For 35 years Justice John Paul
Stevens served on the United States Supreme Court. During that time, he had the opportunity to
affect virtually every area of constitutional law. His critics charged that he was an activist
judge who did not follow the original intent of our founding fathers. Such criticism was, in our opinion,
unfair. The Constitution is not a
document etched in unyielding stone, but rather a living document designed to limit the government and to protect the individual. At the Thomas Jefferson Memorial you will
find these words from our third president:
I am not an advocate for frequent
changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in
hand with the progress of the human mind.
As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are
made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of
circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.
Without
question, Justice Stevens followed Jefferson’s philosophy
and at times determined the law must evolve to deal with the here and now as
opposed to what was occurring over 200 years ago. Ironically, the same critics who accused him
of being an activist judge criticized Justice Stevens when he did follow what
could be described as original intent theory.
Of course, the real reason for the criticism is that his opinion did not
favor unions and corporations. In the
case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission, the majority of
the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a campaign finance law that prohibited corporations
and unions from promoting the election of one candidate over another
candidate. In his dissent, Justice
Stevens wrote:
The basic premise underlying the
Court’s ruling is its iteration, and constant reiteration, of the proposition
that the First Amendment bars regulatory distinctions based on a speaker’s
identity, including its “identity” as a corporation. While that glittering generality has
rhetorical appeal, it is not a correct statement of the law. Nor does it tell us when a corporation may
engage in electioneering that some of its shareholders oppose. It does not even resolve the specific
question whether Citizens United may be required to finance some of its messages
with the money in its PAC. The conceit that corporations must be treated
identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate
but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.
In the context of election to
public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is
significant. Although they make enormous
contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by
nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the
interests of eligible voters. The financial
resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise
legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling
constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed
to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in
local and national races.
The
U.S. Constitution does not contain any language that corporations and unions
must be treated equally with individuals in the political arena. Yet, the so-called conservative strict
constructionist wing of the Supreme Court found such organizations to be on equal
footing with you and me. As the future unfolds,
I am certain that Justice Stevens’ concerns about the majority position will be
realized to our detriment.
So,
farewell Justice Stevens. You followed
the rule of law and did your best to protect the rights of your fellow
citizens.