Having watched the political fireworks between Gingrich and Romney, Americans are questioning the wisdom of our Supreme Court’s “Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission” ruling. As a result of a proxy purchased justice system, America’s candidates now have the financial gloves to politically pound their opponents into the proverbial pavement. The price was merely holding onto the power of the presidency until the court could be packed and persuaded on the virtues of globalization.
Without Super PAC money to sling political arrows at each other, the candidates might have focused their remaining precious few dollars on the critical issues of our time. Instead, they now have the finances of a few elite to direct the public’s attention to the mud of swines. And if that display of nauseousness weren’t enough, President Obama’s PACs promise to spend a full billion dollars toward convincing America that Congress is evil and that he should be re-elected as a result.
The Roberts Court’s decision on Citizen’s United will ultimately be found a breach of justice and will be overturned by a future court forever marring our current court’s posterity just as Brown v. Board of Education exposed for all time the 1896 Supreme Court’s lack of judicial purity and impropriety exercised in Plessy v. Ferguson. But does an obviously incorrect court decision imply that the third branch of our Federal Government no longer functions as it was designed, or that its original design was flawed beyond its imperfect ability to correct its breaches and ultimately act in favor of its true citizens?
The Constitution’s framers intended Congress to act within its legislative boundaries in setting new laws and for the Supreme Court to act as a deterrent forcing Congress to stay within those boundaries. The Constitution set sticky limits on the Federal Government that could only be changed by super majorities of the States and, as such, was a promise backed by militia force for our nation not to deteriorate into tyranny. To keep the legislature from somehow circumventing this contractual guarantee bound in perpetuity by the acquiescence of the original 13 states, the power, authority, and responsibility to strike down Congress’s passage of laws that ignore our Constitution’s original meaning or those gained through a tortured path of amendments rests in the Supreme Court.
Some in our country suggest that the court’s actions have defacto attempted to usurp the Constitution by making laws instead of interpreting them. To imply such legislative capacity to the Supreme Court is however merely applying a broad brush of political spin to the fine line and minute edge of controversial deliberation of whether a law having been passed by Congress attempts to nudge its way past the terra firma of Constitution. Of course, controversial rulings have blurred this line somewhat and rulings cannot help but be swayed by the political biases of the men and women that inhabit the benches of our greatest judicial body. Yet, their actions are held to the light of millions of Americans and cannot fall too far from the true intent of the Constitution without one day being reversed by a very slowly evolving make up of changing justices who will oblige to smite the offending justices’ posterity with a reversal of law.
Lest we forget, if the upcoming political free for all of the campaigns of 2012 happen to turn American’s stomachs beyond the pale, we do not have to wait for the decades it will eventually take to reverse the Roberts Court’s decision on Citizens United. By virtue of our votes, we can force an amendment to the Constitution which defines what entails a Citizen of the United States to be, and this citizen’s amendment will then be the new bright line from which the Court will be admonished to interpret. All in favor shout Aye!