June 08, 2005
COUNTERINTUITIVE RANT
BEGIN RANT
Full disclosure: I am not an attorney, I do not practice law, I have not been trained in the practice of law and though I think lawyers have a place in our country, that place is the bottom of Lake Erie. Having (jokingly) said that, it is now time for a rant. If you do not like rant's, please do not read any further. If you do not like rants, but you want to read what I have to say, please continue. If you like rants, welcome to my world.
I am about to shock (shock I say) most if not all of my conservative friends. I'm going out on a limb to support the MSM in the Palme case. No, not their constant harping about who is the evil, wicked, most benighted creepoid who "outed" Valorie Palme. In fact, I don't think any law was broken at all. I'm not protesting about Joe Wilson's paranoid ravings about outing his wife as a "secret" CIA undercover operative; nor am I in the least bit in agreement with those who demanded an investigation as a method of proving that "Bush Lied" which of course he didn't.
I'm talking about the threat to put Matt Cooper of Time magazine and Judith Miller of the New York Times in jail for not releasing the names of their "confidential sources." Now, please, please don't get me wrong. I think for the most part the folk at the NYTimes and Time magazine are a bunch of idiots with a particular, partisan, pro-liberal axe to grind and that axe is not "pro" American or "pro" America. I think the liberal cant (1.Monotonous talk filled with platitudes; (2.Hypocritically pious language - definitions provided for graduates of liberal universities) that pervades the pages of the NYT and Time is the stuff of whining medioctrities destined to wrap fish entrils in or to line the bottom of bird cages. However, having said all of that, neither of these people should be jailed for not revealing their sources.
"Wait just one damn minute Roper," I can hear some of you thinking (see how talented I am) "that liberal scum made their bed, now let them lie in it." That is from some of my conservative friends. "Wait just one damn minute Roper," I can hear others thinking (see, my talents stretch far and wide) "there is no such thing as a liberal media, those corporate whores are conservative by nature and support the great international rip off of the poor and those left behind by Bush and his tax-cuts for the rich."
Ahh yes, I can hear it all now. Well, that is all so much BS. As an educator and therapist, I teach students and clients that behavior has consequences. Sometimes those consequences are positive, sometimes negative, sometimes neutral, but there are always consequences for what we do.
For my conservative friends, Joe Wilson already shot himself in the foot and has proven himself a serial liar of the funniest kind. The media find themselves hoist on a petard of their own making. But the principle needs to stand and needs to be supported by any thinking individual. "What principle," you ask? Why, simple, the 1st amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."Unlike the ACLU I believe that each amendments enumerated in the "Bill of Rights" means exactly what it says. The ACLU of course interprets the 1st Amendment to mean what the ACLU wants it to mean.
"Congress (and by extention - any branch of government - City, State or National) shall make no law respecting...abridging the freedom...of the press..." Rather than a narrow interpretation of that, we need a b-r-o-a-d interpretation.
"Roper, just where are you going with this?" Well, I admit it's kind of convoluted, but you see, the Supreme Court of the United States of America in their collective idiocy just ruled that the Federal Government can overturn established state law in the regulation of "medical marijuana" under the Commerce Clause of the constitution. Now, it doesn't occur to the learned Justices (you can sense the sarcasm here can't you?...ed.) that the use of the marijuana in question was locally grown, locally used, did not involve interstate commerce, didn't travel over any state boundry and was legal under the laws of the state of California, Oregon and quite a number of other states. In Gonzales v. Raich SCOTUS ruled that despite the 10th Amendment ("The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.") which has always been interpreted to include the application of criminal law to the states. Now, if you kill someone on main street, the state will prosecute you. If you kill someone on federal property, the feds will prosecute you. That is as it should be. But Marijuana? Sheesh folks. Please, please do not get the idea that I am pro-medical marijuana, or even pro marijuana at all. We need another legal intoxicant like we need a hole in the head, our friends in other conservative venues not-with-standing (NRO for one). But the spiel for "medical marijuana" is specious at best. The active ingredient in marijuana is Delta-9-Tetrahydrocannibinol (C21H30O2) and that can be taken in pill form. The push for so called medical marijuana is an attempt by NARAL and it's allies to get the smoking of marijuana on the table, the nose of the camel under the tent if you will.
Be-that-as-it-may, the 10th amendment really does mean what it says, and that issue should be left up to the states.
So what to Palme and Gonzales v. Raich have to do with each other? Simple, if the federal government can regulate what sources the press uses, and the SCOTUS says that the power of the feds under the Commerce Clause is all inclusive and,in an editorial contained in the WSJ,
non-economic activities can be regulated so long as they are part of a "comprehensive scheme of regulation," there would appear to be no federal power the Commerce Clause couldn't theoretically justify.then the federal government can, under current attempts by the FEC regulate blogs.
"That's pretty tenuous Roper," I can hear some say. Well, yeah, right this second it is. But tomorrow? I don't know about you or other bloggers, but I will be damned if I let the FEC regulate what I can say in my own publication. Remember that 1st Amendment issue? Now do you get it?
END RANT
Update: June 28, 205. Fargus, a liberalish friend from The Fargus Report has a slightly different take wanting to know why Novak isn't in jail. Essentially we agree, this decision by SCOTUS is out in left field. (no offense to my leftish friends of course)
Posted by GM Roper at June 8, 2005 07:04 AM | TrackBackI don't find your rant counterintuitive at all, even though I am dubious and suspicious of slippery-slope arguments.
The Constitutional guarantee of a free and open Press has been under attack for as long as that provision has been in the Constitution. It is worth noting that the attack typically comes from someone who is threatened (or has been targeted) by free and open inquiry.
You are right to defend those reporters (and Novak too) even though they are horribly wrong about L'Affaire Plame. That's part of what standing on principle is all about.
As for the slippery-slope of blogs someday being regulated - I worry about it but don't fear it (yet). I think it is significant that to some a literal interpretation of the Constitution will exclude blogs from the Press realm because, well, nothing is actually printed. That's the biggest risk I see.
Posted by too many steves at June 9, 2005 08:14 AM
Blame Roosevelt for expanding the Commerce Clause. His appointed and pressured Supreme Court ruled that a farmer who grows product for his own use is involved in interstate commerce, because growing his own food reduces product that he might otherwise buy from across state lines. It seems to me that, after 63 years, liberal rationalizations have not changed very much. Now, this and similar rulings come back to bite them.
If I were involved in a trial and reporters could prove my side as being correct by revealing their source, then (I'm no lawyer either) I would demand that my right to a fair hearing trumped their extended rights to protect sources. Of course, that's if it were my trial or hearing.
There's always a problem when two rights conflict.
Posted by Woody at June 9, 2005 04:29 PM
Blame Roosevelt? No, blame human nature. Jefferson admitted he did not have the Constitutional authority to make the Louisiana Purchase in the manner he did. But the power was there to be grabbed and, well, it /was/ for a good purpose, right?
Lincoln's reign was one of never-ending Constitutional violations. Of many (no, more than just many!), consider that he wrote that he /knew/ the Emmancipation Proclamation (which ONLY declared slaves free in the Southern State, BTW: slavery continued in Washington D.C, for example, throughout the Civil War) was unconstitutional and expected the Supreme Court to say so.
The list goes on through the history of the Federal government. Any time a politician or bureaucrat /can/ assume powers that are contraconstitutional, they can (and willâ€â€Âand have!) find a "good cause" to justify that power grab.
And why do they get away with it? Because of laziness and greed in the American electorate. Were enough folks to get off their lazy duffs and sue the bastards every single solitary time a politico or bureaucrat seized power to restrict our God-given and Constitutionally guaranteed rights, it would make a difference.
If, enough people could curtail the greed that encourages politicians to buy their favor by stealing from one set of folks to give to another, things would improve as well.
Read through the entire Declaration of Independence several times between now and the fourth of July this year. Encourage everyone you know to do so as well. Add the Constitution and th Federalist Papers (and even the anti-federalist papers), if you will make the time.
Why? Starting with the Declaration of Independence, just look at the "long train of abuses" that led the Founders to declare King George's governance null and void. Count up how many of the abuses listed by the signers of the Declaration are normal operating procedure for our beloved fedgov today.
It started long before Roosevelt. And we are in danger of coming full circle, today, becoming a country ruled by a foreign royalty (the political elite and their bureaucratic minions) which has no legitimate interest in preserving our God-given liberties.
Posted by David at June 9, 2005 06:32 PM
You know what? The ACLU is supposed to offend all of us over differnt issues. That's their mission, and I'm damn grateful for it. Do I feel uneasy about their defense of the KKK in Greensboro? Damn straight. Would I exchange that for a Soviet style state of the '30's on, where any criticism of the government resulted in paid vacation to the gulag? Not on your life.
If the price we pay for having our rights as citizens defended is having our sensibilties challenged, I'd say it's a bargain.
Posted by jim hitchcock at June 10, 2005 08:02 AM
GM, Great Rant. I understand it. Do I concur? Well, I wonder if we can really justify the ACLU defending the American Nazi Party in Skokie, IL back in the early 60s? Sure, I know the standard line about freedom of expression and all, but are journalists really outside of, or above (not really citizens like the rest of us) all countries? If they see a crime about to be committed, ought they just observe and later report? Hmmmm.
This is, indeed, a thorny issue. Today's world is very much more complicated than in the days of just horses and no phones, television, satellites, jet aircraft, or internet. I know, we cannot let anyone, especially the federal government, have too much power. Almost in the same breath, we want someone to protect and watch over us. We cannot do it ourselves, individually.
It is thorny. I believe there are some lines that we ought not let society cross. Who gets to decide? We do.
I've not made my case very well, but what you expect from a dumb grunt?
Cheers and mega accolades on your now famous (infamous?) blog.
Posted by tad at June 11, 2005 10:34 AM
Good rant, and I agree with you. I hereby modify my question from "Why isn't Novak under scrutiny?" to "If Miller and Cooper did anything illegal (which is quite doubtful), then why isn't Novak also being brought up? Otherwise, why is there even an issue?"
Posted by Fargus at June 29, 2005 06:10 AM
