No Man’s Liberty is Safe
By Randall Nunn (01/10/06)
Mark Twain once said that “no man’s life, liberty, or property is safe while Congress is in session.” The liberal Democrats in the Senate opposing Judge Samuel Alito’s confirmation to the U.S. Supreme Court are a testament to that statement. The Democrats opposing Alito generally seek to expand the federal government’s power at the expense of state government authority and individual personal liberty. What is ironic is that the mainstream media is attempting to portray the Democrat opposition as defenders of personal rights when in reality the elitist Democrats seek to impose their social agendas on all of us, through legislation where possible and through judicial fiat from activist liberal judges where not.
Senator Diane Feinstein on FOX News Sunday said the question to be answered about Judge Alito is “how conservative” is he. In other words, the Democrat test is not whether Alito is a good judge who is qualified by education, training and experience for a position on the Supreme Court, but whether his judicial philosophy is acceptable to a small group of far-left ideologues like Feinstein, Schumer and Kennedy. Senator Feinstein was perhaps more candid than she meant to be, but the confirmation of federal judges was never intended to be a process where the Senate selected the nominees based on its approval of that person’s philosophy. The Constitution provides that the president selects the nominee and the Senate either confirms or rejects, based on the qualifications and fitness of that nominee.
Senator Feinstein’s interview on Sunday clearly showed that what the liberal Democrats are afraid of is the strict constructionist approach of Judge Alito that threatens the liberals’ ability to social engineer with no constraints imposed by the U.S. Constitution. Senator Feinstein said that the “Supreme Court began essentially invalidating the basis that Congress passed certain laws” (mentioning as an example the gun-free school law that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional). Senator Feinstein went on to say that she questioned whether Judge Alito “sees this same restriction on Congress with respect to using certain clauses of the Constitution as a basis to legislate in social, civil rights, environment, in many areas.” In other words, Senator Feinstein is worried that Judge Alito might find that certain clauses in the U.S. Constitution place restrictions on the right of Congress to legislate. Imagine that! Something as out-moded as the Commerce Clause may actually prevent Congress from legislatively dictating social policy.
Judge Alito’s dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar causes apoplexy among liberals because it shows that Judge Alito is willing to examine the constitutional basis for congressional legislation rather than acquiescing in the expansion of federal power simply because the subject matter is “politically correct” with the mainstream media and its allies. In fact, Judge Alito dissented because he applied established precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Lopez and concluded that there were “no congressional findings and no empirical support for the proposition that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns . . . has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Judge Alito observed that the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution does not prevent the states from regulating machine gun possession (and most do). But where Congress makes no findings that the purely intrastate possession of machine guns has a substantial effect on interstate commerce, such legislation is not sustainable under the Commerce Clause. Judge Alito noted that the Supreme Court’s decision in Lopez reminded us that the “constitutionally mandated division of authority [between the federal government and the states] was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.” Judge Alito was not stampeded into a bad decision simply because the case involved possession of a machine gun. A judicial nominee who is conservative and thinks for himself is a dangerous threat to the liberal vision for a well-ordered American society.
Mark Twain was right about our liberties being in danger whenever Congress is in session. If Mark Twain had been able to foresee the likes of Feinstein, Kennedy and Schumer being in Congress, his sense of humor might well have been shattered for all time. On the other hand, maybe he did have them in mind when he said “there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress.”
(Printer friendly version) Email: Randall Nunn
