There’s been a great deal of discussion amongst my Vox Populi brothers and sisters regarding the multi-show topic of requiring valid ID to vote in elections.
This very blog was begun because of these discussions and the complete inadequacy of of 140 character per response that Twitter limits us to. I’ve dragged my feet on this because I knew it was going to be a pain in my ass to look up and cite the references I would need to back up my position, but we have another show upon us this afternoon, so I was time to get cracking.
I’ve taken quite a few courses on constitutional law over the years as it’s something I have a great deal of interest in. My first go around in college was at Cal State Northridge. I had a professor l who had a reputation for being a real ball buster to those who made definitives statements about an element of law in her class. In reality, she wasn’t bad at all provided you came prepared and had citations and/or precedent to back your statement. Whenever she would ask a question and and was given an answer answer, she immediately responded, “under what authority do you cite that?” She expected you to have a statute, case law, or some other form of precedent to back up your argument. This of course was great preparation for those who were planning on the law for a profession as Judges don’t take to kindly to lawyers pull theories out of their rear end without some authority to back them up.
I am not a republican. I am not a democrat. I am not a liberatarian.
I consider myself a conservative. But when I say conservative, I don’t mean the abomination the connotation of that idea has become under the Grand Old Party. I mean the liberty loving, federal government out of your lives as much as possible, states rights, small federal taxes, pro personal responsibility conservative that was characteristic of Barry Goldwater Sr.
I’ve been a member of a political forum for over a decade now that started with a group of people who played on online video game together. The game is mostly gone now, only played by a few diehard individuals, but the forum still chugs along with a few dozen regular posters.
Long ago we came up with a questionnaire that is stickied at the top of the forum so that members could just post their personal beliefs regarding some of the most common topics, so we didn’t have to keep repeating ourselves when non-members dropped by.
So I’m reprinting my responses here for the same reason: Continue reading
In 1976, the Supreme Court made a ruling on Buckley v. Valeo. This case is one of the most important, and to my mind, the most damaging decisions ever to come from the Court.
In 1974, over the veto of President Ford, Congress passed the first significant amendments to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. It attempt to create the first comprehensive effort by the federal government to regulate campaign contributions and spending. It required full disclosure of contributions, set a limit of $1k. It limited personal funds spent by candidates on a campaign, and also created and fixed the method of appointing members to the FEC.
What is significant in this decision is that it for the first time set forth the idea that spending money equated to free speech.
When this singular concept is combined with the concept of “corporate person-hood” first recognized by the Court in Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), the begin the long slide toward tyranny Thomas Jefferson was sure would eventually occur in America. Jefferson said that when the government fears the people, there is liberty, and when people fear the government there is tyranny. I don’t believe he ever envisioned a government where the Corporations and special interests, such as the unions and the large national lobbies, would ever wield so much power that they would become the de facto government.
The economic collapse of 2008 is the surest indication that this shadow government has no fear of the people…and that he people surely have fear of it.