State Republican Discussions Resolved By Recent Supreme Court Ruling

Under American law, corporations and individuals enjoy the same legal status with only a very few exceptions. The United States Supreme Court on Thursday in a 5-4 vote eliminated one of them and allowed corporate entities to freely donate in federal elections for the first time since 1907. This also undercuts the McCain Feingold campaign financing act.

According to the majority opinion, laws that restrict corporate donations violate the First Amendment guarantee of free speech. The Court historically gives free speech issues the widest possible latitude. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy explained that “The 1st Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech.” This decision also possibly indirectly overturned a ban on labor union donations that extends back to World War II since the same standards would likely apply. Predictably the president and his cronies screamed that it means Big Oil will dominate politics, but they will soon be encouraged by their friends in Big Labor to not complain so loudly since it helps them as well. Of course it remedied a problem in that the law banned some corporations and other combinations from making political statements via donations, but placed no limits on Big Media. Now all corporations will have the same right as media outlets to make funded political statements.

This ruling automatically solves an issue oft discussed within the ranks of the West Virginia Republican Party. A corporate donation allowed the WVGOP to purchase the headquarters building in South Charleston. Recently its leadership decided to move from there to a more appealing central location across Greenbrier Street from the Capitol Complex in Charleston. To cover some payments and expenses, the leadership proposed to use part of the money generated from the sale of the former headquarters. Some argued that under campaign finance laws, this money could not be used for this purpose. State Party leadership interpreted the law otherwise. Now that the Supreme Court declared that law as a violation of the Constitution, active Republicans can hopefully come together and work together for victory this coming November.

Breaking News: Supreme Court Makes Decision on Corporate Donations

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 vote ruled that corporations and labor unions may now spend freely in federal elections.

This question comes down to whether one believes in absolute natural rights interpretations of how our legal system should be run, or whether we think the law should be used to support some ideal of the greater good.

Natural rights law believes that liberty is important. Infringing upon that liberty is a larger problem than whatever might result from it. Legal posivitism states that the law ought to shape a better society and liberty is less important than that goal. Certainly those that voted to retain the prohibitions fear the results on the election process. Those who opposed the laws use free speech arguments in their favor.

The fact is that these prohibitions do not keep this money away from elections. All they do is to force the money to run an obstacle course to get to its final destination. Without a lot of investigation, it is hard to figure out where the money came from. In any event we spend more on elections now than ever. Where would the national economy be without them? Without prohibitions, we are more likely to see the real origin of the money spent on elections. That is a transparency that the process has lacked for some time.

Tom Tancredo Says Sonia Sotomayor Member Of "Latino KKK"

Dead White Men

For the past couple of decades now, many in the world of academic history have shunned the study of what left wing professors call "dead white men." Instead they try to seek historical truths by looking at the lives of the masses. Peasants count more than kings, servants more than presidents.

In some fields, they are called "structuralists." They study patterns of large segments of people. "Intentionalists" adhere to the more traditional studies of history, emphasizing the effects of leaders and innovators. They believe that the actions of some men and women resonate more than others. George Washington had more impact than a Continental Army private in their eyes.

Predictably, left wingers embrace structuralism and blast the idea that "dead white men" had any importance at all (of course Elizabeth I of Britain and Catherine the Great of Russia are among these figures.)

My question to left wingers is this: if leaders had no effect on the past, if history was shaped entirely by commoners, then why get so bent out of shape over George W. Bush or treat Obama like some kind of messiah? After all if George Washington or Winston Churchill were not worthy of study because masses make history, why was Bush such a demon?

And just think of how much better off we'd have been if the country were founded by "wise Latina women" who according to Obama's choice for Supreme Court, have naturally better decision making skills than any white men.

Enough Already!

Just for the information of motorists in West Virginia, make darned sure you do not get pulled over.
The West Virginia State Supreme Court of Appeals reinforced a 1976 law that requires magistrates to assess court costs in each citation given to motorists, even on the same traffic stop. A single citation means $160.50 in court costs alone. These costs have more than tripled in less than ten years. Although technically unlawful, magistrate judges traditionally only levy court costs once regardless of the number of offenses. An Ohio County magistrate never collected court costs except in cases where the defendant was found guilty after trial. Court costs generally go towards funds that operate the regional jail system, running the courts themselves and other programs. However those convicted of minor traffic offenses feel gouged and rightly so.
It is easy to sit back and say if you don't want to pay the fine, don't do the crime. At some point almost every driver gets pulled over or ends up in an accident. Multiple offenses can mean that the most impoverished must choose between paying the fines and paying a bill or putting food on the table.
For the most part, magistrates and police officers show compassion. More warnings will be issued in lieu of tickets and magistrates will dismiss even more charges. This reflects an even bigger principle involved. When police and judges deem a law to be so harsh that they shrink from enforcing it, the time has come for the State Legislature to revise it. Every time a poor driver takes to the highways in West Virginia, he now lives on a thin margin.

Virginians even have it worse as the incoming Democratic leadership there raised court costs for traffic fines into the stratosphere. One bad traffic incident could take away an entire paycheck. We must change this law. Failing that, we must start to take into consideration the 8th Amendment that prohibits the levying of excessive fines. When the court charges an offender an amount beyond a reasonable balance with the severity of the crime, the government engages in extortion. Gouging traffic offenders clearly violates the rights of these states' citizens.

Dump the Drug Dealers and the Judges That Protect Them

You may be amazed to find out that West Virginia law and State Supreme Court of Appeals decisions put together now prioritize enforcement of open dump regulations over breaking up violent drug gangs. Unbelievable? The recent decisions of our state's highest court claim that informants and officers cannot wear recording devices to gather information against drug dealers and gangs without a warrant. Anyone in law enforcement knows that opportunities to collect information on these societal scourges require flexibility and speed. Sometimes police have a very short window of opportunity and the time required to find a judge and get a warrant might be too much to catch a violent gang leader in the act. The US Supreme Court has validated these techniques again and again. Even the notoriously liberal West Virginia state attorney general Darryl McGraw has blasted these decisions. In all fairness this was a divided court, Brent Benjamin being among the justices in opposition.

Now contrast that with West Virginia State Code 22-15A-7. This law addresses open dumps that potentially present environmental hazards. State Department of Environmental Protection officials have the right, upon presenting identification, to search private property and conduct studies. The code plainly states that this represents "an exercise of the police power of the state." The law does not mention court issued warrants. Could it be that the state lacks the power to go into known drug houses to record information, but has the power to waltz in at any time to investigate claims of illegal open dumps? Drug gang leaders come and go without warning and police need the flexibility to catch them. Open dumps that threaten our streams and ground water definitely need addressed. However open dumps do not just jump up and run away at the approach of the DEP. If they did just disappear, problem solved.

With violent drug gangs threatening our state's largest cities and moving stealthily into our small towns, we need to dump the Supreme Court justices that introduce such contradictions into our law.