voices heard above the din of paid political advertising, on the other. The balancing of these broad political interests places this question properly in Congress and not as a  "case"  trumped up for judicial resolution as Citizens United clearly was.

The Exceptions Clause does not override the First Amendment. It gives Congress the authority to remove from the Court the power to interpret the First Amendment on this narrow set of political issues involving elections. The Constitution gave the elected Congress power to reverse an unlected Court when it itself becomes the source of fundamentally unconstitutional decisions establishing an undemocratic election regime.  It could be no other way in a democracy.

The true First Amendment intended to promote democratic conversation stays in its place; the distorted version created by politicized judges to drown out that conversation with money is overthrown. The Court's authority to enter this field of elections on the basis of this particular attenuated excuse is revoked. Congress remains bound by the First Amendment - but Congress gets to interpret its proper scope in the quintessentially political arena of elections, according to what the overwhelming majority of Americans believe it should be. The five politicized plutocrats who find themselves on the Court due to the power of those they serve, and who have been opposed by four dissenters in most of their election cases do not, in a democracy, get to tell the people how their elections shall be conducted.

8. No Exceptions to Congress' Exceptions Clause Power

Years ago, in declining to strike down a state law, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. used words applicable to the Roberts 5 interference in elections: 

Next Page  1  |  2  |  3  |  4  |  5  |  6  |  7  |  8  |  9  |  10  |  11

 

A creative thinker on matters of public policy and art, and a principal researcher. Current focus of work is on the strategies democracies can use to protect against overthrow by corruption, with immediate attention to the mess being made by (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon

Go To Commenting
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Writers Guidelines

Contact Author Contact Editor View Authors' Articles

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Reversing Citizens United: stripping the Roberts 5 of power over elections

Five reasons why a constitutional amendment is the wrong way to get money out of politics

Roberts 5 strike another blow for plutocracy: Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett

Our corrupt politics is all about money: Reviewing Ezra Klein's NYRB Lessig review

Does the Same First Amendment Apply to the 1% and the 99%?

How not to make Congress more responsive to voters: the Congressional Reform Act of 2011 hoax

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

Comments: Expand   Shrink   Hide  
14 people are discussing this page, with 20 comments
To view all comments:
Expand Comments
(Or you can set your preferences to show all comments, always)

The systematic political disenfranchisement caus... by Larry Kachimba on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:41:38 AM
This is worthy of more exploration. A constitution... by RedBlueQuest on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 9:26:39 PM
This is absolutely the BEST article that I have re... by mainehonza on Friday, Jan 13, 2012 at 11:42:11 PM
Before you consider stripping the Supreme Court - ... by Scott Baker on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 4:58:31 AM
or are deliberately attacking a straw man fo... by Larry Kachimba on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 12:52:02 PM
I get 11 browser pages here, and it doesn't seem t... by Maxwell on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:52:52 PM
The article goes to great length - too great ... by Larry Kachimba on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 2:55:16 AM
But the status quo is not sustainable after the hi... by Michael Hager on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 7:48:47 AM
section 2, clause 2, against Citizens United in No... by Richard Girard on Saturday, Jan 14, 2012 at 5:11:27 PM
This article is exemplary. It is something James M... by martin weiss on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:20:50 PM
Thank you, Larry, for a thoughtfully detailed, if ... by Vernon Huffman on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 1:33:36 PM
Your question, of course, follows from the analysi... by Larry Kachimba on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 2:17:50 PM
I was in such a hurry on Saturday, I forgot the mo... by Richard Girard on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:40:25 PM
Remember to visit the MoneyOuttaPolitics.org web... by Jerry Morgan on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 6:56:40 PM
Learn more at MOP... by Jerry Morgan on Sunday, Jan 15, 2012 at 8:59:39 PM
Please read Larry Kachimba's article, Reversing Ci... by Rowdy on Monday, Jan 16, 2012 at 12:02:02 PM
Just a comment to thank Larry Kachimba for his in ... by Tim Sanders on Tuesday, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:29:53 PM
politics on this site were to follow Tim's le... by Larry Kachimba on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 11:02:57 PM
Congress could gut "Citizens United" without offic... by John Flanery on Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:25:29 PM
Somehow, integrity must be returned to the Supreme... by Gene Engene on Saturday, Jan 21, 2012 at 9:55:53 PM