SCOTUS Strikes Cap On Campaign Contributions From Super Donors
Money isn't speech.
Paying someone else to speak or publish isn't speaking or publishing.
There are no content restrictions on the press in these spending limits.
Nor in any way on what one may say.
Neither speakers nor publishers are restrained by these spending limits.
And how are the separate limits OK but the aggregate limit not?
The levels of scrutiny adverted to, by the way, are not a creation or an imposition of the constitution.
Judges just made all that stuff up.
A cynic once pointed out that the law says what the judges say it says.
And that is most certainly an argument against a life tenured, independent judiciary armed with final authority on the matter, isn't it?
The point of a written constitution is not only to create a government but to impose limits on what it can do, as well as in some cases requirements on what it must do.
The point is to protect the governed from absolute, arbitrary, and lawless power.
That point is in a measure defeated by the absolute, arbitrary, and lawless power of a runaway judiciary that gets to make up out of whole cloth the limits and requirements that the government must satisfy.
PS.
Protection of the governed from absolute, arbitrary, and lawless power is the real point of numerous features common among Western governments, especially but not only those that are republican, all of which are standing rebukes to absolutism.
These including but are not limited to separation of the executive, judicial, and legislative powers, the division of executive, legislative, or judicial power among several people or bodies of people, exercise of authority by distinct and independent levels of government (federalism), more or less frequent rotation in office for at least some of the most important offices, express and specific grants or denials of powers, a Bill of Rights, constitutional review by one or more bodies at one or more levels, trial by jury, and the right to an attorney.
No comments:
Post a Comment