That darned Constitution…that darned Supreme Court

The United States Supreme Court ruled Thursday that the federal government may not ban political spending by corporations or unions in candidate elections.  The Court’s 5-4 majority opinion cited the First Amendment to the Constitution, which says,

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Darn the Constitution. Darn the Court. Everybody knows that this decision will wipe out restrictions on corporations spending huge sums to elect candidates who will do their bidding. The New York Times says so. So does the Washington Post. An ethical justice would have decided the opposite way, a decision that would have produced the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Moreover, that decision would have decreased the influence of money in politics, whereas the Court’s decision will surely increase it.

But hold on: what really does ethics require of the Supreme Court? The justices take the same oath as all federal officers:  “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”

The McCain-Feingold Act and other federal restrictions on political spending serve, I’m certain, an important public purpose: they make our politics a little more ethical. But they pretty obviously violate the First Amendment. Federal officers have an ethical duty to hold to their oath of office and overturn them, as they now have done. If we are to restrict corporations political spending we need a Constitutional amendment to do it.

Nativity scene at the Courthouse

Let’s go back to allowing a Nativity scene in front of the courthouse, as we did for nearly 200 years. It made Christians feel good and reminded them what Christmas was about. The Right is exorcised about a “war on Christmas,” and they have a point.

The Bill of Rights says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”Allowing Christians to put up a Nativity scene is not establishment of religion, but denying them is interfering with, if not prohibiting, the “free exercise thereof.”

Nativity scenes were on public property in every town until an organization called Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State, or POAU, was formed in the late 1940’s and began campaigning against any recognition (let alone, "establishment") of religion by any governmental entity, including the public schools. Thus was the war on Christmas born, although, like World War 1, it didn’t get its current name until years later. Bill O’Reilly named it in 2005 and began to fume about it.

Hard for a liberal to admit, but O’Reilly was right. Denying religious groups (Christians, Jews, Hindus, Muslims) the use of public property is interfering with the free exercise of religion. When we interfere with strongly held beliefs people get angry, and bad things happen. Better to return to the words and meaning of the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of religion in America but not in Switzerland

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The First Amendment of our Constitution guarantees freedom of religion in America, and we have places of worship for every religion here.

We can identify most places of worship by symbols: crosses, stars of David, statues of Moroni, minarets, and so on. These symbols are important to the faithful. Imagine outlawing display of stars of David, or crosses, or minarets. Nope. Unimaginable. Not here.

But in Switzerland, which is five percent Muslim, voters just outlawed the building of minarets. There are now four in the country, and that’ll be all. The largest Swiss party, the Swiss People’s Party, says minarets are a sign of Islamization, and proposed the referendum that passed with 57% of the vote. The SVP's general secretary told the BBC: "This was a vote against minarets as symbols of Islamic power."

I’m thankful we have the First Amendment in our Constitution and in our cultural DNA. From now on, whenever I see a minaret I’ll remember to be thankful for American freedom