Indelible Ink

I sometimes stop to wonder what the founders would think of the United States today, were they granted the power to travel through time. Some would no doubt be shocked at the madhouse it's become, and regret parenting such a wayward progeny. But they might also be amazed, and perhaps even pleased, that the U.S. Constitution remains as relevant and in-the-news now as it was back then.

Take, for example, this recent piece in the Los Angeles Times, which poses the question of whether inking tattoos is a constitutionally-protected form of free speech -- and, by extension, whether one town's ban on tattoo parlors tramples the First Amendment. It's hard to imagine where Jefferson or Madison would stand on this admittedly odd question (assuming they weren't enraged by the trivialization of such momentous issues). I imagine that zoning laws and tattoo parlors would be alien (and probably abhorrent) concepts to both of them. But they might be amazed to find that they're still a party to the debate.

While it's probably true that their "original intent" has been twisted and distorted into something they wouldn't recognize, or approve, the mere fact that we're still trying to settle such disputes by consulting the Constitution, several centuries later, shows that it continues to function as a beacon and guidepost, despite the passage of time -- and the fog that we're stumbling through.

We've obviously gone a little crazy. But how much crazier would things be if we didn't have the indelible ink on The Constitution as a touchstone?

Goose and Gander

It isn't hard to tell what Washington Post scribes Dan Eggen and Del Quentin Wilber think of the latest court ruling against campaign finance restrictions. They disapprove, obviously. These were "hard-fought" "reforms," in their eyes, not unconstitutional erosions of the First Amendment. They describe court challenges to such laws as "assaults," which if successful will open the floodgates to conservative attacks on Barack Obama. Such rulings give Republicans an edge in their quest to retake Congress, according to the story. Such rulings will inject for negativity into campaign season.

"The ruling, if it stands, could provide a boost to Republicans and their allies as they try to win back Congress in 2010 and the White House in 2012. Outside conservative groups could become particularly important in countering the fundraising juggernaut of President Obama, who shattered past records by raising more than $750 million during his 2008 campaign.

Experts suggested that the court's decision could provide a boon to groups tapping into the fervor of anti-Obama activity and "tea party" events. It will certainly allow groups across the political spectrum to raise and spend money without pause, potentially leading to a more acerbic campaign environment.

The groups "are now free to accept unlimited contributions, to spend unlimited funds independently supporting or opposing federal candidates," said Richard L. Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles and an election law expert. "One of the things we know about outside groups, as opposed to political parties, is that they run more negative ads. . . . This could lead to a more negative campaign season."


Here's the interesting thing, though.

This lawsuit wasn't brought by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. It was brought by Emily's List, a liberal group that works to get female Democrats elected -- undermining the story's premise, which is that the court-ordered overturning of campaign finance laws (which is really a restoration of First Amendment freedoms) hands an advantage to conservatives.

Liberal groups obviously are chaffing under these restrictions as well. And as long as all parties are operating under the same rules of engagement, more or less, such rulings don't really favor one side over the other. They open up the process by throwing-off the shackles imposed by McCain-Feingold and other campaign finance laws.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Right.

Except if you're a pair of Posties with an agenda to push.