|
Congress
in Contempt
The
Senate is violating its own amendment process.
By
Mark R. Levin, president of Landmark Legal Foundation, and Arthur
Fergenson, an attorney in Buckley v. Valeo.
March 22, 2001 3:00 p.m.
|
|
 wo
days ago, the United States Senate demonstrated its contempt not
only for the Bill of Rights, but also for the U.S.
Supreme Court. By a 70-to-30 majority, the Senate passed an amendment
to the McCain-Feingold bill that would increase the $1000 limit
on political contributions to a candidate if that candidate is competing
against a wealthy opponent. The more personal assets the wealthier
candidate contributes to his campaign, the higher the contribution
limits would be for the less wealthy candidate — up to a limit
of $6000 from any single contributor.
If candidates facing millionaires cannot be corrupted by individual
contributions up to $6000, then no candidate can. In other words,
the only reason for keeping the limit at $1000 for other candidates
is that the Senate does not want more money being spent on campaigns.
The problem with this is that in 1976, in Buckley v. Valeo,
the Supreme Court made absolutely clear that "too much money" in
political campaigns is not a constitutionally acceptable justification
for regulating campaign financing. The Court held that the sole
justification that could withstand constitutional scrutiny was the
risk of corruption. Clearly this amendment is unconstitutional.
Apart from Supreme Court precedent, the relevant language of the
First Amendment ensures that we, the people, either as individuals
or in groups, will be free to influence the political process,
to influence our government, and to influence our
fellow citizens. This is what the framers meant when they wrote,
"Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble,
and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
In addition to assaulting the intent of the First Amendment, the
Senate is attempting to amend the Constitution without complying
with its own Article V amendment process. It provides for only two
methods of amending the Constitution:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary,
shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application
of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call
a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall
be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution,
when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several
States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or
the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by Congress…
If the U.S. Senate is not sitting today as an illegitimate convention
for the purpose of amending the Bill of Rights, then for what reason
is it sitting? It seeks to bypass the super-majority requirements
imposed by the Constitution, and enact by simple majorities fundamental
changes to the Constitution, to assuage the political passions of
the moment. This is precisely what the framers hoped to prevent.
|
