Eric Holder Resuscitating the Sedition Act of 1798

Once upon a time, the party now calling itself "Democratic" placed itself at the forefront of defense of constitutionally protected speech.  Now its leaders move openly against 1st Amendment freedoms such as the press and political speech.

In the 1790s, freewheeling partisan publications launched hyperbolic, bitter, and occasionally hilarious tirades against political figures.  It created a political climate less civil than today, but more so than the English custom of pelting unworthy candidates for office with rotten food.  Federalists, who controlled all three branches of government, concluded that enough was enough and passed the Sedition Act.

This legislation, alongside more serious and defensible measures, made it a misdemeanor to bring any part of the government "into contempt or disrepute."

This included, of course, President John Adams.

Along with the less threatening Alien Act, Democratic-Republicans finally found their winning issue.  Under the leadership of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, they chased forever from power the party that passed the Constitution and supported the policies of George Washington.

Ever since, Americans have been loathe to return to the issue.  Free speech has most often been seen as part of the protection of rights.  Serving in government means exposing oneself to the unkind jabs of opponents.  Abraham Lincoln's features, now seen as physiological signs of majesty, were attacked as unspeakably ugly. At 300 pounds on entering office, William Howard Taft was doomed from the start.  Schenk v. United States did put limits on speech, but only in terms of preventing reasonably predictable violence or harm.

Now the Department of Justice has extended its heavy handed reach to restore the spirit of the long dead Sedition Act.  A 4th of July parade float featuring a zombie like figure and an outhouse marked "Obama Presidential Library" has prompted an investigation.  A Kenyan national found it offensive, used the word "racist," and reported it to the government.

It does not matter if the float was as tasteless as similar visual jokes made about George W. Bush's legacy several years ago.  This is protected free speech.  Any hint of government action is highly inappropriate because of the chilling effect created.  Parade sponsors, the Odd Fellows, have discussed limiting the scope of allowable floats in response.

What about this float threatened anyone?  Certainly it encouraged people to view the president with contempt.  In America, that is not only legal, but often expected out of some quarters.

Whether or not a display is too tasteless is the purview of the community, not the federal government.  The attorney general needs to recall the investigators. Free speech is still the law of the land in the United States.

Famous American Mustached Attorneys General

How the Obama Administration Once Again Gets Marbury v. MadisonWrong

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/117982422/DOJ-Letter-to-5th-Circuit-re-Judicial-Authority

A quick read of Attorney General Eric Holder's statement to the 5th Circuit once again shows that the nation's most influential lawyers fail to understand Marbury v. Madison (1803)

He asserts that the United States Supreme Court cannot overturn duly passed legislation unless there is a very clear violation of a specific constitutional principle. Marbury is one of the cases cited within the document.

Marbury itself, however, is based upon a constitutional interpretation more than a clear violation. Chief Justice Marshall interpreted a clause in the Judiciary Act of 1789 to be unconstitutional because it gave the Supreme Court original jurisdiction in cases of writs of mandamus (orders to government officials to do their job.) Marshall saw no specific phrase in the Constitution that would have permitted that. He reasoned that Congress committed an overreach.

The Commerce Clause simply says this: that Congress has the power to "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;" It was meant to keep states from erecting trade barriers against each other.

So Holder includes Marbury among his citations, even though it establishes an interpretational, not absolute, basis for judicial review and a strict construction of the original seven articles.

The attorney general's response has left the courts no room to support him, now that his statement is on the record. To preserve their judicial review authority, federal judges need to strike down the law in question. In this case, I mean the 5th Circuit (which they likely will.) By extension, this includes the Supreme Court.

Marshall's interpretation in Marbury was made in part to prevent the judicial branch from becoming subordinate to the executive. The Roberts Court may have to assert itself similarly until Obama is gone.

Potentially Much More Damaging and Destructive Than Watergate

In the realm of bad ideas and high level cover ups, Watergate exists in a class by itself. Nixon's White House, saturated by secrecy and cronyism, lived in perpetual fear of its political enemies. This led it to tap former intelligence specialists and adventurers to engage in political espionage and hardball tactics. They violated the rights of individuals and organizations, all in the name of political expediency. As bad as the break ins were, the cover up involved the president and high level officials.

Although Watergate involved high level officials in a criminal conspiracy that violated the Constitution and numerous other laws, no one got hurt. The cover up ended up being a worse crime than the original break ins.

Not so with "Operation Fast and Furious." This ill-conceived plan funneled guns from U. S. shops into Mexican cartels with no oversight. When these guns were linked to American sources, the cover up began. The Obama Administration initially condemned law abiding American shop owners who were actually working with federal agents. When the store owners began to reveal the federal government's role, the story started to slowly unravel. We do not yet know the full truth.

The Attorney General and the Department of Justice have obstructed efforts by the director of the ATF to investigate the extent of the definitely negligent, and possibly criminal activities involved. Congress has launched a full investigation along with the ATF, but Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, has stonewalled the process. This is the same attorney general that refused to prosecute Black Panthers who violated federal election laws by intimidating voters in 2008.

Eric Holder is a symbol of all that has gone wrong in Obama's Administration. We need to know all parties responsible for "Fast and Furious," whether or not the intention from the start was to advance the anti-gun agenda, and how far up the cover up extends.

Obama's presidency is teetering on the edge of the abyss. This scandal could knock it off completely.

Congress Needs to Thoroughly Investigate "Fast and Furious"

The Justice Department has been on its heels all year as revelation after revelation comes out about "Operation Fast and Furious."

This operation co-opted gun stores in the southwestern United States to sell guns to criminals who would then be allowed to take them into Mexico. They would then wait and see where the guns "turned up" rather than intercept them. Thousands of guns made it into the hands of drug cartels and other criminals courtesy of the United States government.

At first, the Obama Administration tried to blame the same gun shops that did their patriotic duty to help the government. They also, in general, tried to make a public gun control case based upon U. S. guns flowing into Mexico. Only when the gun shops gave the details of their involvement, did the government partially fess up. I say partially, because the Justice Department will not turn over full transcripts of documents related to the operation.

Meanwhile, federal agents on the ground cringe (according to a CNN report) when a major gun crime occurs on either side of the border. Will it be one of ours?

This was an operation gone horribly wrong. That happens. However, the government has been in cover up mode for over a year. We must know the full details of this operation. We must also know if the Justice Department or the White House participated in any activities that could be considered obstruction. We must also find out if Obama tried to use this to advance an anti-Second Amendment agenda. This is not just a domestic political issue, but one of national security. Mexican drug cartels are causing the collapse of that country. Chaos in Mexico affects our security. Operation Fast and Furious was irresponsible. We must also find out if it was criminal.

How Much Do You Support States' Rights?

It's easy to stand by a principle when you agree with it whole heartedly. States' rights is an issue that conservatives tend to like. We want a balanced system between the state and federal authorities to prevent tyranny. We especially like the laws passed in some states that say firearms manufactured and sold entirely in one state are not subject to federal gun laws. That's great.

But what about something more controversial? Would you oppose federal action against California's Proposition 19?

California voters will decide whether or not to almost fully decriminalize marijuana this November. It does go a little too far in that it prevents employers from disciplining employees suspected of being high and it also does not outlaw smoking by passengers in a car despite the risk of contact highs. This is farther than simply putting pot on par with alcohol which is what most legalization groups want. It will probably also kill the proposal, rendering this point moot. Attorney General Eric Holder has vowed to act anyway regardless of state voters' choices.

Regardless of some of the objectionable parts, this is an issue for the voters of the sovereign State of California. This is not a federal issue. It is a test of our states' rights principles. Would those conservatives who disagree with drug legalization stand by the right of California to act in this manner without federal interference?

Personally I do not oppose putting marijuana almost on par with alcohol, except I'd go further and bar it from public spaces due to the nature of pot smoke. I do think that employers have a right to not have high, or drunk for that matter, employees. But those of you who are against legalization, would you support California or Attorney General Holder?

Federal intervention in state affairs has generally produced damaging results. Every time we make an exception and excuse federal meddling, we undermine the states; rights cause. Any detriment caused by California being able to make its own pot policy would be more than equalled by the benefits of the federal government respecting state voters and legislatures across the board.