Posted at 11:40 AM on Sunday, December 07, 2008 by David Horowitz
I have become accustomed to the fact that when it comes to political issues people are averse to complexities and messy facts and prefer to argue ideological simplicities instead. Thus I am lectured by many that the Constitution matters, that it can't be subordinated to politics, etc., etc. Then I am told that I have gone ideologically soft, that I am an Obama Republican and that I am not a conservative. All because I have pointed out what should be some obvious truths.
First, the issue is not whether the Constitution should be subjected to the whim of an electoral majority. It should not.
Second, the issue is whether an election that has been decided by nearly 120 million people should now be thrown into the laps of 9.
The question before the Supreme Court will not be whether the Constitutional rule about the qualifications for President is constitutional or not. Obama is not going to argue that there is no such constitutional rule. He is going to argue that he has qualified under the rule.
Whether Obama's birth certificate is authentic or not is a factual question -- not a constitutional question. Whether he has complied with the Constitutional rule is a matter first of the facts and then of the interpretation of rule. Both can only be resolved by the subjective opinions of individuals. In other words the answer to both questions can only be political.
To repeat: The supporters of Obama will not challenge the Constitution; they will challenge the interpretation of the Constitution which is different, and is political. If the matter goes to the Supreme Court, nine unelected justices will decide on the facts in the case and on interpretation of the constitutional rule. The Supreme Court is universally regarded these days as a political institution. Although liberals are responsible for this, conservatives also conduct political demonstrations in front of the Supreme Court, thereby acknowledging that it is a political institution.
So here is the real question before us, which none of my critics so far has understood: Do we really want to try to unseat an elected presented by forcing the issue into the lap of 9 Supreme Court justices?
My answer is no. Nothing would do more to undermine the unity of the country, the legitimacy of the Court, and thus the writ of the Constitution and the rule of law than this.
The attempt by some so-called conservatives to declare the winner of this election illegitimate and to deny Obama his office is a radical assault on our constitutional framework and system of law.
In sum: Behind the law is a political consensus -- a belief. that whatever its flaws, the system works. Nothing will convince more people that the system doesn't work than having 9 unelected individuals undo an election that took place over a 2 year period in front of the whole nation and was decided by 120 millions voters.
I hope this time I have made the issue clear.
We have implemented a new commenting system. To use it you must login/register with disqus. Registering is simple and can be done while posting this comment itself. Please contact gzenone [at] horowitzfreedomcenter.org if you have any difficulties.
blog comments powered by