A Fond Farewell To Justice Stevens

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.

 

 

Comments

[HansenWhitney]

I think that to get the home loans from creditors you must present a good reason. But, once I've got a college loan, just because I was willing to buy a building.

[cheap jerseys wholesale]

In this series, the Barrie Examiner looks at the evolution of jobs and joblessness.When Wolfgang Schroeter decided to expand into the furnace business, there was no question they would be manufactured in Barrie.After all, this is where he and his wife, Ingrid, built Wolf Steel and the Napoleon empire of fireplaces, barbecues and stoves.It was 1976, a time when only the bold dared to launch out on their own.Now their two grown sons, Stephen and Chris, are an integral part of a business that keeps growing.During a celebration marking their launch into the $5-billion North American furnace market earlier this fall, the Schroeters were all on hand.